No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 9, 2002 AGENDA"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORE At-Large VICE MAYOR ROBERT C. MAND1GO, JR., Kempsville - District 2 MARGARET L. EURE, Centerville - District 1 LOUIS R_ JONES, Bcryside - District 4 REBA S. McCLANAb; Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, - Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, - Princess Anne - District 7 PETER Fi. SCHM1DT, - At-Large RON A. VILLANUEVA, - At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large WOOD, Lynnhaven - District 5 JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESL1E L. L1LLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES-SMYlT-~, MMC, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY ~ BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DP~VE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005 PHONE: frS?) 427.4304 FA~' frS?) 426-5669 EMAJL: C~ycncl~bgov. com July 9, 2002 CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. TRANSPORTATION REFERENDL~ Art Collins, Executive Director Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) 3:30 PM REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS RI. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf 5:00 PM B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM Tgl fll~l~l¢.l~ - M~vc~r MleYera F. Ohemdorf Eo Fo Go Ho Jo CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES I. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS July 2, 2002 AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION BID OPENING 1. LEASE of City-owned property at 2705 Elbow Road re a CELL TOWER AT STUMPY LAKE PUBLIC HEARING 1. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to AMEND §§ 21-424, 21-426 and 21-429 of the City Code re fees and access trips for towing of vehicles from private property. 2. Ordinances re the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO): a. AMEND § 103 re Administrative Variances b. AMEND §221 re revising procedures for revocation of Conditional Use Permits (cue) c. ADD/AMEND § 1611.1 re allowing construction/maintenance of bulkheads and other equivalent structural improvements in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision d. AMEND definition temporm-y commercialparking lots and establish same as a principal use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's rights-of-way for ALBERT T. FISHER, ,IR. and VICTORIA FISHER re wooden bulkheadfwalkway/pierPooatlift at 2076 Tazewell Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Ordinances re School Reversion funds for various school projects: a. FY 2002-03 Capital Budget: Distance Leamin~ Eauit~ment 5g ?00 aOO ° PLANNING Applications of BECO PROPERTIES, INC. at the northwest intersection of North Witchduck Road and Wishart Road, containing 28.6 acres: (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Variance to Subdivision Ordinance re two lots with insufficient frontage on public fight-of-way. Conditional Use Permit(CUP) re Open Space Promotion Option to develop 28.6 acres into 21 lots. Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. at North Landing and West Neck Roads, containing 65.1 acres (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) ao Change o_fZoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-30 Residential re single family lots no less than 30,000 sq. ft. bo Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Promotion. Variance Appeal re certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.4(1>), that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and reduce required street width. Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND for discontinuance, closure and abandonment of Arctic Crescent re consolidation of church property, containing 41,297 square feet (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL APPOINTMENTS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) I-I'EALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION M.. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOUR.NMENT INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meycra E. Obemdoff 5:00 PM B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Dr. Dwight Christenbury First Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION Fo MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS July 2, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WttEREAS: 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 Ho BID OPENING 1. LEASE of City-owned property at 2705 Elbow Road re a CELL TOWER AT STUMPY LAKE THE'BEACON SundaY, June 30,200_2 pu~n ' " Notice is hereby given in oralnance approved by the City Council on June 25, 2002, t~ bias shall be received for a lease of a Oo~tlon of Vl~ff, inla Beach City property located et 270S Elbow Road. in the City of Chesapeal(e, for the pumose of maintaining and. operating wireless telecommunications facilities, Including antennas, connecting cables, accessory buildines and appurtenances. Bids shall ' ~b~e re~eivecI by ~J~ Purchasing Division, Prlnceas Anne Executive Park, mpsvifle Building, 2388 Court Plaza Drive. Vt~inla Beach, Vif~nl8 23456 on or before 3:00 p.m. on July 8, 2002. Bids received after Bat time end date sl~ll be rejected, Bids will be fonvarded to ttle Maym of the City of Vir[inia Beach at the rel[ular meeting of the City Council, which will be held in the Cnunctl Chamber, City Hall Bttildlnl[, Municipal Center, Vlr~jni~J Beach, Vir~inia, on July 9. 2002 at §:00 p.m., and after the receivinl~ of bidS, the Council will either proceed with the consideration of the ordinance awardinl[ of the aforesaid lease or will defer the ma~ter to a subsequent meeting. AlS bids must be in writtnl[. 7he right to reject any and all bids Is her~>/, expressly reser~Kl. A clescriptlve notice of ~e ordinance awardinl~ the lease is in the followin8 words: ' AN ORDINANCE TO AWARD A LEAS[ OF A PORTION OF THE C['rY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23'05 Fi _ROW ROAD. IN THE CITY OF CHF_SA- PEAI4.E. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING AND OPERATING WIRE- LESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES A CODy O! the I~Oposed ordinance, includinE the lease awarded tl~ere{~/, is on file end available for inspection durinE normal business hours m Ute office of the City Clerk. Ruth Hedges Smith, MMC City Clerk Virginia Beach Beacon June 30 and July 7.2002 7852985 ' PUBLIC HEARING 1. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant THE-'BEACON Sunday, June 30, 2002 PUBUC HEARINIII The Vi~nle Beech City Council. al. Rs Formal SessionTuemJ~y,9,bdy 2002. 6:00 PM, will hoKI a PUBUC HEARING in the Council C on the secoml floor of City Hall, Bulldir~ One. Municipal. Center. regarding the use of I. De. al Law Enferoememt Block Gmat funds.-These. fuKIs will increase the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget by $252.522 and re available for the purposes of reducir~ crime end improving.public safeb),. -:. Interested reslclent~ of the City of Virginia Beach may appear ebove-me~tioned flnm and piece to present their views. · - '* If you are physically disabled or visually Impaired and need tance e! this meeting, please call the crl'Y CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-430:3. Hearing tmpaim¢l, call TOD oniy 427.4305 (TDD- Tele- phonic Device for 'the Deaf). ORDINANCESfRESOLUTIONS Ordinance to AMEND §§ 21-424, 21-426 and 21-429 of the City Code re fees and access trips for towing of vehicles fi.om private property. 2. Ordinances re the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO): a. AMEND § 103 re Administrative Variances bo AMEND §221 re revising procedures for revocation of Conditional Use Permits (cuP) ADD/AMEND § 1611.1 re allowing construction/maintenance of bulkheads and other equivalent structural improvements in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision do AMEND definition temporary commercial parking lots and establish same as a principal use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. o Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's fights-of-way for ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. and VICTORIA FISHER re wooden bulkhead/walkwvay/pier/boathf~ at 2076 Tazewell Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) 4. Ordinances re School Reversion funds for various school projects:: ao FY 2002-03 Capital Budget: Distance Learning Equipment Human Resources/Payroll Operations/acquisition of equipment Instruction $ 2OO,OOO $1,500,000 $ 515,797 $ 400,000 o Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $227,270 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) fi.om the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance and TRANSFER $25,252 as the City's required matching funds. o Resolution to CONSENT to the ASSIGNMENT by.Hampton Roads Mariners, L.L.C. of its rights and obligations re joint use for the Sportsplex. Virginia Beach City Council June 11, 2002 6:45 p.m. CITY COL~NCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor W.D. Sessoms, Jr., Vice Mayor Linwood O. Branch, III Margaret Eure William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley Louis R. Jones Robert C. Mandigo Reba S. McClanan Nancy K. Parker Rosemary Wilson At-Large At-Large District 6 - Beach District 1 - Centerville District 5 - Lynnhaven District 7 - Princess Anne District 4 - Bayside District 2 - Kempsville District 3 - Rose Hall At-Large At-Large CITY PLANAGE R: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, M~C Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM June 11, 2002 INFORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: I tell you what, on Item Number 3, I'm going to recommend that we hear it. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Okay. MAYOR OBERNDORF: God love you, Will. See, you can do it and you don't get in trouble. I do it and everybody comes with an ax. June 11, 2002 FOR~%L SESSION CITY CLERK: The next item is the Ordinance to amend the City Code reference fees and access trips for towing of vehicles from private property. And we have speakers, Your Honor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Towing. Do we have any speakers? CITY CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. Barbara Messner. BARBARA MESSNER: Okay. I didn't expect you-all to vote today since there was so much controversy. I didn't hear if anyone said whether we could have the $1 option for those of us who want it. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes. BARBARA MESSNER: We can have the option? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Oh, no. 5:00. You had the $I for parking after BARBARA MESSNER: No, I said the Decal. For those who want a Decal, do we have the option of buying it for $17 That's all I asked. MAYOR OBERNDORF: I don't think so. BARBA/~% MESSNER: Okay. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Pardon me, but that's somethinc that ~= June 11, 2002 BARBARA MESSNER: But you-all already voted to'take it away from us. Ail I asked for was 'the option and I wrote you-all a month or two ago -- just for the options. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: But I think that's still out there as a possibility, because the whole question of revisiting the parking issue was always an option. This dealing with the Decal and DMV would be another issue. How you're going to relate to the parking question is clearly just a local issue which, you know, can be dealt with in time. BARBARA ~SS~R: There's one way you can save money. These magazines I'm sure they cost quite a bit and the City Page Adds or the two and-a-half million that just is a revolving door. It cost two and-a-half million for the Parking Enterprize and it doesn't make any money. Okay. Since I read some of this, I absolutely oppose raising the rates to $85 to the tow trucks companies. They've been raised several times and there is no justification for any of the towing. I will just hold up a couple of pictures. Okay. .This is Affordable Towing and I will pass a close-up of this sign. It's not just the $70 cash that you pay to get your car. You would have to get a photo ID. What is this up in the corner? I just started, as far as that flashing light. We were discussing other topics. Twelve-dollars a day for storage and after 24 hours it's a $40 DMV charge, and they are not responsible for any damage to your car. June 11, 2002 BARBARA MESSNER: Yes. MAYOR OBERNDORF: If you would wind up now, please we would appreciate it. BARBARA MESSNER: Well, you took part of my time, so I am winding up. MAYOR OBERNDORF: No, I think in good faith we were trying to hear your -- BARBARA MESSNER: In good faith? Excuse me. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Please. BARBARA MESSNER: Okay. This is their lot that looks like a junk yard. It's dirt. Affordable Tents is right there in the neighborhood with no Code Enforcement and this is where the Police Department used to be. There's a huge lot that the citizens could be using. There's plenty of parking down at the Oceanfront, if you want to open it up to us. I will pass these around for Council who are interested. Maybe you can use the hammer to go around and do some repairs to some of these places. CITY CLERK: Your Honor, for the benefit of the audience, the timer is on a digital clock and there is no changing it and we just don't have any control over it. BARBARA MESSNER: Okay. It was just the other topic we were June 11, 2002 MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Motion to approve. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Second. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Mandigo. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: I received some e-mails today from the City Clerk, but I have a question about raising the storage fees. Based on some calculations that I did on the square footage that a car takes up and how much there is in an acre, I'm trying to figure out how much of an assessment we get on these storage lots. I would like to know if we are actually accessing it. This is based on an e-mail that I got from a constituent who also made some allegations about the cash orientation of business and some of the things that can happen with people that actually don't follow normal business practice and I also made a referral to the Commissioner of Revenue to ask how many of these businesses he had audited and put the results in regards to their revenues and business licenses. So if it's the Council's pleasure to go ahead and vote, I am going to vote against this. If we want to defer this until we can get some additional information, I would be happy to debate on that. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure. June 11, 2002 that amount. I'm more comfortable with what we did in the last revision and that was raising it to $70 and I would support that. I am not willing, to support a $500 tow fee of the large vehicles. They have invested in the equipment. That's part of doing business. I don't pay the same thing for equipment that I paid for ten years ago either. No one does. But I think this is exorbitant. I think it is more than what it should be and I would not be -- I would even go as high as $300, but $500 I think is exorbitant. I'm not willing to support that. And my final comment, Madam Mayor, is regarding the $50 charge. If they have to do a search conducted to find who it is, these people are paying -- for a tow they are paying storage. They are paying all the fees that they have asked for and I think that that should be limited to whatever DMV charges the operator for this search. I don't think that they should make a profit on that. I think the profit is already there and I would like to see that revised to say not to succeed the DMV charges rather than a flat $50. I added them up and it's not $50. So, those are my comments and I will not be supporting it as it is written, but I would certainly like to have a deferral and have more discussion on it. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I would also support a deferral, as well as my colleagues and their thoughts. I think there are a lot of things to be considered, but also it concerns me if there is abuse out there that there is no place for these citizens to go. June 11, 2002 Perhaps it has not addressed either. So, tonight, then I will be voting against it. if it ' s to be. voted on MAYOR OBERNDOI~F: Okay. Any other Members of Council? Mr. Harrison. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Well, I feel like we have gotten lobbied hard by a lot of special interest groups on this matter and I feel we have to repose our judgement in the Towing Advisory Board, which we appoint to look at all of these issues, and they have made their finding. I believe it was unanimous in support, but I think I would like to -- I'm going t© respect Mr. Mandigo's need for information. I'm surprised that you haven't gotten the information. I wish you had, because it sounds like you have made fair request for it. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Well, my request was directly to -- it was late last night when I was finishing up my homework over the weekend. I had some questions from a constituent, so I had sent an e-mail to the Commissioner of Revenue and the Real Estate Assessor and I have not received any replies. I want to make sure that if we are going to increase the rates on storage and the drop fees and the tows, that 'they are actually going to comply with the regulations and laws that we have and we have two ways I can see of doing that from our perspective. We can go through the Commissioner of Revenue who does the revenue audits against the business licenses and he's done a pretty good job of that since he has been the Conunissioner of Revenue and we have the Real Estate Assessor. And just based on the calculations that I did on the storace June 11, 2002 be generating as much as $197,200 a month. COUNCIL~ HAP. RISON: What about a basis for (Inaudible)? COUNCILMAN M ANDIGO: Well, I know what that is, and that's why when I was doing these calculations I sent it to the Real Estate Assessor to see if I was in the ballpark or not, because I'm sure they are not full on an acre basis. But if we put an acre at full capacity less the day we don't charge, somewhere in the evaluation of $2.4-Million, which is really high even for Oceanfront property. So, I felt like there may be a little more of a storage fee increase than what we've been told. I didn't feel comfortable with the rates that were just raised last year. Wasn't it last year? I lose track of time as I get older. I apologize. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Parker. COUNCILM~N HARRISON: I would be happy to change my motion to defer and bring it back on the 25th. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thirty days? They want in July. COUNCILMAN HA/~RISON: Motion to defer for 30 days. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Second. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: And, additionally, I think the Staff had written up a report. They were concerned June 11, 2002 might be much more appropriate as well as some of these holding charges. I can't go this far with what I have heard this last time on their Presentation. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Smith. CITY CLERK: Your Honor, if you defer it 30 days, it will not be heard until August. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Ms. Lincoln, is in the audience and she has raised her hand to be recognized. She is the Chairman of this Committee. CAROLYN LINCOLN: Thank you for giving me the opportunity. I am really concerned that you got your e-mails for whatever and as Chair of this Board I had no knowledge that I have e-mails and I really respectfully would like to understand, because I didn't understand what the questions are and especially when you -- I think someone said that it appears that there were some other concerns regarding the increase for the storage. I would like to understand so that I can bring you back, at the designated time, exactly what the information is and the concerns, because our Board is more than happy. I will not be a part of anything or any request that is unethical and if there is a hidden agenda and someone has one, if someone will share it with me, I can guarantee you when I come before you. again it will be addressed. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Mandigo. COUNCILMAN MANDiGO: Ms. Lincoln, the question I had wasn't June 11, 2002 of the lack of control in any way that anyone can monitor or follow up on the complaints. When I started thinking about that, because you know sometimes my mind crunches numbers. So, I started working some calculations and I thought, well, you know it might be a good thing to have some information since we want to increase storage fees and the towing fees, it might be a good idea to find out what the assessments are on bulk storage for cars and how those are arrived at, which would come from the City Assessor and not from the Towing Advisory Board. The other is how well these businesses -- as I understand it there are 22 in the City -- comply with the Ordinances and the State Tax Code, which would be from the Commissioner of the Revenue. So, I didn't give them much turnaround when I was writing this last night and I didn't include it, because I really didn't know that I would need to. I was asking, in other words, the Council Members going straight to the Conunissioner of Revenue and the City Assessor. CAROLYN LINCOLN: The reason why I would like to be included is I can't crunch numbers. I'm not good at that. I have a learning disability and I had someone on there crunching numbers and when we worked with Mr.' Lambert, some of these issues came up. They also came up in reference with when we had our City Attorney there. So, I do crunch ethics. COUNCII~4AN MANDIGO: Well, these two issues didn't get addressed at the Briefing that we got and, actually, I was happy with the Briefing that you gave us. I was just curious. June 11, 2002 So, that was more of the approach I had. As I said, if I have to vote tonight, I would probably vote against it; but, I Was suggesting to defer it so that I could get some more time for the response. CAROLYN LINCOLN: do with revenue? So, the information has nothing to do with the Towing Advisory Board. It has more to COUNCII~ b~a/gDIGO: It has to do with -- I guess an independent check on the recommendations. Do the assessments line up with the storage fees, for example? I mean, we know that commercial property is going to be assessed based on its revenue generating capacity and gross rent. So, I would like to know what that is and what it may be, if, we increase these rates. And I think the Assessor has that data. And far as the Cormmissioner of Revenue is concerned, his job is to audit everyone. You know he audits businesses for compliance to be sure that they are reporting what they are doing and that they bought the proper business license. Say I wanted to know what his experience had been with this industry. I'm not casting aspersions. Full-time I'm an auditor, Ms. Lincoln, and we trust but we verify. , CAROLYN LINCOLN: Like I said, I don't do numbers. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to defer this until August. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Madam Mayor, I would like to modify my motion to defer this until July 9th. M]%YOR OBERNDORF: COUNCIL LADY PARKER: June 11, 2002 Mrs. Parker. And may I make one request als0 to the upcoming Council. Several of these places are not in the best shape visually and that perhaps maybe Karen Lasley and her Staff can make a visit to see how these places look. I know this one especially down there at the Beach in our area, Linwood, there on Baltic across from the Rite Aid, really needs a lot of dusting and cleaning, for lack of a better term. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: I know that gentleman promised you that you would see an improvement. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: So, perhaps if you-all should choose to increase it, that that's tied to it. That these places be far more presentable than they are and that they meet the Code as required. Use your leverage. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Smith. CITY CLERK: appropriately. Would you mind'to ask Council to vote again since the motion has changed, so we have 'it MAYOR OBEP~NDORF: Okay. And I have one other question. Mr. Spore, before this comes up again on July 9th, I was told by one of the towers that, you know, he had people on duty seven days-a-week, 24 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year. But, the very next morning at 6:30 a.m. a young man, whose car was towed, was standing in front of that facility waiting and I understand he was still there at 8:30. He had called them. They told him to get there at 6:30, so he could retrieve his car to go to COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: COUNCIL LADY EURE: June 11, 2002 To defer? To defer until July -- MAYOR OBERNDORF: Ninth. This is to defer until July 9th. CITY CLERK: By a vote of 11 to 0 you have deferred the item until July the 9th. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining the Towing of Vehicles from Pdvate Property MEETING DATE: July 9~ 2002 Background: Virginia State Code §§ 46.2-1232 and 46.2-1233 provides that localities must appoint advisory boards to recommend towing fees to local governing bodies electing to regulate towing fees. Sections 21-424, 21-426, and 21-429 of the City Code were amended last July. City Council invited the Virginia Beach Towing Advisory Board to to resubmit recommendations not incorporated by the 2001 amendments. The Towing Advisory Board presented a report to City Council on May 28, 2002, recommending amendments to the City Code. Included in those proposed amendments are significant increases in certain fees. City Council held a Public Hearing to receive comment on the proposed amendments on June 4, 2002. .?his matter was deferred June 11 ~ 2002. Considerations: Staff has reviewed the recommendations of the Towing Advisory Board and taken into consideration in-put received from speakers and members of City Council during the June 4, 2002 Public Hearing. Public Information: A public briefing was presented to Council on May 28, 2002, and a Public Hearing was held on June 4, 2002. This item is advertised with the Agenda. Recommendations: Attachments: 1 2 3 4 5 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE TOWING OF VEHICLES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY SECTIONS AMENDED: 21-424, 21-426, and 21-429 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 21-424, 21-426 and 21-429 of the City Code are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 21-424. Release of vehicle to owner or custodian prior to towing. (a) If the owper or custodian of any vehicle not authorized to be parked in a private parking area returns after a tow truck service has arrived but before the vehicle has been towed from the private parking area, he may reclaim the vehicle whether or not it is fully hooked up to the tow truck, and it shall be unlawful for the tow truck service or operator to refuse to release the vehicle. However, if the vehicle has been hooked up, or is in the process of being hooked up, the tow truck operator may charge a drop fee~ n~t =~==~ twenty = ....... {~ 00) based on the vehicle's qross vehicle weiqht ratinq (GVWR), before releasing the vehicle or discontinuing the towing process, y~hicles with a GVWR up to 11,000 pounds may be charqed a drop fee not to exceed $25.00; vehicle~ with a GVWR from 11,001 to 26,000 Dounds may be charqed a drop fee not to exceed $50.00; and vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 Dounds above may be char~ed a drop fee not to exceed $75.00. The process of hooking up shall be defined as (i) the removal and/or unreeling of any towing equipment from the tow truck after the truck is positioned to effect the tow, whether or not the equipment has been attached to the vehicle, or (ii) the lowering of a 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4~ 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Sec. 21-426. Charges for towing and storage of vehicle; receipt required. (a) No tow truck service or operator operating within the city shall, at any time, charge a basic towing fee greater than the fees set forth below: Gross weight cf vehicle Vehicle Weiqht Ratinq 11,000 pounds or less 11,001 pounds ~ to 26,000 26,001 or more Maximum fee $85.00 · ly ~ {effective Ju ~, ...... $250 00 {effective J~ly $500.00 The basic fee shall be inclusive of any additional towing services such as the use of a dolly. This subsection shall apply only when a vehicle is moved or towed without the prior consent and agreement of the owner or custodian of the vehicle. COMMENT This proposed amendment increases the maximum allowable towing charges from $70 to $85 for vehicles weighing under 11,001 pounds; decreases charge from $285 to $250 for vehicles weighing 11,00! - 26,000 pounds, and establishes a maximum charge of $500 for vehicles weighing 26,001 or more. (b) No tow truck service or operator shall assess any charges for storage for the initial twenty-four (24) hours, nor charge more than ~ twenty dollars ($12.00) ($20.00} per twenty-four-hour p.eriod thereafter, for any vehicle with a gzoss weight GVWR of 11,000 pounds or less removed from private property without the consent of the owner or custodian of the vehicle, whether such tow originates in this city or any other jurisdiction. For vehicles with a GVWR of 11,001 pounds to 26,000 pounds, a storaqe fee not to exceed twenty five dollars ($25.00) per twenty-four-hour period may be assessed after the first twenty four (24) hours. For vehicles 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 COMN[ENT This proposed amendment increases the tow storage fee after the initial 24-hour of storage from $12 to $20 for vehicles weighing ll,000 pounds or less, from $12 t° $25 for vehicles weighing from 11,001 to 26,000 pounds, and from $18 to $30 for vehicles weighing 26,001 or more. (c) after it recover If any vehicle is not redeemed within seven (7) days is towed, the tow truck service shall be entitled to an additional fee, not to exceed ~ fifty dollars ~v.~j ($50.00), as payment for the cost of any search conducted to determine the registered owner and lien holder, if any, of the vehicle. COMMENT This proposed amendment increases the maximum authorized search fee from $40 to $50. Sec. 21-429. Miscellaneous prohibited acts b~ tow truck service or operator. Except when acting as an agent in the legal repossession of a vehicle, it shall be unlawful for any tow truck service or operator to: (3) Tow or otherwise move a vehicle from any private road or driveway, or from any other privately owned land or property within the city to a place out of the city without the consent of the owner or custodian of the vehicle; provided that, after a period of not less than twenty-four (24) hours following the initial towing of a vehicle, as recorded in the police dispatcher's log, any such vehicle may be moved to a storage area located outside Df the city, with prior notification to and approval of the police department. ~otwithstandinq the above, if a tow truck service or operator owns; 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 · 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 truck service or operator is authorized to do business in both cities, charqes a fee not qreater than that fee authorized in Virginia Beach and invoices the tow in Virqinia Beach. COMMENT This proposed ~mendment provides that a tow truck operator whose out-of-city storage facility is closer than their in-city storage facility may tow the vehicle to the out-of-city storage facility if the tow truck operator is licensed to do business in both cities and invoices the tow in Virginia Beach. (11) During the initial twenty-four (24) hours after the vehicle is towed and ~u_pon request by any owner or custodian of a currently licensed vehicle, deny or prevent access to said vehicle for the purpose of removing personal items, whether or not the owner or custodian is then able to reclaim the vehicle. After the initial twenty-four (24) hours has expired and upon the request by any owner or custodian of a currently licensed vehicle, deny of or prevent a limit of one (1) access trip to said vehicle between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. COMMENT This proposed amendmem allows the owner/opera~r unlimited access ~ the towed vehicle du~ng the i~fi~ 2~hours a~er the vehicle ~ towed, but iim~ subsequent access ~ one time per day and on~ between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 129 130 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8413 DATA/ODIN/PROPOSED/21-424.426 & 429.ord 2.wpd R-2 March 12, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SU FFI C I ENCY: /,... ,, ~ TAZEWELL LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" --' 1,600' SHORE~ C~ AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Encroachment Request for Albert T. Fisher, Jr. and Victoria Fisher at 2076 Tazewell Road MEETING DATE: Background: Albert T. Fisher, Jr. and Victoria Fisher have applied for an encroachment to construct and maintain a wooden bulkhead, a walkway, and a pier and boat lift behind their Crab Creek condo unit at 2076 Tazewell Road in the ~ean Park neighborhood. Said encroachment would be into a portion of the City's 25' unimproved right-of-way known as Lynnhaven Promenade. There are other similar type improvements in the neighborhood. 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 utili?ation of "hardened slope stabilization" revetment methods including bulkheading, grouted rip-rap and rip-rap with filter cloth to minimize and prevent soft 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 cream 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT (25') UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF LYNNHAVEN PROMENADE BY ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. AND VICTORIA FISHER, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. and VICTORIA FISHER desire to construct and maintain a wooden bulkhead, a walkway, and a pier and boat lift into the City's 25' unimproved right-of-way known as Lynnhaven Promenade, located behind their Crab Creek condominium unit at 2076 Tazewell. Road in the Ocean Park neighborhood. 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 right-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, ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. and VICTORIA FISHER, their heirs, assigns and successors in title, are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a wooden bulkhead, a walkway, and a pier and boat lift in the City's 25' unimproved right-of-way of Lynnhaven Promenade as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT BULKHEAD, WALKWAY, PIER AND BOAT DAVITS FOR ALBERT T. AND VICTORIA FISHER CRAB CREEK CONDOMINIUM, UNIT 2076 LYNNHAVEN DISTRCT [sic] VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (D.B. 2633, PG. 416) DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2001", a copy of which is on file in the 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. and VICTORIA FISHER (the ,,Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. and VICTORIA FISHER 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. 47 48 49 5O CA#- TKENN\ENCROACH\FISHER.ORD R-1 PREPARED: 6/5/02 APPR~ED AS TO CONTENTS U SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AN 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 this~] 5~day AGREEMENT, made of ~0 ~.~ , 20~, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the "City", Grantor, and ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. and VICTORIA FISHER, his wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, the "Grantee" (even if more than one). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as Lot 4, Block 4, Plat of Ocean Park, Section A, M.B. 5, Pg. 69, and being further designated and described as 2076 Tazewell Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455; and WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a wooden bulkhead, a walkway, a pier and boat lift, a "Temporary Encroachment" in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City 25' unimproved right-of-way known as Lynnhaven Promenade, the "Encroachment Area", and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. GPIN: 1489-58-6234-7260 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 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 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: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT BULKHEAD, WALKWAY, PIER AND BOAT DAVITS FOR ALBERT T. AND VICTORIA FISHER CRAB CREEK CONDOMINIUM, UNIT 2076 LYNNHAVEN DISTRCT [sic] VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (D.B. 2633, PG. 416) DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2001", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to which reference is 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 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 i and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and i 2 expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must 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 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 Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setback requirements as established by the City. 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 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 Department of Public Utilities. 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. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ALBERT T. FISHER~ JR. and VICTORIA FISHER, his wife, the said Grantee has 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 (SEAL) ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk Albert T. Fisher, Jr. '/~' (SEAL) Victori~ Fisher 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 Manager, on behalf of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: 5 Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing 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 CITY/COUNTY ~F V~n~'~;~~ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~¢ day of ~ , 20 O~-- , by ALBERT T. FISHER, JR. and VICTORIA FISHER, his wife. Public My Commission Expires: G.~.O~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFIC~CY CRAB CREEK 50' CHANNEL WEST EDGE Of CHANNEL PER CITY DREDGE PLANS BY: WATERWAY SURVEYS, 10/16/00 - I -?_R. OMENADE (~/w 25') I "~'" FLOOD~EBB ~ BULKHEAD, WALKWAY PIER AND DARTS 22' 16'°~ DAVITS TO BE CAPABLE OF UFTING AND STORING BOAT OVER PIER. EXISTING PIER MLW -0.7' W I 2' .. . PIPE(F) BULKHEAD UNE IPF (TYP) REAR PL: A=586.36', L--25.12' DELIVER AND INSTALL ALL MATERIALS VIA BARGE. LOT 5 N/F RICHARD L. JOHNSON 1489-58-6199 CRAB CREEK CONDOMINIUM N/F MICHAEL T. DUNHAM 1489-58--6234-7270 #2078 ~2076 IPF IPF R=1416.21 A=5¢.77' ' TAZEWELL ROAD (V/W) NO. 7736 Looking South from Applicant's property Adjacent dock and boat (2072 Tazewell Road) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance, Administrative Variances MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: An Ordinance to amend Section 103 of the City Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Administrative Variances. Considerations: The agendas for the Board of Zoning Appeals are often filled with cases that concem variance requests for setbacks that are minor in extent and are very rarely opposed. In order to focus on the cases that involve more extensive variance requests and that are opposed, the Board has concurred with the Zoning Administrator in recommending the attached amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment will provide the Zoning Administrator with the ability to grant minor setback variances without a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Within the last few years, the General Assembly amended the planning and zoning "enabling legislation" found in the State Code, allowing the City Council to amend the City Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of giving the Zoning Administrator the ability to approve minor variances where there is no opposition. The State Code now allows such "administrative variances" where adjacent property owners are notified and there are no objections. A good example of an administrative variance would be a case involving a variance of 2 inches to a side yard setback for a single-family home that has existed on a site for 10 years. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the amendment provides for an altemative variance process for minor requests, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance June 12, 2002 Background· The agendas for the Board of Zoning Appeals are often filled with cases that concem variance requests for setbacks that are minor in extent and are very rarely opposed. In order to focus on the cases that involve more extensive variance requests and that ar& opposed, the Board has concurred with the Zoning Administrator in recommending the attached amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment will provide the Zoning Administrator with the ability to grant minor setback variances without a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Proposed Amendments: Within the last few years, the General Assembl amended the I ' , · . . , . Y pannIng and zoning enabling leglslahon found In the State Code, allowing the City Council to amend the City Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of giving the Zoning Administrator the ability to approve minor variances where there is no opposition. The State Code now allows such "administrative variances" where adjacent property owners are notified and there are no objections. A good example of an administrative variance would be a case involving a variance of 2 inches to a side yard setback for a single-family home that has existed on a site for 10 years. The attached amendment will allow the Zoning Administrator to' grant setback variances of up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the required amount if there is no opposition to the request. An application would still have to be submitted, accompanied by a fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00). Prior to the granting of a variance, the Zoning Administrator will give all adjoining property owners written notice of the request for variance, and an opportunity to respond to the request within twenty-one (21') days of the date of the notice. If any adjoining property owner objects to the request in wdting within the time specified above, the request will be forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals for their consideration. If there are no objections, the Zoning Administrator, using the cdteria specified in the amendment, may grant the variance without a hearing before the Board. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES Page1 Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of the amendments. The amendment addresses a need identified by the Board of Zoning Appeals and is allowed through recent amendments to the State Code. The Board of Zoning Appeals will be able to concentrate on requests that are more extensive and have opposition, and property owners with minor variance requests will have the review time of their requests significantly shortened. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES Page 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 103 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES SECTION AMENDED: ~ 103 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 103 of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 103. AW--~nistration. (a) The zoning administrator shall have all necessary authority on behalf of the city council to administer and enforce this ordinance, including the ordering in writing of the remedying of any condition found in violation of this ordinance, and the bringing of legal action to ensure compliance with this ordinance, including injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding authorized by 5his ordinance or the laws of this state. (b) Upon application, the zoninc administrator may qrant a variance up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the required amount from any buildinq setback requirement contained in the zoning ordinance, if the administrator finds in writinc that (i) the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; (ii) such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zonin~ district and the same vicinitv; and (iii) the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment 27 28 to adjacent property and the character of the zoninq district wi!] not be chanqed by the qrantinq of the variance. Such application 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 specified above, the request shall be transferred to the Board o~ Zoninq Appeals for decision. (b~) The zoning administrator shall be responsible for determining whether applications for building permits as required by the building code are in accord with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and no building permit shall be issued without certification that plans conform to applicable zoning regulations. (c_d) No permit for excavation or construction shall be issued before the zoning administrator certifies that the plans, specifications and intended use conform to the provisions of this ordinance. (~) No person shall use or permit the use of any structure or premises or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, enlarged, or moved, wholly or partly, in use or structure, until a certificate of occupancy reflecting use, extent and location shall have been issued to the owner by the zoning administrator. (e~) Such certificate shall show that the structure or use or both, or the affected parts thereof, are on conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, and the zoning administrator shall issue such certificate if he finds that all of the requirements of this ordinance have been met, and shall withhold such certificate unless all requirements of the ordinance have been met. (~) A temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued by the zoning administrator for a period not exceeding six (6) months during alterations or partial occupancy of a building pending its completion if he finds that such occupancy, with such conditions and safeguards as he may establish as required by the circumstances 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 (~h> Applications for certificates of occupancy shall be accompanied by a fee of ten dollars ($10.00). (~i) Upon written request and the payment of a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning verification letter indicating the zoning designation of a particular parcel or parcels of land as shown on the official zoning map. (~) The zoning administrator shall maintain records of all official actions of his office. 77 78 79 8O 81 COMMENT This amendment will allow the Zoning Administrator to grant setback variances up to twenty- five percent (25%) of the required amount for which there is no opposition. It will reduce the Board of Zoning Appeals' case load, allowing them to concentrate on those cases for which there is opposition. 82 83 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 84 85 86 87 CA-7664 DATA/ODIN/PROPOSED/45-0103ord.wpd R4 May 21, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Planning Department Departm~ of Law Item #14 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend Section 103 of the City Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Administrative Variances June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend Section 103 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Administrative Variances. Mr. Scott? Robert Scott: This is an application. We have put together upon close examination of the types of appeals to matters related to the zoning ordinance that we have been experiencing over the years. It's intended to give the Zoning Administrator certain limited authority to grant variances upon her finding that number 1, it meets certain basic criteria. Number 2, that there are no objections to it and that all the adjoining property owners and other people who will ordinarily have an interest in it. I have indicated they're okay with that. And she can grant those upon those findings. Should she find for one reason or another that she's not entitled to grant this variance or chooses not to grant for reasons that she thinks are appropriate, the applicant can still apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals and have the Board of Zoning Appeals look at the matter and decide appropriately. The effect of this would be to streamline the process, take a great deal of the workload of the Board of Zoning Appeals on relatively routine matters not unlike the consent agendas that you hear today. And hopefully provide the residents and the neighbors and other effected people with continued assurance because they will have the right to object just as they do now, that their interest on all points will be taken into account. And I think that makes for a better processing and we recommend approval of it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any objection to Item #14, an ordinance to amend Section 103 of the City Zoning Ordinance? I would move to approve number 14. 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 ABSENT Item #14 City of Virginia Beach Page 2 RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 221 MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: An Ordinance amending Section 221 of the City Zoning Ordinance revising the procedures for revocation of conditional use permits. Considerations: The proposed amendments are made necessary by the General Assembly's enactment, effective July 1,2002, of an amendment to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2309, requiring that the revocation of conditional use permits be pursuant to the procedures specified in Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204. In practical effect, the amendments require the procedures for the revocation of conditional use permits to be the same as those followed in applications for rezonings and conditional use permits. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the amendment clarifies the procedure to be followed for the revocation of a conditional use permit, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance June 12, 2002 Background: The proposed amendments are made necessary by the General Assembly's enactment, effective July 1, 2002, of an amendment to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2309, requiring that the revocation of conditional use permits be pursuant to the procedures specified in Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204. In practical effect, the amendments require the procedures for the revocation of conditional use permits to be the same as those followed in applications for rezonings and conditional use permits. Proposed Amendments: The only substantive amendments contained in this ordinance are to Subsection (h), pertaining to the revocation of conditional use permits. Revocation of a use permit must be advertised and reviewed through the public hearing process just as with a rezoning or conditional use permit. The other amendments contained in this ordinance amendment are stylistic in nature. Evaluation: The proposed amendment will bring the City Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding the revocation of use permits into compliance with the State Code. The amendments are recommended for approval. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - REVOCATION PROCESS / #16 Page I ! 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 REVISING THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Section Amended: City Zoning Ordinance Section 221 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL ,OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 221 of the City Zoning ordinance be, and hereby is, amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 221. Procedural requirements and general standards for conditional uses. (a) Application for conditional use permit. Any property owner, developer, optionee, prospective occupant, lessee, governmental official, department, board or bureau may file with the planning director an application for a conditional use permit, provided that the conditional use sought is permitted in the particular district; and provided further that in.the case of other than the owner, the application is acknowledged by the owner of the property. The application shall be accompanied by a plan showing the actual dimensions and shape of the lot,-the exact sizes and locations on the lot of existing buildings, if any, the general location of proposed buildings, if any, and the existing and proposed uses of structures and open areas; and by such additional information relating to topography, access, and surrounding land uses. (b) Fees. The application shall be accompanied by the following fees to cover the costs of processing the application and publication of the notice of public hearinc: Six hundred 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 47 48 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 director pertinent (c) Action by the planning director. The planning shall study the application and shall confer with city agencies to determine whether the proposed conditional use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan, any applicable regulations that have been adopted, and the requirements of this ordinance. Upon completion of such review, if the director shall determine that any proposal in the application does not meet the requirements of this ordinance, he shall reject the application and return it forthwith, with its accompanying fee, to the applicant. If the application does meet the requirements of this ordinance, the director shall transmit all the findings and recommendations of the city agencies to the planning commission. However, nothing herein shall prohibit the director from accepting a conditional use permit application if failure to meet the applicable requirements is due solely to area or dimensional insufficiency of the lot upon which it is proposed. Any appeal from the decision of the planning director may be made directly to the City Manager. (d) Action by the planning commission. After receiving the report of the director, with all pertinent related material, the planning commission shall give notice of and hold a public hearing in accordance with applicable provisions of Virqinia Code Section 15.2-2204. Within forty-five (45) days after the hearing, the commission shall submit its recommendations to the city council through the planning director; provided, however, that upon mutual agreement between the commission and the applicant, such time may be extended. (e) Action by the city council. After receiving the 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 concerning the proposed use, which shall be considered minimum requirements with respect to the permit, additional requirements, conditions and safeguards may be added by the city council as required for the protection of public interest in the specific case. ~ In any case where the area or dimensions of the subject site or existing structures on the site fail~ to meet the minimums established by this ordinance, the city council shall not approve such application unless it finds that conditions attached tc its approval satisfactorily offset the negative effects inherent in the area or dimensional deficiency. (f) Rehearing the conditional use permit. ~ If the city council finds that there is public benefit to be gained by modifying a conditional use permit under consideration, and that significant public inconvenience would not result from consideration within one (1) year of the modified request, it may allow withdrawal of an application for a conditional 'use permit during public hearing; however, if the conditional use permit is denied by the city council, substantially the same application shall not be filed within one (1) year of denial. (g) ~Term of conditional use permit.~ Unless otherwise provided when a conditional use permit is issued, the applicant must show and bear evidence in good faith of his intention to proceed with the construction and use of the land. Construction shall begin or the use of the land for which a conditional use permit has been obtained shall commence within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of said permit; otherwise, said permit shall be void. Prior to the ending of the twelve-month period, upon written request by the applicant to the planning director, the 102 103 104 '105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 director, the planning director, if he finds that the conditional use permit is still in compliance with all applicable ordinances and policies, shall extend the use permit for an additional three (3) months. All conditional use permits not acted upon as set forth above shall become void twenty-one (21) months from date of issuance. Once the conditional use permit is activated by commencement of construction or use, then the general and specific conditions attached to the conditional use permit shall constitute additional zoning regulations'and requirements for the site which to the extent of any conflict shall supersede the zoning district regulation. Notwithstanding anything in the zoning district regulations to the contrary, no uses other than those set forth in the conditional use permit and those uses accessory thereto shall be allowed on the site until (1) the conditional use is removed in its entirety from the site, or (2) the. city council adopts an ordinance allowing modifications to the conditions or terminating the conditional use permit in whole or in part. Whenever construction or use in conjunction with a conditional use permit is abandoned or is not carried to completion with due diligence, the city council may by ordinance revoke the conditional use permit, in which case any further use or construction on the site shall be in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance effective at the time the further use or construction is initiated. Construction or use shall be deemed to have been initiated when any part of the structure, including foundation, has been put in place. (h) ~Revocation of conditional use permit.~ If the provisions of this ordinance or the requirements of the conditional use permit are not met, the city council may revoke the conditional 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 that the proposed use conforms to the requirements set forth in this ordinance or that any deficiencies of area or dimension are satisfactorily offset by attached conditions and that the proposed conditional use, together with the conditions attached, will be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is to be located, both in terms of existing land uses and conditions and in terms of proposed land uses and uses permitted by right in the area. Among matters to be considered in this connection are traffic flow and control; access to and circulation within the property; off-street parking and loading; refuse and service areas; utilities; screening and buffering; signs, yards and other open spaces; height, bulk and location of structures; location of proposed open space uses; hours and manner of operation; and noise, light, dust, odor, fumes and vibrations. (j) Conformity with adopted plans. The proposed conditional use shall be in accord with the purposes of the comprehensive plan and all the zoning regulations and other applicable regulations. (k) Administrative renewal of use permits. Ail use permits unless otherwise provided in specific instances by the city council, which are subject to time limitations may be reviewed and extended for like periods of time, after a determination by the director of planning that the continuation of the use permit would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and that to continue the activity under the use permit would not cause public inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance or have an undue impact on the community or be incompatible with other uses of land in the particular zoning district. Among the matters to be 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 185 186 187 188 189 190 location of proposed open space uses; hours and manner of operation; and noise, light, dust, odor, fumes and vibrations. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director of planning may, upon his request within thirty (30) days of the decision, with respect to the issue of approval or conditions attached to approval, have the matter reviewed by the planning commission and the city council after following the procedure set forth in section 221(a) of the zoning ordinance. This shall not be construed to limit the rights of any aggrieved person under section 221(h) of this ordinance. COMMENT The only substantive amendments contained in this ordinance are to Subsection (h), pertaining to the revocation of conditional use permits. The change has been made necessary by the General Assembly's enactment, effective July 1, 2002, of an amendment to Virginia Code Section 15.2- 2309, requiring that the revocation of conditional use permits be pursuant to the procedures specified in Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204. In practical effect, the amendments require the procedures for the revocation of conditional use permits to be the same as those followed in applications for rezonings and conditional use permits. The other amendments contained in this ordinance are stylistic in nature. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8499 wrmm\ordres\revokecupordin.wpd R-! May 20, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planni~ Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFfIC IENCY~: Department of Law Item #16 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance amending Section 221 of the City Zoning Ordinance revising the procedures for revocation of conditional use permits June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: I will go to number 16, City of Virginia Beach. An ordinance amending Section 221 of the City Zoning Ordinance, revising the procedure for revocation of Conditional Use permit. Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: This first of all is a requirement recently imposed upon us by change in the State law or to be imposed upon us as of July 1 st. Currently, if an applicant is granted a Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain conditions, it's bound to be operating not in accordance with those conditions. It is an option that the Zoning Administrator has upon due notice being given to take the applicant to the City Council with the intent of having the Use Permit revoked. This change merely requires that public heating before the Planning Commission be held in addition to that which is the State law now, so our local codes may be adjusted accordingly. That's the effect of this change. I think it's a useful tool for the Zoning Administrator to have and she will retain it but under different provisions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there any objection to Item #16'~ Hearing none. I would move to approve number 16. ' 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 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 1611.1 - Sandbddge Bulkheads MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: An Ordinance adding Section 1611.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance concerning the construction and maintenance of bulkheads and other equivalent structural improvements on certain properties in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision. Considerations: The 2002 General Assembly enacted House Bill 646, which added a new Virginia Code Section 28.2-1408.1 to the Virginia Coastal Primary Sand Dune Act. Under State law, amendments to the Act must be incorporated into local ordinances. The new statute, and therefore the proposed amendments to the City's ordinance, provides that property owners in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision with structures or property in clear and imminent danger from erosion and storm damage shall be allowed to erect protective bulkheads or other equivalent structural improvements as approved by the Wetlands Board. The amendments also require that an applicant consent in writing to the future construction of bulkheads tying into the applicant's bulkhead from adjacent properties. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the amendment is the result of a General Assembly action that requires modification of City ordinances, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance June 12, 2002 Background: The 2002 General Assembly enacted House Bill 646, which added a new Virginia Code Section 28.2-1408.1 to the Virginia Coastal Pdmary Sand Dune Act. Under State law, amendments to the Act .must be incorporated into local ordinances. The new statute, and therefore the proposed amendments to the City's ordinance, provides that property owners in the Sandbddge Beach Subdivision with structures or property in clear and imminent danger from erosion and storm damage shall be allowed to erect protective bulkheads or other equivalent structural improvements as approved by the Wetlands Board. The amendments also require that an applicant consent in writing to the future construction of bulkheads tying into the applicant's bulkhead from adjacent properties. Proposed Amendments: The proposed amendments to Section 1611.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance requires the following: The Wetlands Board must make an ongoing determination in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision to determine which structures or properties are in clear and imminent danger from erosion and storm damage due to severe wave action or storm surge. The owners of such structures or properties will not be prohibited from erecting and maintaining protective bulkheadS or other equivalent structural improvements of the type, size and configuration as approved by the Wetlands Board. An applicant to the Wetlands Board within the Sandbridge Subdivision, as a requirement for approval, must consent in writing to any subsequent construction approved by the Board whereby an adjacent property owner desires to tie in a bulkhead at no additional cost with the bulkhead proposed by the applicant. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - SANDBRIDGE BULKHEADS Page 1 As used in this amendment, the "Sandbridge Beach Subdivision" means the area bounded on the north by Dam Neck Naval Base, on the west by Sandpiper Road, and on the south by Little Island Park. Evaluation: As noted above, under State law, amendments to the Virginia Coastal Primary Sand Dune Act must be incorporated into local ordinances. Staff, therefore, recommends that the proposed amendment be adopted. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - SANDBRIDGE BULKHEADS Page 2 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BULKHEADS AND OTHER EQUIVALENT STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE SANDBRIDGE BEACH SUBDIVISION Section Added: City Zoning Ordinance Section 1611.1 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reordained by the addition of a new Section 1611.1 thereto, pertaining to the construction and maintenance of bulkheads and other equivalent structural improvements on certain properties in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision, to read as follows: ARTIC?.m 16. COASTAL PRI/~ARY SAND DUNE ORDINA~CE Sec. 1611.1. Bulkheads, etc. in the Sandbridqe Beach S,~4 vision. The Board shall make an onqoing determination in the Sandbridqe Beach Subdivision to determine which structures or 21 properties are in clear and imminent danqer from erosion and storm 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 damaqe due to severe wave action or storm surge, and the owners of such structures or properties shall not be prohibited from erectin~ and mainSaininq protective bulkheads or other equivalent structural improvements of the type, size and conficuraSion as approved by the Board. The Board shall not impose arbitrary or unreasonable conditions upon its approval of any such bulkhead or other structural improvement. The Board shall maintain a continuinc 29 responsibility to ensure that each bulkhead or structural 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 in writinq to anv subsecuent construction approved by the Boar~ whereby an adjacent property owner desires to tie in a bulkhead at no additional cost with the bulkhead proposed by the applicant. Such consent shall constitute a waiver of property line defenses relatin~ to the bulkhead line. As used in this section, the "Sandbridqe Beach Subdivision" means the area bounded on the north by Dam Neck Naval Base, on the west by Sandpiper Road, and on the south by Little Island Park. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the provisions of this section shall expire on January 1, 2006. COMMENT The 2002 General Assembly enacted House Bill 646, which added a new Virginia Code Section 28.2-1408.1 to the Virginia Coastal Primary Sand Dune Act. Under State law, amendments to the Act must be incorporated into local ordinances. The new statute, and therefore the proposed amendments to the City's ordinance, provide that property owners in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision with structures or property in clear and imminent danger from erosion and storm damage shall be allowed to erect protective bulkheads or other equivalent structural improvements as approved by the Wetlands Board. The amendments also require that an applicant consent in writing to the future construction of bulkheads tying into the applicant's bulkhead from adjacent properties. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia, on the day of , 2002. Virginia Beach, CA-8501 wmmkordres kcpsd161i-lordin - wpd R-1 May 21, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Plannin~9~partment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL Item #17 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance adding Section 1611.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance concerning the construction and maintenance of bulkheads and other equivalent structural improvements on certain properties in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: Item #17, an ordinance adding Section 1611.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance concerning the construction and maintenance of bulkheads and other equivalent structural improvements on certain properties in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision. Mr. Scott. Again? Robert Scott: This again, is a requirement imposed upon us by recent amendments to the City code - I mean to the State code. And it is not really optional that we adopt it. It's effect would be first of all, that the Wetlands Board must make an ongoing determination in the Sandbridge Beach Subdivision to determine which structures or properties are being in clear and eminent danger from erosion and so forth due to severe wave action or storm surge. The owners would not be prohibited for erecting and maintaining protective bulkheads under those circumstances. An applicant to the Wetlands Board, within the Sandbridge Subdivision must consent to the writing to any subsequent construction approved by the Board whereby an adjacent property owner desires to tie in a bulkhead at no additional cost if the bulkhead proposed by the applicant. These are straight, forward matters clearly spelled out in the State law and it is encumbered upon us to adopt these in our local ordinance. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there any objection to Item #17, an ordinance adding Section 1611.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance concerning the construction and maintenance of bulkheads? Heating none. I would move to approve number 17. Ronaid 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 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Item # 17 City of Virginia Beach Page 2 SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance, Temporary Commercial Parking Lots MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: An Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance by defining temporary commercial parking lots and establishing temporary commercial parking lots as a principal use in the RT-1 and RT- 2 Resort Tourist Districts. Considerations: The amendments define a '~emporary commercial parking lot" and establiShes that such lots are a principal use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. A 'temporary commercial parking lot' operates for one year or less. Such a lot will be a principal permitted use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts and must have perimeter landscaping adjacent to public right-of-ways. The surface of the lots will be temporary, as defined in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. Any lot desiring to continue operation past one year will have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the City Council to operate as a commercial parking lot. The requirements of Section 23-58 of the City Code, as amended by the City Council on June 25, will apply. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the amendment clarifies the definition of a temporary commercial parking lot, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 26 June 12, 2002 Background: Concerned about the appearance of commercial parking lots in the Oceanfront Area and the behavior problems that occur in these lots, the City Council asked staff to draft ordinance amendments that address the situation. On April 24, 2001, the first draft wag presented to the City Council. City Council referred the amendments to the Resort Advisory Commission (RAC) for review and comment. RAC held over 12 public meetings on the topic and many of these meetings were well attended by commercial parking lot owners. Significant public comment was heard at many of these public workshops. Since the ordinance was first cimulated a year ago, numerous changes and improvements have been made as a result of this input. Amendments to Section 23-58 of the City Code, which currently regulates commercial parking lots, have been proposed. These amendments, which do not require action by the Planning Commission, are designed to enhance the appearance of commercial parking lots through new requirements for site improvements, signage, operation, and maintenance. At the April 23, 2002 headng, the City Council referred to the Planning Commission an amendement to the City Zoning Ordinance, which will make temporary commercial parking lots a permitted use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. The amendment is discussed below. The Planning Commission is directed to act on the amendment and forward and recommendation to the City Council at the Planning Commission's May or June public hearing. Proposed Amendments: The amendments define a "temporary commercial parking lot" and establishes that such lots are a principal use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. A 'temporary commercial parking lot' operates for one year or less. Such a' lot will be a principal use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts and must have perimeter landscaping adjacent to public right-of-ways. The surface of the lots will be temporary, as defined in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I # 26 Page 1 Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of the amendments. The amendments are part of a package that will significantly improve the aesthetics of the Oceanfront Resort Area and help control the behavior problems that are occurring in the lots after hours. These changes are in keeping with the public and private investments being made at the Oceanfront and are a necessary step in moving the Resort Area towards its full potential. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I # 26 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO A DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AND ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE RT-1 AND RT-2 RESORT TOURIST DISTRICTS SECTIONS AMENDED: CZO ~ 111, 1501 and 1511 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 111, 1501 and 1511 of the of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Sec. 111. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, words used in the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular number include the plural and the plural the singular; the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders; the word "shall" is mandatory; the word "may" is permissive; the word "land" includes only the area described as being above mean sea level; and the word "person" includes an individual, a partnership, association, or corporation. In addition, the following terms shall be defined as herein indicated: Parking lotr commercial, temporarv' that operates for one (1) year or less. A commercial parkinq lot COMMENT 35 36 37 38 39 40 (7) Temporary commercial parking lots, provided that adjacent to any public riqht-of-way perimeter landscaping meeting the requirements of the City Code, Appendix C - Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A and the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be installed, and temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O temporary parkinq lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be allowed. COMMENT This amendment establishes temporary commercial parking as a principal use in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District with perimeter landscaping. Temporary surface treatment shall be allowed. Sec. 1511. Use regulations. IRT-2 - Resort Tourist District] (a) Principal uses and structures: For parcels less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in size, any one of the following is allowed; provided, however, that drive-through facilities shall not be permitted as a principal or accessory use: (17.5) Temporary commercial parkinq lots, provided that adjacent to any public right-of-way perimete~ landscapinq meeting the requirements of the City Code, Appendix C - Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A and the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be installed, and temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for 61 62 63 temporary parkinq lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be allowed. 70 71 72 CA-8459 wnmm\ ordres \ commpkinglotordin, wpd R-3 April 18, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Department Item #26 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance by defining Temporary commercial parking lots and establishing temporary Commercial lots as a principal use in the RT-1, RT-2 and RT-3 Resort Tourist Districts June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: We go to number 26, the City of Virginia Beach. An ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance by defining temporary commercial parking lots and establishing temporary commercial parking lots as a principal use in the RT-1, RT-2 and RT-3 Resort Tourist District. Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: Again, this is an ordinance that we have been working on for quite some time to bring corm-nercial parking lots in the resort area. Number 1, up to a level of appearance that we think is appropriate but with a degree of fairness to those who are already operating in that area. We think that this ordinance goes a long way toward achieving our goals for the resort area, hopefully with a bit of fairness to them, but effectiveness at the same time. The ordinance on page - Item #26 spells out the particulars of this and if you have any further questions, Karen Lasley is here to fiddress them. Karen has been our staff member as Zoning Administrator who's worked most closely on this, but my recommendation is approval of this package. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Vakos? Robert Vakos: Just a point of clarification. Mr. Scott, this does not include RT-3 as stated. It's just RT-1 and RT-2? Stephen White: RT-1 and RT-2. Robert Vakos: Right. Not 3, just so we're clear on that. Dorothy Wood: Number 26, the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance. Is there any objection to this temporary parking lot? Hearir, g none. I would move to approve number 26 with three 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 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Item #26 City of Virginia Beach Page 2 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 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager FY 2000/01 Actual Over Budget Revenue Sharing Formula Funds MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: The Revenue Shadng Formula provides for the allocation of actual revenues in excess of budgeted revenues at 53.13% for the School Board. These funds are re-appropriated to the school board. The FY 00/01 Actual over Budget funds (reversion funds) attributable to the School Division are $2,215,797. The resolution approved by the School Board included funding for salaries for security personnel; 'however, School Board staff has agreed that in lieu of using the funds for ongoing costs, an alternative use is to purchase additional school equipment and buses. Considerations: The resolution includes the following recommended uses of the reversion funds: · $200,000 for Distance Leaming Equipment for 2 middle schools · $515,797 for additional school equipment and buses · $1,500,000 for Phase I of the Human Resources/Payroll project Public Information: This information has been presented at a School Board meeting as information on June 11, 2002 and as action on June 25, 2002. Alternatives: None identified. Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached 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 29 30 31 AN ORDINANCE TO RE-APPROPRIATE $2,215,797 IN FY 2000-01 VIRGINIA BEACH SCHOOL REVERSION FUNDS TO VARIOUS SCHOOL PROJECTS IN THE FY 2002-03 CAPITAL BUDGET WHEREAS, of a total amount of $10,926,451 in FY 2000-01 Virginia Beach Public School reversion funds, $2,215,797 has not been appropriated; and WHEREAS, by resolution dated June 25, 2002, the School Board formally requested the City Council to approve the appropriation of school reversion funds to the FY 2002-03 Capital Budget and School Operating Budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That $2,215,797 at school reversion funds are hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the FY 2002-03 Capital Budget in the amounts and to the projects as set forth below: (a) $200,000 to CIP#1-011, Equipment and Vehicle Replacement, for Distance Learning Equipment for two Middle Schools; (b) $1,500,000 to CIP#1-237, City/School Human Resources/Payroll System, for completion of phase one of the Human Resources/Payroll project; and (c) $515,797 to CIP#1-211, Operating Budget Support, for acquisition of equipment related to school facilities, educational programs, and transportation. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City Council. RGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E SCHOOL BOARD Dan~ D. Ed~m~ VA Be~;:~ VA 23484 495.~)51 (h} · ?$?-Q2~ (all) ~7 ~ ~ VA~VA ~ 41~6~~ VA~VA ~ ~s~) VA~VA ~ 4~ ~) ~S-L~ 2~~~ VA~ VA ~ ~17 ~ ~ VA~ VA ~ ~Pm~. ~VA~ 4~-9~2 ~) VA~VA ~ ~W.~ ~3-~ VA~VA ~ d~ ~ T~ 4~ ~ D~e VA~VA ~ ~m 1. Ta~ 17~~ VA~ VA ~ SUPERINTENDENT Tm~hy R..len~-y. Ph.D. 2M2 Gee(ge Masm ~ VA Bea:K, VA 23458 427.4326 RESOLUTION REGARDING FY 2000/01 ACTUAL OVER BUDGET <~ REVENUE SHARING FORMULA FUNDS "'" W]:~REAS, the Revenue Sb. adng Formula adopted by City Cotmcil provides for the distribution to the School Board's 53.13% share of any actual revenues which exceed budgeted revenues; and W~I-I~REAS~ the School Board's 53.13% shatv of the FY 2000/01 Actual over budgeted revenues was $2,215,797.16, and W/:[EREAS, due to the uncertainty of the economy in September, 2001 the administration did not wish to make a recou~iiendation for the use of these funds, and ~REAS, the City is anticipating a shortfall in the Revenue Sharing Formula, and by City policy the School Board must provide 53.13% of any short-fall in these revenue streams, and WHEREAS, the administration zecommends the $2,215,797 be used for thc following purposes: · $ 200,000 to CIP project l.011for Distance LeamJng Bquipment for the 2 Middle Schools · $ 515,797 to the FY 2002/03 Operating Budget to staff lS elementary security positions to provide a secth-ity assistant for each elementary school · $1,500,000 to CIP project 1-237 for completion of Phase I of the Human Rcsouxces/Payroll project now, therefore, bc it RESOLVED: That the Bo~d approves and a~xns thc recommended uses of these funds as presented by the Adm3t~istrafion; and be it further RESOLVED: That the adminiscation request these funds be appropriated by the City Council as soon as practicable, but no later than July 15, 2002, and be it further RESOLVED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board. Adopted by the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach this 25m day of June 2002. SEAL Diarme P. Alexander, Clerk of the Board ~a~e] D. ~.~ax'3s, ch~ ' 2512 George Mason Drive * P.O. Box 6038 * Virginia Beach, VA 23456-0038 CITY OF VIRGINIA'BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Reversion Funds MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: According to State Code 22.1-100, any unexpended funds from the School Operating Budget must be retumed to the goveming body. The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach has a long-standing practice of re- appropriating the School reversion to the School Board. The School Board has considered and approved the Administration's recommended uses of these funds. The current expected reversion is expected to be in excess of $13 million. Funding for the compensation increase effective January 1,2003, is included in the School's Operating Budget for FY 2002-03 within the current revenue streams. The administration and the Board are requesting $400,000 to bridge the compensation package beginning July 1, 2002, for current teaching staff whose salary falls below the new minimum teacher salary of $32,50O. The Board is requesting that $400,000 of the expected reversion funds be appropriated to the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget in the Instruction Category by July 30, 2003, with the remainder of the $13 million to come back to City Council after the accounting records close in August. Considerations: Public Information: This information has been presented at a School Board meeting as an action item on June 11, 2002. Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. Alternatives: None identified. Recommendations: That the City Council approve the School Board's request to re-appropriate by July 30, 2002, $400,000 of the expected FY 2001-02 Operating Budget reversion funds. Attachments: School Board Resolution dated June 11, 2002 Letter to City Manager dated June 20, 2002 Ordinance 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 28 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $400,000 IN FY 2001-02 VIRGINIA BEACH SCHOOL REVERSION FUNDS TO THE FY 2002-03 SCHOOL OPERATING FUN[} OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, on May 28, 2002, the School Board approved the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget which included a change in the teacher step salary scale and the open range scale; WHEREAS, the Board and Administration desire that ail teachers whose current salary is below $32,500 receive, effective July 1, 2002, a portion of the salary increase effective January 1, 2003, that is sufficient to bring their salaries to $32,50~; WHEREAS, the School Board has adopted a resolution recommending the necessary revisions to adjust its budget; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that there will be $13.14 million in unexpended 2001-02 revezsion funds and that sufficient funds will be available for teacher salary increases. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That $400,000 in FY 2001-02 School Reversion Funds is hereby appropriated to the Instruction category of the FY 2002-03 School Operating Fund Operating Budget. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2002. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City Council. CA-8549 Ordin/Noncode/School400kord.wpd R-1 RGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS A H E A D O F T H E C U R V SCHOOL BOARD Daniel D. Edwards Cl~in~n Dislrict 1 - Cenlerv~ie 1513 Beadefiew Drive VA Beach. VA 23464 495-3551 (h} · 717-0259 Nell L. Rose V~c~ C. haim~an At-La~ge 1337 Harris Road VA Beach. VA 23452 453-3823 (h) · 497-6633 (w) D. A. "Al" Ablov/ich 4176 Charity Nec~ Road VA 15each. VA 23457 721-3052 ih) J~ne $. Brooks Dislfi~ 6 - Beach 721 I-~ltop R~ad VA Beact~. VA 23454 425-1597 ih) #~ncy D. Guy Distficl 5 * Lynnhaven 2445 Haversbam Close VA Bea~. VA 23454 496-2251 ih] Dan R. Lowe D~4-Bay~de 4617 Red Coat Road VA Beach, VA 23455 4go-3681 Ih) I~. Les Pewee. Jr. 2409131~gbam Road VA Beac~ VA 23456 427.9112 (h) Sand~ Smllt~Jo~es 705 Rac~ C~ek Cou~ VA Beach, VA 23462 490-816.7 (h) Michael W. Stew-a~ Oist~d 3 - Rose 105 Bmntwood Court VA Beach. VA 23452 456-4303 ih) · 44,5-0471 (w) Jen'i M. Tat~ District 2 - Kempsv~le 453~ Gleneagle D~ve VABeact~ VA 23462 4~J-24g0 ih) Arthur T. Tare Al-Large 170~ Lad~ Mews VA Bead1. VA 23455 460-,5451 (h) SUPERIHTEHDENT T~nol~ R. Jenney. Ph.D. 2512 George Mason Dfve VA Beacfl, VA 23456 427-4326 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, On May 28, 2002, the School Board approved the FY 02/03 Operating Budget which included a change in the step teacher salary scale and the open range teacher scale; and WHEREAS, the approved scales have a starting teacher salary of $32,500 and all new teachers are hired on the open range scale; and WHEREAS, employees hired before July I, 1999 are on the step teacher scale; and WHEREAS, there are employees on the step and open range teacher scale whose current salary is below $32,500; and WHEREAS, the compensation increases for all current employees are to take effect January 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Board and Administration desire that all teachers whose current salary is below $32,500 receive, effective July 1, 2002, a portion of the increase due to them effective January 1, 2003 sufficient to bring their salaries to $32,500, and WHEREAS, the cost to provide this partial early compensation adjustment is estimated to be · $400,000, and WHEREAS, th'ese teachers will receive the balance of their compensation increase at January 1, 2003, and WHEREAS, the partial early implementation is a one-time expense, and WHEREAS, the FY 2001/02 reversion funds are currently estimated to be in excess of $13.5 million, and WHEREAS, the City Council has historically re-appropriated school reversion funds for one- time expenses and has re-appropriated to the Operating Budget as well as to the CIP, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the Board approves and affirms the partial early implementation of the compensation increase for those teachers whose current salary is below $32,500; and be it further RESOLVED: That the Board requests that $400,000 of the FY 2001/02 reversion funds be re- appropriated by the City Council to the FY 02/03 Operating Budget as soon as practicable, but no later than July 31, 2002, and be it further RESOLVED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Clerk of the Board is directed to doliver a copy of this resolution to the Mayor, each member of City Council, the City Manager, and the City Clerk. Adopted by the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach this 11th SEAL Attest: Dianne P. Alexander, Clerk of the Board P~ID( 25.12 George Mason Drive · P.O. Box 6038 · Virginia Beach. VA 23456-0038 " RGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AHEAD OF THE CURVE June 20, 2002 Timothy R. Jenney, Ph.D. Superintenden: James K. Spore, City Manager City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Jim: As you know, we are asking City Council to act on July 2, 2002, regarding our request for reappropriation of $400,000 to bridge certain employees' compensation. We have increased our base compensation significantly to a starting salary of $32,500. However, we have approximately 1,000 employees who, without this bridge, will make less than their counterparts at $32,500 for the first four months of the year. Raises don't take effect until January I, 2003. Obviously, we believe this is an equity issue. We are aware of Council's policy and concerns about spending reversion monies on recurring costs. However, in this case the affected individuals' future salaries will not change as a result of this action. In other words, we are treating the bridge funds as thou~h they are non-recunSng costs. We would appreciate your support and Council's support to effectuate parity among all teachers. Sincerely, Timo'ttfy R. jenney Superintendent 2512 George Mason Drive · P.O. 757.427.4326 757.426.5680 Fax Box 6038 · Virginia Beach, VA 23456-0038 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH' AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Local Law Enforcement Block Grant MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program, through the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance, provides funds to units of local government for the purposes of reducing crime and improving public safety. The Program is designed to allow local communities to address problems specific to their areas. The City has been notified that $227,270 has been allocated for Virginia Beach for the 2002 LLEBG. Considerations: The total grant of $252,522 includes $227,270 from the federal government and a $25,252 match from the City. The grant requires that a local advisory board make non-binding recommendations regarding the use of the funds. The Virginia Beach $ommunity Criminal Justice Board serves in that capacity, and recommends that the funds be used as follows: · $8,434 to provide a digital document camera, monitor, LCD projector, interface cables, and a laptop computer for the Magistrate's Office in order to provide expanded judicial training and educational programs. · $104,040 to purchase 40 additional radios for the Shedffs Department to provide radios for all deputies pdor to assuming their posts, and to provide back-up radios for radios being serviced. This will help address the Sheriffs overall need for radios for deputies. $50,000 for the Police Department to build an 'apartment building' street facade at the City's Creeds Training Facility for enhanced training capabilities. $63,773 to purchase 18 radios for the Police Department, to provide additional coverage for special operations members and for the summer oceanfront needs. $26,275 to provide clerical support to the Office of Community Corrections to meet the continuing need for data entry, and to assist with general cledcal and receptionist duties. The State has provided funding over the past 3 years for caseworker positions, but none for cledcal support. $5,287 to provide adequate seating for individuals receiving services from the Office of Community Corrections. Public Information: A public headng is required by the grant, and will be held at the same meeting at which the item is being considered by City Council. Alternatives: City Council can elect to use the funds for other law enforcement means (within the grant guidelines) than those being recommended, or can decide to not accept the grant. Recommendations: It is recommended that the grant be accepted, and that the recommended uses of grant funds be .approved. Attachments: Grant award notice Ordinance AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A $227,270 GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL BUREAU 'OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE FOR VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ~ TO TRANSFER $25,252 FROM THE GENERAL FUI~D RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES FOR GRANT MATCHES AS THE CITY'S REQUIRED MATCH 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $227,270 from the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance to reduce crime and improve public safety; WHEREAS, the conditions of the grant require the City to provide a cash match in the amount of $25,252; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed uses of this funding has been advertised and conducted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY T}{E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That a $227,270 grant is hereby accepted from the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance and appropriated to the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget, and $25,252 is hereby transferred from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies for Grant Matches to the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget, to be expended as f~llows: (a) $8,434 to provide a digital document camera, monitor, LCD projector, interface cables, and a laptop computer for the Magistrate's Office. (b) $104,040 to purchase 40 additional radios for the Sheriff's Department to provide radios for all deputies prior to assuming their posts, and to provide back-up radios for radios being serviced. (c) $50,000 for the Police Department to build an "apartment building" street facade at the City's Creeds Training Facility for enhanced training capabilities. (d) $63,773 to purchase 18 radios for the Police 39 40 2. That estimated revenue from the federal government is hereby increased by $227,270. 41 42 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the of , 2002. CA-8551 ordin/noncode/LLEGB2002.ord-wpd July 3, 2002 R4 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney ~-~fflce ~ FY 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Virginia Beach City, VA A_ward Reports ISwitch to ... ~ Grant Handbook Award and Match ()x'ervicx~ .'\ %a.rd and. M~l~h l-l.e.tp. [:reqt!e ntl.v _..\ skcd The following is the summary information for the total amount of LLEBG funds for which you are applying: Eligible Award Amount Your judsdiction's Eligible Award Amount, not including PSOHB compliance status, is reflected in this figure. $227,270 Final Award Amount The Final Award Amount shown below does not take into account your PSOHB compliance status, since you have not indicated your jurisdiction's PSOHB status. Please to go to the PSOHB certification screen. $227,270 Match Amount The LLEBG Program requires a 10 percent cash match, calculated as one-ninth of the Final Award Amount, with no waiver provision (except for Amedcan Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands). Federal funds may not exceed 90 percent of total program costs. Your match amount has been automatically calculated based on the Final Award Amount. $25,252 Matchin~l Funds Code I Please select from codes below Save and Continue httos://~'ants.oio.usdoi.~zov:8004/gms ._user/pLsql/llebg_~Zk.g~_award_amotmt_scr~¢&.. 6/6/2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Resolution to Consent to the Assignment by Hampton Roads Mariners, L.L.C. of its Rights and Obligations Under Joint Use Agreement for the Sportsplex to Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc. MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: In connection with the transfer of the management and ownership of the Hampton Roads Mariners, a United Soccer League A-League men's professional soccer team which uses the Sportsplex for its home games, Hampton Roads Madners desires to assign its rights and obligations under the Joint Use Agreement dated September 4, 2001 to Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc., a Virginia corporation, an entity owned and controlled by Michael L. Field, Jr. Considerations: All requirements of the September 4, 2001 Joint Use Agreement for the use of the Sportsplex will be assumed by the Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc. Michael L. Field, Jr., the controlling owner of Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc., has provided a guaranty for the payment and performance of all obligations of the Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc., a letter of credit as secudty for the timely payment and performance of all obligations of the Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc., and the City Attorney has received a release and indemnity from Hampton Roads Mariners and Scott Goodman, a principal of that entity, and satisfactory evidence of the assignment of the United Soccer League A-League professional soccer franchise to Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc. Recommendations: Approval Public Information: Attachments: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A RESOLUTION TO CONSENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT BY HAMPTON ROADS MARINERS, L.L.C., OF ITS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER JOINT USE AGREEMENT FOR THE SPORTSPLEX TO VIRGINIA BEACH MARINERS, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority"), and Hampton Roads Mariners, L.L.C. ("HRM") are parties to a Joint Use Agreement dated as of September 4, 2001 (the "Agreement"), providing for the joint use of the Virginia Beach Sportsplex (the "Sportsplex"); WHEREAS, in connection with the transfer of the management and ownership of the Hampton Roads Mariners, a United Soccer League A-League men's professional soccer team which uses the Sportsplex for its home games, HRM desires to assign its rights and obligations under the Agreement to Virginia Beach Mariners, Inc., a Virginia corporation ("VBM"), an entity owned and controlled by Michael L. Field, Jr.; WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the consent of the Authority and the City to any assignment; and WHEREAS, the City desires to consent to the assignment by HRM to VBM of all rights and obligations of HRM under the Agreement, on certain terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI-IE CITY OF VIRGI2qlA BEACH: The City hereby consents to the assignment of the Agreement from HRM to VBM, subject to approval by the Virginia/Beach Development Authority of the assignment and subject to the City Attorney's receipt, review and approval of all documents and information deemed necessary by the City Attorney for such assignment, including, but not limited to: A. Execution and delivery by Michael L Field, Jr., of a Guaranty, in form and substance satisfactory to the City Attorney, guaranteeing the payment and performance of all obligations of VBM under the Agreement. B. Delivery of a letter of credit, in form and substance satisfactory to the City Attorn~.v an ~e,~.'nritv for the hmo. Iv navm~nt and n~..r'~nrrnnn~a n{" all Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~ ,2002. day of 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 F :kDatakATY~Ordin'uNONC ODEKSpor tsplcxxe s 2-wpd July 3, 2002 R-1 CA-8571 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Economic Development K. PLANNING Applications of BECO PROPERTIES, INC. at the northwest intersection of North Witchduck Road and Wishart Road, containing 28.6 acres: (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) ao Variance to Subdivision Ordinance re two lots with insufficient fi:ontage on public right-of-way. bo Conditional Use Permit(CUP) re Open Space Promotion Option to develop 28.6 acres into 21 lots. Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. at North Landing and West Neck Roads, containing 65.1 acres (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Change of Zoning District Classoqcation from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-30 Residential re single family lots no less than 30,000 sq. ft. b. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Promotion. Variance Appeal re certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.4(b), that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and reduce required street width. Recommendation: APPROVAL o Application of CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND for discontinuance, closure and abandonment of Arctic Crescent re consolidation of church property, comaining 41,297 square feet (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Mol:, No~: t.o Scele Beco C~n 1478-86-7576 3738 ZONING HISTORY 2. 3. 4. Conditional Use Permit (private museum) - Granted 12-12-00 Conditional'Use Permit (church addition)- Granted 1-12~87 Subdivision Variance - Granted 9-30-85 Change of Zoning (R-1 Residential District to R-2 Residential District) - Denied 6-21-82 Conditional Use Permit (open space promotion) - Withdrawn 6-21-82 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Beco Properties, LLC, Subdivision Variance Open Space Promotion MEETING DATE: July' 9, 2002 Background: SUBDIVISION VARIANCE: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Beco Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Property is located at the northwest intersection of N. Witchduck Road and Wishart Road (GPIN #1478-86-7576; #1478-86-3738). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. OPEN SPACE PROMOTION: An Ordinance upon Application of Beco Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation for a Conditional Use Permit for open space promotion on certain property located at the northwest intersection of N. Witchduck Road and Wishart Road (GPIN #1478-86-7576; #1478-86-3738). Said parcel contains 28.6 acres. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a subdivision variance for two (2) lots that will not have sufficient frontage on a public right-of-way. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to develop a 28.6 acre parcel into 21 lots utilizing the R-40 Open Space Promotion Option. The development will have a gross density of 0.7 units per acre. The development also balances the existing environmental conditions and challenges on the site with the character of the surrounding neighborhood: The open space exceeds the minimum acreage by 12 percent. The amount of proposed buffer restoration is well beyond that normally provided. The minimum lot size for the project is 30,000 square feet. The width of lot frontages along North Witchduck Road is consistent with properties to the south and east of the parcel. The request for two (2) flag lots is minimal. The density of the 21.1 acres of uplands does not exceed what the existing zoning allows by right. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Beco Properties, LLC Page 2 The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board reviewed the revised plan at their June 24 hearing. The revised plan was approved by the Board with substantially the same conditions as before. Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning commission by a recorded vote of 8-1-1 to approve this request. BECO PROPERTIES, LLC / # 22 & 23 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: (22) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance (23) Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion Northwest intersection of North Witchduck Road and Wishart Road ~tlap F-5 M.~, NO~ ko $¢01~ Beco Inc. Crpin 1478-86-757d 3738 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 1478-86-7576 4 - BAYSIDE 28.6 acres Carolyn A. K. Smith To develop the 28.6 acre parcel into 21 lots utilizing the R-40 Open Space Promotion Option. This option allows a reduction in the minimum lot size from 40,000 square feet to 24,000 square feet. A subdivision variance is also requested for 2 lots that will not have sufficient frontage on a public right-of-way. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding existing residential neighborhoods. · Degree to which the proposal satisfies the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoninq The 28.6 acre parcel is currently zoned R-40 Residential District. There are several small barns on the property and a single family dwelling on the northeast portion of the site. Past uses of this land have been primarily devoted to pasture for grazing animals. surr°undin,q Land Use and Zonin,q North: South: East: West: · Witchduck Bay, Single family dwellings / R-40 Residential District · Wishart Road, Single family dwellings / R-20 Residential District · North Witchduck Road, Single family dwellings / R-40 Residential District · Single family dwellings / R-40 Residential District Zoninq History There is no zoning history to report within the immediate area. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The parcel is located in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area and contains 20.1 acres within the Resource Protection Area (RPA), which is the more stringently regulated land due to environmentally sensitive characteristics. The RPA includes tidal wetlands, nontidal wetlands connected by surface flow to tidal wetlands, highly erodible soils (slopes of six f6~ percent or Qreater) and a 100 foot buffer. Only 8.5 acres of the Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is a 24 inch water main in Wishart Road fronting the property. There is an 8 inch water main in North Witchduck Road fronting the property. This subdivision must connect to City water. Sewer: There is an 8 inch sanitary sewer main in Wishart Road fronting the property. There is an 8 inch sanitary sewer main in North Witchduck Road fronting the property. This subdivision must connect to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Program (ClP): North Witchduck Road and Wishart Road in the vicinity of this application are two (2) lane undivided residential arterials. There are currently no plans to upgrade either facility in the Master Transportation Plan. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z- 210 ADT North Witchduck Road 1,000 ADT ~ 6,200 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 210 ADT 1'A~r~,-~,~ I"¥-~;h, -r".;~ ~ge y ps 2 as defined by R-40 zoning with 1 home for each upland acre (21 acres) & 10 ADT per home 3 as defined by the proposed 21 single-family dwellings at 10 ADT per home Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Schools There is no significant impact on the school system. The proposed development will generate 15 students. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan's policies and map for this portion of the Bayside Planning Area support residential developments that are innovative and respectful of environmental constraints such as fragile upland shorelines, wetlands, attractiw. provisions collectively represent an adequate tradeoff for the smaller lots proposed under the R-40 open space promotion. Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant proposes to develop a 28.6 acre site into 21 single family lots utilizing the R-40 Open Space Promotion Option, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, a Subdivision Variance for two (2) flag lots is also requested. The total upland area is 21.1 acres with 7.4 acres of wetlands and water. Site Desiqn The concept plan depicts a 50 foot wide right-of-way off of Wishart Road with 14 lots. The proposed right-of-way is 620 feet in length. Two (2) additional lots will have direct frontage on Wishart Road. A small cul-de-sac is proposed off of North Witchduck Road providing four (4) lots with access to a public street. Finally, one (1) lot will be created adjacent to the existing pump station on North Witchduck Road and will have direct access onto this street. The lots range in size from 30,000 square feet to 32,600 square feet. One exception to the lot sizes is a large lot (53,000 square feet) on the point with an existing dwelling on it. The R-40 Open Space Promotion allows lot area outside of water and marsh to be as small as 24,000 square feet. The maximum net density is 0.8 units per acre. The application is proposed at 0.7 units per acre. Slight reductions in setbacks and lot width are also allowed under this option. · A gazebo is proposed within a proposed open space area at the end of the cul-de-sac. A stormwater management pond is proposed within the boundaries and in the rear of Lots 17 and 18, close to the corner of North Witchduck Road and Wishart Road. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Vehicular and pedestrian access appears to be adequate. Architectural Desiqn · Information on the architectural design of the proposed dwellings was not submitted with the application. percent or 5.7 acres. In addition to reserving this acreage for passive open space, the applicant is proposing to restore 7.9 acres from herbaceous plant material used for pasture to woody vegetation. The 7.9 acres proposed for restoration is entirely within the Resource Protection Area (RPA). This is the most environmentally sensitive portion of the site. This "buffer restoration" will be installed by both the developer and the individual builders. At the initial development of the entire site, the developer will install the plant material for the buffer restoration within the open space area. The individual builders will be responsible for installing the plant material on each lot as they are developed. Street trees are proposed along both Wishart Road and North Witchduck Road. · Additional landscaping is proposed within the small cul-de-sac off of North Witchduck Road. Evaluation of Request The requests for a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion and for a Subdivision Variance are recommended for approval. The applicant could, by right, develop the site potentially into 21 single family 40,000 square foot lots, the same number that is requested under this proposal. However, this does not take into account the severe environmental constraints that the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) Ordinance places on this site. The Chesapeake Bay Board did review a plan on February 25, 2002, and authorized the development of a 23 lot subdivision with encroachment into the Resource Protection Area on 12 of those lots. That plan used smaller lots in order to provide more open space and to have a lower impact on the Resource Protection Area. Since that approval, however, the plan has been modified as presented and reviewed in this report. However, the CBPA Board has not yet reviewed this revised plan. While the plan approved by the CBPA Board did authorize more lots, the revised plan, in order to increase the size of the lots, reduces the amount of open'space. The current plan, as did the plan approved by the CBPA Board, depicts encroachment into the buffer on 12 of the 21 lots. While the CBPA Board approved a different version with 23 lots, the following conditions of that approval are listed below for your information: 1. Lots 8 through 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 23 shall be a maximum 24,000 square feet. o The limits of construction shall be in substantial conformance with the site rendering dated February 15, 2002, prepared by MSA and Porterfield Design Center. Said limits shall be noted on the subdivision plat and each applicable site plan. 3. A minimum of 25 percent of th~. r~.rn~ininn n,'.n/in,,e *r~,* ..... 1-, I... /;-^,..-~;__ o lots. Those lots, whose rear yards are impacted by the 100 foot buffer and proposed limits of construction, shall be enhanced with buffer restoration, inclusive of trees, shrubs and mulch. The applicant may desire to co-mingle this initiative with aforementioned condition numbers 3 and 4. Said condition shall be noted on the subdivision plat and each applicable site plan. The limits of construction shall lay a maximum of 20 feet outboard of improvements on .proposed Lot 7. Triple erosion and sedimentation control measures, inclusive of one row of straw bales shall lay adjacent to prescribed limits of construction. A temporary chain link fence shall also lay adjacent to prescribed limits of construction and shall remain in-place throughout the construction phase of the project. Improvements shall lay within the general vicinity of existing impervious cover, shall not exceed existing impervious cover, and shall be positioned equidistant of top-of-banks. In no case shall any improvement lay within 15 feet of the top-of-bank. The southern lot line for Lot 7 shall be no further than 50 feet south of the residence. Buffer restoration of all open space pasture land shall be in substantial conformance with the site rendering dated February 15, 2002, prepared by MSA and Porterfield Design Center. Said restoration plan shall be coordinated with CBPA staff prior to submission. As a guide, trees shall be a minimum of 1 inch caliber and shall be installed on 25 feet centers. Shrubs shall be in 3 gallon containers - grasses 1 gallon. Native species shall dominate pasture land. If the applicant envisions a series of trails, bridges, gazebo overlook area, etc., said design features shall be shown on the restoration plan. 9. The existing driveway and residence within the open space area to the northeast shall be removed. 10. Payment shall be provided into the Lynnhaven River Oyster Heritage Fund, as offered by the applicant, for those portions of impervious cover within the buffer. Payment is intended to provide the equivalent of a 12 inch oyster shell plant within the Lynnhaven River for an equal amount of'displaced buffer. Payment shall be based on the square footage of impervious cover divided by 27 = cubic yards X 15 (bushels per cubic yard) X $1.65 (installed price). Said payment shall be made prior to approval of applicable site plans. 11. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the DSC for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. The existing tree canopy along the project's western boundary, sh'all remain intact to the greatest extent practicable. Specifically for Lots 1 and 3-6. 13. AII efforts shall be made to convey the majority of public stormwater to the proposed bioretention facility. Any residual public stormwater runoff shall be conveyed to an additional structural facility. The request for a Conditional Use Permit for R-40 Open Space Promotion for 21 single family dwelling units with a gross density of 0.7 units per acre and a Subdivision Variance for two (2) flag lots is acceptable subject to the conditions below. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has proposed a development that balances the existing environmental conditions and challenges on the site with the character of the surrounding neighborhood: · The open space exceeds the minimum acreage by 12 percent. · The amount of proposed buffer restoration is unprecedented. · The minimum lot size for the project is 30,000 square feet. · The width of lot frontages along North Witchduck Road is consistent with properties to the south and east of the parcel. · The request for flag lots is minimal. · The density of the 21.1 acres of uplands does not exceed what the existing zoning allows by right. Conditions At a minimum, street trees as depicted on the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Witchduck Farms," prepared by MSA, P.C., dated May 29, 2002, shall be installed along Wishart Road, the proposed cul-de-sac and North Witchduck Road. Said trees shall be a minimum of 2 to 2 ~ inch caliper at the time of planting and the selected species shall reflect those large trees listed on page 49 in the City of Virginia Beach Parking Lot and Foundation Landscaping Ordinance booklet. In addition, this requirement shall be depicted on the final plans submitted to the Development Services Center. In addition to the trees listed above, landscaping shall be installed within the proposed small horseshoe / cul-de-sac proposed off of North Witchduck Road in substantial conformance to the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Witchduck Farms," prepared by MSA, P.C., dated May 29, 2002. Sidewalks, a minimum of five (5) feet in width, shall be installed along both sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. 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 ali 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. Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion Northwest corner of N. Witchduck Road and Wishan Road District 4 Bayside June 12, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: The next items are Items #22 & 23, Beco Properties, Inc. And Mr. Chairman, I will be abstaining from that so, as I told you, I need to leave early anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and leave. Robert Vakos: Beware of Dorothy for us. Robert Miller: I'll see if I can find Toto and bring it back to you. Ronald Ripley: Just to clarify so that Bob Miller won't get in trouble with his wife when he gets home, Dorothy is an allusion to Kansas where he's going and Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. Robert Miller: Hi honey. Robert Vakos: I don't need that much of an explanation. Robert Miller: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: So the next items are Items W22 & 23, Beco Properties, LLC. Mr. Bourdon, are you coming back? Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. I thought there was something else o'n your agenda before we got to Beco Properties. Again, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney. I'm here representing Beco Properties on this application for development at Witchduck Farm or Witchduck Farms. The application, I think, is well described in your staff evaluation, it was well described this morning in your informal briefing. It involves a beautiful piece of property at the cornei of Wishart Road and N. Witchduck Road. The applicant, when he came to me and hired his engineers back many, many months ago, recognizing that the property has significant Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area issues, being hired, I think you know, the best person he could possibly hire from an engineering perspective to design a layout for the property. That engineer, an employee of an engineering company and the City, myself, and the applicant met on numerous occasions with the Planning Department, City of Virginia Beach. And looking at this piece of property and working on a plan to develop this piece of property in accordance with the existing zoning, which is not being changed. And looking at the development that could occur on the property given the restraints the Bay Act in an area Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 2 where this is clearly an infill, with basically everything else already being developed in the area. And not wanting to be a complication of the property owner's rights, in terms of their reasonable beliefs as what to they could put on their property. After many meetings and many, many hours and lot of expense, the plan was arrived at that involved 23 lots on this piece of property. That plan was presented by myself to a very large, meeting of the Witchduck Point Civic League. The largest turnout for a civic league that I' ve ever seen and I've been to countless civic league meetings, and frankly, thought the plan was well received. But there were people who did not agree with the plan. We took that plan forward to the Chesapeake Bay Board with a recommendation from the Planning Department for approval of that plan for 23 lots on the property. And some of the members of the community came and opposed that plan before the Chesapeake Bay Board. The Chesapeake Bay Board adopted the recommendation of its staff and approved that plan for 23 lots. On pages 7 & 8 of your write up, there are the conditions listed. There are 13 of those that were recommended are were adopted with the Bay Board approval of this plan. We then proceeded with the Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion, which was a part of that plan but obviously not within their purview, and that application was reviewed also by your Planning Department staff and not too long before this application is here before you today-was to come to this body, we were notified that plan was no longer a plan that was being recommended for approval. Along the same time lines, we were communicating with a sub-committee that had been set up by the Witchduck Point Civic League and they came to me and asked me if we could make some changes to the plan. I took those recommended changes and met with my client, and my client deemed it wise and prudent to go ahead to look at trying to implement those changes. And in fact, those changes have been implemented by this plan. And this plan involves lots that are 30,000 square feet in size rather than 24,000 in size. Two less buildings, two less lots, essentially the same layout. We got rid of some flag lots. I have that other plan if anybody desires to take a look at it. I'll be glad to show it to you. And we came with a new plan. Met with the staff and went over the plan and resubmitted the plan. And also, met with the subcommittee of the civic league and went over the plan. And the indications that we got from everybody was, you know, good changes. We like the changes, and so, good plan, and we like the plan. Last week I got notification that and it had been brought to my attention and I won't go into all the details and all the discussions that we might need to go back to the Chesapeake Bay Board. And my response was and I was pretty much conf'u'med by one of the members of the staff who handles the Bay Boards that if I don't move any houses any closer to the preservation area then what we already have. I eliminate two tots, you know, two houses and not encroaching any further into the preservation area, what reason would I need to go back to the Bay Board? And that's exactly what we've done. We have two less homes. We have no additional intrusion into any of the preservation areas at all with this plan. And when you look at the conditions and I'm going to bring a couple of them to your attention, if you look at condition number 3 on page 7 of what the Bay Board recommended, it says a minimum of 25 percent of the remaining impervious area on each lot shall incorporate mulch planting beds and be so noted on each site plan. Bayscape landscaping principals are encouraged. Well, 25 percent of 30,000 square feet is more than 25 percent of 24,000 square feet. So, that' s just additional canopy cover, additional Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 3 bayscape landscaping, which is preferable from the Bay Act perspective than lawn area. Condition number 12, says the existing tree canopy along the project's western boundary shall remain in tact to the greatest extent practicable. And it talks about Lots 1, 3 & 6. The previous plan, there was a lot here in the comer that turned on Wishart Road has been eliminated. That lot would have involved some, you know, diminishing of this canopy area that there talking about preserving. That lot is now gone. Thus, condition number 12 can far more easily be complied in fact; there will be less disturbance, undoubtedly, of the canopy area along the western boundary. These other lots along here are essentially the same, just a little bit larger there on the comer. And I've discussed with Mr. Scarper, who is the planner who handles the Bay Board, you know, the senior planner for the Bay Board and he has acknowledged that this is in fact tree. The only issue because all of the restoration, everything that was agreed to with the Bay Board is all being done with this plan. The only change that involves the Bay Board is condition number 1, which says the lot shall be a maximum of 24,000 square feet. And I would suggest to this body and anybody else listening, that is this body's purview and not the Bay Board's purview. ~The size of lots is not, you know, not what. the Bay Board is there to deal with. The Bay Board is there to deal with water quality and enhancing water quality and making sure that we don't degrade water quality. And I have no doubt as, again, the Planning folks who are work in that area have confidence and told me that the Bay Board is not going to have any problem with this because what we have done that's injurious to the quality of water of the Chesapeake Bay? Nothing. What have we done that's beneficial with this change? We eliminated two houses. That's more impervious surface that's gone away. So, I can't envision any scenario where by the Bay Board is going to have a problem with this and unlike where we appeared before the Bay Board previous when the neighborhood was there in opposition, I don't believe the neighborhood will be there in opposition this time. So, again, I don't know where the change of heart will conceivably come from the Bay Board that will have a problem with this. We wilt be going to the Bay Board for their review of this plan prior to this plan going to City Council. And recognizing to not move this forward, but again, involves a situation that would cost us going into August rather than July. And given the fact that my client has throughout this process worked extremely diligently with the staff at all levels and with the neighborhood when asked to do. And we did it on our own for that matter. But we have just bent over backwards and try to make this a win-win for everybody. And to suggest that we can't move forward with this without going back to the Bay Board when if you had analyzed all of the conditions and analyzed the plan that's submitted, it's impossible to come up with a conclusion that we're anything that would be less beneficial to the water quality standpoint with this plan. And that being said, there are some additional conditions. There are six of them and I provided them to staff, which we would like to have added. This is based on discussions with the subcommittee of the civic league. And it's also my understanding that the civic league took a vote and you'll hear from some other people on this new plan and they're not opposed to this plan. But those conditions deal with Lots 17 & 20, which are on N. Witchduck. Ronald Ripley: Which two lots are they? Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 4 Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. Without having... Ronald Ripley: We can never read the numbers on our plans because they're so reduced. Can you read them? Eddie Bourdon: I'm going to have to get a bigger plan. Excuse me. There's a lot on the corner of the court here and here. Alright, where the front of the lot is actually technically on the court on the side along N. Witchduck Road that we would have 50 foot minimum side yard setbacks from N. Witchduck Road, 50 foot is the front yard setback normally that we're including along N. Witchduck even these two lots are technically the side lots. The home on Lot #16, which is this corner lot, will be oriented as is shown here. And what we're really saying is we're not going to have this house on here face N. Witchduck Road. We're going to have it, you know, it may not be actually that location but it will be oriented towards the apex or the comer there as opposed to having it face one road or the other it will be that area. Number 2, and staff, has a copy of this as does the civic league represented these conditions we discussed. Number two, there will no uncovered decks on the fronts or sides of the homes in the development. Again, so that a long N. Witchduck Road or Wishart Road you will not have any, you know, decks on the side that were uncovered. Third thing, we're putting sidewalks obviously, all around the frontage on Wishart and N. Witchduck and that we will also have stamped concrete in the roads to connect on either side. Where the sidewalk would end at the cul-de-sac there, we'll stamp concrete going across the sidewalk on the opposite side and here with our court. The same thing, so will give it a, you know, a first class appearance. Your sidewalk stops and then as it crosses the street that are there, we'll have stamped concrete to the sidewalk on the other side. The trees along the perimeter, that's not the part that the Bay folks have any concerns with. Those trees along N. Witchduck Road and Wishart Road and along the proposed cul-de-sac of Wishart Road, the trees used, the street trees will be either Kwanzan Cherry or an appropriate Holly tree. And this represents a modification to condition number one and your recommendation where they suggested the larger tree. These are, again, this is what the representatives of the community asked us to do and my client has agreed to do these. These are not conditions that we're coming and asking for but we don't have any problem with those at, all. The fifth condition and all the homes to be constructed will be done with brick exterior building material on the front, sides and the rear. And with the exception of Lot 6 & 7, which are the point lot, all the way around the point, and here, this Lot 7, this Lot 6, all the other homes will have side loading garages, which is depicted on the plan. With that, I would ask the Commission to, as you were told in the informal, the planning staff would be recommending approval of this application but for that issue of policy, with the Bay Board. But I think we have worked in total spirit with the policy by having gone to the Bay Board after having worked with the staff and this plan doesn't represent any change in what the Bay Board approved other than the lots are larger. And there are two fewer of them. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, do you have this typed up. There are about seven different. Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: Yes. The staff has those. Ronald Ripley: Do we get them? How do we do that? Stephen White: You need to talk to the neighborhood. They've got the copies. Eddie Bourdon: Yeah, they have a bunch of copies. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Stephen White: They'll pass them out to you. Eddie Bourdon: They have a bunch of copies. They're going pass them out to you. Five and six are not on their copies. That's dealing with the all brick and the side loading garages, but they have copies for everyone. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Charlie? Charles Salle': Do you know what the reasoning behind the condition that said that those lots should be a maximum of 24,000 square feet? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. The thought process from the Bay Board Planning staff perspective was and is that if the area is public open space as opposed as being a part of someone's individual lot, there's less likelihood that the vegetation that is to be planted and is to remain will be cut down. So, in other words, all the vegetation is going to go in but now within the lots, in some cases being, you know, platted larger, there will be preservation easements over that vegetation. The Bay Act prohibits your cutting it down anyway because that's in the law. So, and Rick and I had this conversation, it's just a question, you know, are we less likely to have someone go in and cut down trees if they're not supposed to if it belongs to the Home Owners' Association than if it belongs to themselves. It's like how many, you know, now many gnats are on a pinhead? I mean, the distinction is pretty hard. To suggest that at least from my perspective, a big deal and that's what the Bay Board and the Bay staff are going to say as well. I mean, we're doing everything the same way. It's that some of it will be on a private lot rather than on a public open space that is owned the Home Owners' Association. Charlie Salle': But the residents of the area want the lots... Eddie Bourdon: Larger. Charlie Salle': Larger. Eddie Bourdon: That's absolutely right. The community asked us to make the lots larger. We've done that and we've maintained all of the same, you know, the requirements of the Bay Board staff and the Bay Board in terms of the - a lot of this is open farm land as being - with planting trees and restoring the canopy cover. And that's Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 6 going to happen, you know, no change whatsoever. I can't, you know, I just can't. I do a lot of Bay Board work and I did this with the Bay Board. I can't come up with any rationale that anyone could ever put forth that this is somehow a negative change from the perspective of what the Bay Board is there to protect and that's the quality of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. We're doing everything the same way, it's just with two fewer lots and some of the landscaping. There will be more landscaping and some of the landscaping that would have before been on public open space owned by the Home Owners' Association, will now be owned by the individual home owner. But the houses are the same size. The houses are in the same location in the preservation area and there are no more in the preserVation area and there are two less of them in the Resource Management Area. Ronald Ripley: The restriction for staying out of the RPA will be on the site plan but will it be on the deed. Do you think? The platted lot? Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: The restriction - the RPA is there so you don't disturb anything in there. Eddie Bourdon: Of course, the subdivision plot there, you know, there's information on there about where the RPA' s boundaries are and you got specific, under your Bay Act approvals, you know, where your house can be built and that isn't changing with this plan. Ronald Ripley: It will be on the plat though? Eddie Bourdon: My guess. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Do you have anybody to speak... Eddie Bourdon: Yeah, there are people here. Dorothy Wood: June Myers. Ronald Ripley: In favor of this application? Any other? Eddie Bourdon: I think the folks will just speak. Dorothy Wood: The first one is June Myers. June Myers: I'm coming up. I did not check support and I did not check oppose. I'm mostly support but I had a recommendation. Ronald Ripley: Yes, ma'am. Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 7 June Myers: For the record, I'm June Myers. And Mr. Bourdon referred to the plan that you have not seen but it was presented to the civic league and to the Bay Board. And on your sheet of paper, the plan is on the bottom and the top is the compromise. You also have a copy of a letter designating me as the official spokesperson for the Witchduck Civic League. And by the way, it's Witchduck Civic League, not Witchduck Point Civic League. I'm chairman of a five-man committee of the civic league. I want to thank Mr. Charles Plimpton who is the author of the proposed compromise. The compromise is the top half of the page that has the map on the bottom. Mr. Plimpton, Ms. Downs and I, met with Mr. Bourdon on April 15th to present the list of our request, which are at the top of the handout. Items 1 --4 were new. Item 5-6 was part of the development presentation to the league on February 12th. We said at that time that we would endorse the plan if it incorporated all of those items. All of us want to thank Mr. Bourdon for meeting with us more than once, and Mr. Olson for preparing an improved application. We know that was time and money. The plan you see today was shown to 40 members of the league m.eeting, which was held June 6th, which was last Thursday. The improvements over the original were praised. And you can see, since you have the original, that the new plan, which I call Plan 2, is an improvement. It was noted that only two lots have been eliminated. If you look at the top of your list, you'll see that we have asked for three lots to be eliminated. I asked the members to continue to trust the committee's efforts for a compromise and their President, Mr. Bob Zabot asked, vote "Aye" if you prefer the second plan. It was a voice vote. It was very loud. No one counted it but I think you could say that everybody said "Aye." He did not ask who wanted Plan 1. Remember, Plan 1 was the plan that we had opposed. So, we did not expect anybody would vote for Plan 1 instead of Plan 2. Mr. Zabot directed the committee to continue to monitor the proposal. So, it is true. We prefer the second plan, which is today's application. It only requires the elimination of one lot for us to endorse it as we had promised we would do April 15th. Once settled, it would be the likely choice to eliminate the houses in the lower 50-foot buffer, entirely in that buffer. Also, Lot 7 does not permit any end loading garage, which makes it inconsistent with the other lots and our proposed compromise. We would like the items of our compromise list included in the Conditional Use Permit and I think item 2, as you see at the top of the page, used to say eliminating certain lot by number. I think it was one 19 & 21. Well, that should read three lots because when they drew a new plan, the numbers changed. We also have a second list is specifications we wanted included in the Use Permit and I'm going to give you those now. Mr. Bourdon came to me earlier and instead of having two things included in the specifications, he's added to this list getting now number 5 & 6. And number 5 reads, so, you're going to have to write them or just listen to it I guess. The all homes shall be constructed with brick as exterior buildings material on the front sides and rear. And that was what was promised to the civic league at the first meeting. And then number 6, it says except for homes on Lot 6 & 7, all homes shall have side-loading garages. He had pointed out, to us that you can't have a side-loading garage on those two lots, because one of them is at the cul-de-sac and then one of them is the one that's actually in the buffer. So, I think it would be up this to Board to decide about that. If the lot is eliminated that would take care of the problem of the driveway on Lot 7. If you adopt this plan that's presented to you, then you don't have that problem anyway. I thank you for listening to us. And, I do Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 8 want to say again it is a very good plan. you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Robert Vakos: Ms. Myers. Mr. Bourdon made a fine presentation. Thank Ronald Ripley: Ms. Myers can you step back up? Robert Vakos: I'm sorry. I got a question. I'm looking at that up there and I'm looking at what you gave me. There's a difference of one lot. You probably covered all this but, is this the plan that you all... June Myers: That was the original plan. Robert Vakos: Okay, so this - you're all in favor of that one fight there. June Myers: At the civic league meeting it is a way of talking about the plan. This plan was presented to the civic league on June 6th. This one -- the one that I'm pointing to, and because they had not been to all the meetings and weren't informed. I would say this is what it was Plan 1, deal with what you have. We had this drawling and these are the improvements that have been made to Plan 2. Robert Vakos: And this is the one that everybody likes? That one? June Myers: Yes. And the vote was, you know, do they prefer Plan 2. Of course they did. Robert Vakos: Okay. June Myers: Because remember Plan 1 was what they had opposed in the beginning. Robert Vakos: Okay. Because this is substantially different, I mean as far as the cul-de- sac and one less lot and all that stuff. June Myers: Yes. It has loosened up for houses on Witchduck Road. It has eliminated the driveways on Witchduck Road. Robert Vakos: Right. June Myers: The only thing that is remaining that is fight is the right hand side of the new road, with the houses awfully close together. Originally, there were 23 houses now they're 21, so you see only two houses have been eliminated. Robert Vakos: Okay. Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 9 Ronald Ripley: Can you identify what lot? You said eliminate Lot 7? Is that what you said, because I can't tell. June Myers: I'm sorry. It is this one. The one at the top is the old Hofheimer house so it's the one just before that. I did point to the wrong one. Ronald Ripley: Are you referring to? June Myers: No, the numbers on what you have from the original plan won't match. Ronald Ripley: That's why I was confused. June Myers: It is confusing. Ronald Ripley: That is why I asked you to point that out. Number 7 is where you located. It has been renumbered on the new plan. Is that correct? June Myers: The house closest to the Hofheimer house is the one that would be the most in the buffer. And I think on the new plan it is seven. Ronald Ripley: Is eliminating that particular lot because it is in the buffer or you think it should be one less lot in the development. June Myers: Both. Ronald Ripley: Both. June Myers: Both. Ronald Ripley: Okay. June Myers: To not repeat all of the previous hearings but it is our R-40 on three sides. We think one less house makes it more compatible. We did ask for three less lots and we have two less lots. We're not opposed because this is vastly improved. I'm just making a request for one less lot. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Next speaker. Dorothy Wood: Next speaker is Dr. George Brennan. George Brennan: Thank you. I come as a member of the local civic league. I'm George Brennan. I live in the Saw Pen area. At our civic meeting that was held in early June, this particular plan was the one that was approved. I think it's a good one. And everybody in the meeting certainly felt the same way. I think what June has mentioned in terms of trying to eliminate Lot 7, would be a good one, if this could be part of the plan. Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 10 But this was not what we voted on at the meeting. I just want the Council here and the Committee to be understanding on this particular issue. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. George Brennan: I think that the changes that have been made are excellent and it's an excellent plan. I think we're all in favor of it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions of Dr. Brennan? George Brennan: Oh, I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Next? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Chuck Plimpton. Chuck Plimpton: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I should tell you to start out with, that I am a member of the committee that was formed to review this development. I do live in the Saw Pen Point. And I wish to speak in support of the developments as presented this afternoon by Mr. Bourdon and BECO Construction. I had the pleasure as I said a moment ago, serving on the committee appointed by the civic league to review the development. I wish to conf'm-n and inform you that the developer has incorporated all of the committee recommendations and the proposed layout of this development. Until this afternoon, I was not aware that Mr. Myers planned on eliminating this lot, whatever number it is. I beg out of that one if you don't mind. At the civic league meeting on June 6th, those members of the civic league in attendance voted unanimously to approve the developer's proposed layout as presented here today. It did not include the elimination of any lots. The number of lots that were approved by the civic league was 21, as presented, on this layout. Mr. Bourdon has represented his client well. And Mr. Olson of BECO Construction has cooperated in achieving what we feel will be a welcomed addition to our community. I want to emphasize once more that there were no dissenters at the civic league meeting. Period. End. I have nothing more to say. Ronald Ripley: Did anybody have any questions of Mr. Plimpton? John Baum: He didn't leave much to argue with. Ronald Ripley: Very clear on what you said. Chuck Plimpton: Well, it speaks for itself. You gentlemen and ladies take it for whatever it's worth. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Chuck Plimpton: Thank you very much. Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 11 Ronald Ripley: Thank you for coming down. June Myers: I'm sorry to interrupt. This is a copy of what they presented to Mr. Bourdon on April 15th. You have it at the top of your page. Mr. Plimpton just said that they incorporated everything we asked. They did not. We asked for the elimination of three lots. I just want to make that clear. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mr. Bourdon, do you wish to rebut? Eddie Bourdon: Well, I don't know if there's anything to rebut. I've been dealing with folks in civic leagues throughout the City for a long, long time. Good relations with and try to with everybody. And I frankly thought from everything that had been done and everything that had been said to me, and having discussions with Mr. Myers. I'm speechless in terms of what she's just tried to play today. I can't believe what I just heard. You know, there was no discussion when I met with her and the committee early on when they f'n'st presented this list. It doesn't say we want you to have 20 lots. It doesn't say that at all. And they didn't say that. They said we don't like the way these lots are laid out, one 19 & 21 in their location. And because two of them are flag lots, and one of them was on Wishart Road. We don't like those two flag lots and we don't like the lot on Wishart Road. We don't want those lots. Those lots were eliminated. They didn't say we want 20 lots. And, when we came back with this plan it was very well received by all 5 members of the committee, who came to my office to review that plan. No one indicated anything about us not having done what we were supposed to do or have been asked to do. And I was asked, do you want me to come to the civic league meeting because we'll take care of presenting to the civic league. After the civic league meeting, I heard from more than one person. And the civic league meeting had about one third the number of people that was at the first meeting. That everything was wonderful. We adopted your plan. And Mrs. Myers told me that they didn't have any objection to the plan and for her to come up her today and suggest to this body that we failed to eliminate a third lot. That was never what was indicated to us. I'm astounded. That's all that I can say, is I'm astounded. You know, we have done everything that we were asked to do and I think that is what Mr. Plimpton was saying to you to folks today. I'm speechless at that little chicanery. But, you know, we've bent over backWards. It is a better plan. I think it's a nicer plan. But, I'm just flabbergasted as what was suggested here that I've not heard before. I would hope that this body would recommend approval of this plan and send it on. It's a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion to the City Council. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Did you want to ask a question? Robert Vakos: I got a question of Mr. Bourdon. June Myers: I'd like to answer the charges to chicanery. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Myers? Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 12 June Myers: Mr. Bourdon called me the day after the civic league meeting... Ronald Ripley: Ms. Myers? June Myers: To see how it went. It is June Myers for the record. Ronald Ripley: Right. But. But. June Myers: And I reminded him of the four things at the top. And I said I asked to eliminate three and he said, "It doesn't say that." Then he found his paper and said yes it does. So, it's not chicanery. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Ms. Myers. Okay. Robert Vakos: I got a question for Mr. Bourdon. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Robert Vakos: Its just comment. Sometimes, some things are best left unsaid, but leave it at that. Getting back to Chesapeake Bay Board. The one problem that I have with this application is that staff clearly recommends that we go through a procedural step that this Commission has always followed to my knowledge, is that the Bay Board reviews and application for the governing regulations that they're to consider and then it gets sent to us to look at the land use application. And I understand your point about the Bay Board is really not, it's not their purview to consider lot size. However, they are going to have to come and look at this application based on what you told us June 24th. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: The application with this plan is going to the Bay Board on June 24~h to ask them to change that condition minimum - excuse me, maximum 24,000 square feet to a maximum of 30,000 square feet. Robert Vakos: Right. But they'll also look at the number of houses and any other variables that may go with that. You know, I almost wish you could do that and then come to us but you say you're under the same time constraints as you were before. Eddie Bourdon: Bobby, can I add something to maybe flush out what you're suggesting. The policy is there for a good reason. And we followed the policy. We went to the Bay Board. We met with the staff, planning staff to review all the issues so we would deal with those issue first and we did just that. And got the support of the Planning Department staff for that plan. Okay. Robert Vakos: Well, it's not the same thing as a termination. Eddie Bourdon: I disagree. It is that same thing. It's exactly what the policy is there to do, And, then when the same staff, different section says wait a minute, in essence, Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 13 we've changed our m/nd. We're looking at it from our viewpoint and we want you to change something, and you then talk to Bay Board staff and the Bay Board staff says, as long as you don't do anything that's any different than what you've done already, we're nothing going to make you come back to the Bay Board. Well, we did just that. We couldn't avoid the size of the lot. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. And frankly, it shouldn't have been a condition of the Bay Board. That's not their purview. That's my point. But it's to suggest that there's anything in this plan that is in any way shape or form detrimental to water quality, this will be the plan they already approved. You can't find it. It doesn't exist. Robert Vakos: But that's not your determination and that's not mine. That's the action of the Bay Board. And that fact that you are required to go back to them, it must be a point of discussion. And I'm not saying there is, but the fact of the mater is, between now and Council, you're going back to the Bay Board and they may change this thing. Not that they would and you' ve had assurance that they're not, but they could. And it's the same logic I used on an earlier application I'm trouble by doing that, because to my knowledge, we' ve never done that before. This Commission has never approved something without it going to the Bay Board first. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not the man with a case where we've been to the Bay Board, had approval then come to the Planning Commission and have staff in between say, oops, we can't recommend approval of that plan. Robert Vakos: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We got some discussion here. Yes, Betsy. Betsy Atkinson: I was ready to make a motion. Ronald Ripley: Before you make a motion, as I see it, there are three issues here. One Bob just discussed. And that was the Bay Board and the sequence'of the plan. The other were these additional conditions. And I wanted to ask a question about the additional conditions. Mr. Scott, have you all looked at these? Robert Scott: Yes. We're looking that them as we speak. I think that the staff could probably live those conditions. But they're enforceable enough. Ronald Ripley: There are like six conditions? Three typed up and then two extras added? And then, of course the third was the plan itself. And I guess, does anybody wish to discuss the merits of this plan or whether they agree with it, or disagree with it? Any comments? Charlie Salle': I have a question. Mr. Scott, have we ever had situations where the Planning Commission has approved an applicant and then through subsequent redesign, Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 14 it's going back to the Bay Board without having to come back to the Planning Commission? Robert Scott: I'm not sure. There is a real issue here though. We do need to talk about it. I think we all need to be respectful, first of all to the rules of other Commissions. I can tell you are. They've got some tough decisions to make that are related to many of the same things you are. You're charge spells out to you in State law that you are responsible for looking after the environmental health of the City. And you do that. I think that there's enough of a relationship between lot size and water quality. I really would not want to tell the Bay Board that lot size is not their concern. I think, as long as they deal sensitively with that issue, I think it's something that I wouldn't advise the Bay Board as legitimately enough to deal with. I think it's very critical that the Bay Board hear this matter before the Council does. The matter reaches the doorstep of the City Council in my opinion all things are to be settled. The root of this problem is that this was a difficult piece of property to work with. I think the original request was for a number of more lots than what you see here today. And by working with the neighbors out there and the civic league, they came down. We really don't want to put an applicant in the position where one Board is telling them they have to do something and another Board is saying they can't do that. And they go back and forth like a yo-yo between the two Boards. You had one application on your agenda earlier today where you had a City easement going through a piece of property. We recommended approval before the staff and the Planning Commission. One might take the position, well you ought to have that all cleared up before it comes through our end. I think we all have to use some good judgment here and settle our differences accordingly. I think that a lot of it has to do with the magnitude of the issues. And quite frankly, at this point, serving the staff to both the Chesapeake Bay Board and the Planning Commission, my judgment at this point is that the Bay Board will probably have an easier time dealing with their issues then you will have dealing with your issues. And accordingly, even though we recommended in writing in here, in our report that it ought to go to the Bay Board, technically, that's probably right. And if that's the way the Council or Planning Commission feels about thinking about it, then I think it's your right to take that position. But, I would not be, as an advisor to both of the Boards, I would not be that disturbed if you decided to approve this subject to the Bay Board and hearing it later. So long as it is all taken care of before it goes to Council. And I think at this point, although I'm going to look forward to giving some more thought to the matter, I think the deciding factor is relative magnitude of the issues that lay before the two Boards. Yours, in my opinion, are tougher at this point. Ronald Ripley: Any more questions? I think that I had the benefit of seeing this plan early on. And the neighborhood asked to meet with me and I met with them and looked at it. And I do also agree that the plan we have in front of us today is a mUch, much better plan. And I think that the process worked very well. I think Ms. Myers and the civic league worked with the developer and they developed a really beautiful addition to the neighborhood. I used to live this neighborhood. I don't live very far. I live about two neighborhoods away from it now and this is a real nice use for that property. It's been sitting there a long time and it's been a beautiful piece of property. Horses have Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 15 been there and it's something you hate to see go. But, if it's got to go, this is a pretty good use for it. I agree with Mr. Scott. Since it's been to the Bay Board and I'm not sure the public is going to be served by delaying the developer an,d making him come back here after it goes back to the Bay Board, given the fact that it s been a reduction in units and a reduction in impervious surfaces here, so I think that the matter ought to be forwarded on. I think the plan is a good plan. I think it ought to go subject to - it should have received its approv.al., or disapproval from ~,e_ Bay Board prior to being forwarded to City Council. I think that s very practical. So, it s a practical thing to do. So, Betsy, are you ready to make a motion? Betsy Atkinson: Yes. I'm ready to make a motion. And I'd like to ditto what you said that have already been to the Bay Board. They already had gone through the phases and I think these will be minor adjustments that the Bay Board will make. And plus, we're under the restraint of the Council going into recess for July and maybe if that weren't part of it, it wouldn't be much of an issue. I'd like to make a motion to approve the application subject to the three conditions on page 9 of our agenda. And, also the additional six conditions that the Witchduck Civic League has proposed that have already been numerated in the minutes prior to this. I'm not going to read them all but I think they should be forwarded on to Council. Charlie Salle': I'll second that motion. And I will say also that I feel that this is a situation where, although I agree strongly with the policy that these matters should go before the Bay Board before they come to here. I think this application has been before the Bay Board and was thoroughly aired, debated and studied and I think that the neighborhood had its chance to comment. I think what's going to happen is a technical adjustment at the next Bay Board meeting and not a substitute issue so, I feel comfortable in the sense of going ahead with our recommendation prior to the next meeting of the Bay Board. Ronald Ripley: Bob? Robert Vakos: To the purpose of consistency, on my part, I will without a lot elaboration, I will be voting against the application for the reasons I said earlier. Ronald Ripley: John Baum? John Baum: Charlie said it better than I can. But, I was trained with conservationist. I know the problems they have to put up with the Chesapeake Bay Board, minimizing erosion, preventing pollution or minimizing the waterways and so forth. And the changes that have been made here were more conservative then what they already approved so, I just don't see any problem. I think it is more technical than substance. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Any other comments? Yes, Kay? Item #22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 16 Kay Wilson: Chairman, the proposed condition #4 and staff condition #1, are kind of in conflict, if we can merge those two? We've got trees of different sizes here and we need to determine which one we really want to go with. Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Wilson is accurate. I could have been a little more forceful and brought that up. The condition that's added, the community has suggested or members have suggested specific trees versus what the staff. It's a lengthy list. As I understand it, the Kwanzan Cherry is on a City list. It's on a medium tree or small tree list. And apparently, there are no hollies on the City list, because Mrs. Downs has gone through the list. So, she's one of the members of the committee. My client is very happy to put the trees that they asked us to put in, which is the condition you have there versus the City's condition. It's not a knock on the City's condition, my client will be glad to do the City's condition, but the City's condition gives him the choice. They want the choice. Robert Vakos: May be do both? Ronald Ripley: I remember... Betsy Atkinson: And I would amend my motion to... Robert Vakos: Which one? Betsy Atkinson: I want to go with the civic league this time. I want to recommend that the trees along Wishart Road be the ones recommended in item #4, the civic leagues list, the Kwanzan Cherry and appropriate Holly trees, in lieu of whatever suggested by one of the City. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Do we have a second? This is the end of discussion? So, we have a motion on the floor and seconded by Charlie. I notice in the -- I overlooked this, but the caliber size tree that the City was requiring was larger than what the Bay Board had required? Am I correct? Didn't they call for a'one-inch? And you all went to a 2-21/2 inch or something? Does that matter? Eddie Bourdon: No. The Bay Board's dealing with trees in the back of the lots. These are trees on the street, which the Bay Board doesn't have anything to do with. Ronald Ripley: Okay. And the caliber of the tree? Can you buy this type of tree with this size caliber? Eddie Bourdon: Are you talking about the Bay Board stuff? Ronald Ripley: No, no. I'm talking about the Kwanzan Cherry. I'm not familiar with that. Item 4/22-23 Beco Properties, Inc. Page 17 Eddie Bourdon: No. No. No, that's why the condition that the civic league has suggested the Kwanzan Cherry is not. I don't know if you can get one at the caliber of the large caliber that's in condition #1. That's the problem. That's the real issue with that condition is. We're very happy to do what is asked. But the caliber of the Kwanzan Cherry is not. I don't think it's going to meet the large tree requirements. The Holly probably can. But, there are no Holly trees on the City's list and that's the issue. Ronald Ripley: Stephen, do you wish to address this? Stephen White: We understand the intent of what the civic league wants and we will rewrite the condition to make sure that it meets that intent. Robert Vakos: Along with site plan approval. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Alright. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? Alright, are you ready for the question? AYE 8 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS WOOD AYE NAY ABSENT ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote 8-1, Mr. Bob Miller left early for the record, he was not here for this application, the motion carries. William Din: I believe he abstained. Eddie Bourdon: He had conflict of interest. Ronald Ripley: Yes, I know he did. John Baum: He stated that earlier. Ronald Ripley: Is there any other item to come before this Commission? Hearing none. This meeting's adjourned. ' · APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 S D S.ION VA NCE-' ¢ p DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pplicant's Name: All Current ~operty Owners: Beco Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporotio~ Witchduck Farms, a Virginia general partnership PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessa~.) the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ;dward B. Butts Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, fu'm, 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: ;tic G. Olson, President (Attach list if necessary) Burton Cutright, Vice President ;he applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all · .mbers or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Map I/3 AG- Harbour Development Cor . AG-2 AG'~ AG'2 AG'2 AG-'I Gpin 1493-58-7581 AG'I AG'2 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use P~rmit (preschool/daycare) - Granted 7-3-01 Conditional Use Permit (church/daycare) - Granted 9-9-97 2. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 5-11-99 Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural Distdct to PD-H1 District) - Granted 5-11-99 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to P-1 Preservation District) - Granted 5-11-99 Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to P-1 Preservation District) - Granted 5-11-99 3. Conditional Use Permit (communications tower)- Granted 10-13-98 Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) - Granted 7-3-89 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District) - Denied 8-27-86 4. Amendment to the Land Use Plan - Granted 9-22-93 Change of Zoning (AG-I& AG-2 Agricultural District to PD-H1 District) - Granted 8-27-86 Change of Zoning (PDH - PDH-1 District) - Granted 1-11-82 Conditional Use Permit (home occupation) - Granted 5-14-91 CiTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., Change of Zoning Distdct Classification Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion) Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: (a) CHANGE OF ZONING: An Ordinance upon Application of Harbour Development Corporation, L.LC., a Virginia limited liability company, for a Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential Distdct on certain property located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581). The proposed zoning to Conditional R-30 is for single family land use on lots no less than 30,000 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. (b) OPEN SPACE PROMOTION: An Ordinance upon Application of Hart)our Development Corporation, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, for a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion on certain property located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581). Said property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. (c) SUBDIVISION VARIANCE: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements Of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Harbour Development Corporation. Property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road (GPIN #1493-58-7581 ). Said property contains 65.1 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zoning district classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-30, a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion, and a Subdivision Vadance to reduce the required street width. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Harbour Development Corp. Page 2 The applicant proposes to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a Conditional Use Permit for R-30 Open Space Promotion that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet, although the actual size of the proposed lots ranges between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. This allows a greater percentage of the parcel to remain in "open space" for park space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating' openness within the development as one travels through it. Approximately 25 acres of land (39 percent of the total area) will be dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of the R-30 open space promotion option is 15 percent. At the request of City Council, staff developed a set of criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. The result was the establishment of a "Transition Area Matdx" that is now used to calculate the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area. Application of the matrix to the submitted plan resulted in a final "rating" that would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be entered into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of the plan scored relatively Iow. A significant issue to be considered in this Iow score, however, is the recent opinion several City Council members expressed to other rezoning applicants in the Transition Area that lots should have a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion, redesigned the proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20,000 square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a plan that scores high on almost all of the matrix items with the exception of the one calling for variation in lot sizes. Further details regarding the plan and its scoring are provided in the attached staff report. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the plan creates a high quality neighborhood that has been designed to preserve a large amount of open space, 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 as proffered and with the following conditions: (1) When development takes place upon that portion of the property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential Community of no more than 65 building lots and shall be landscaped substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, SHEET 2 OF 2", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This includes adherence to: the species of plants listed on the plan, the design of the bio-retention benches in the stormwater management ponds, and all other notes on the said c~l~n Harbour Development Corp. Page 3 Department. The final design shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: 27)Chanqe of Zonin.q District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District 28)Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion 29).Subdivision Variance to Section 4.1 (m) for street width Property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road Hoi~ No~. ~-o Scale Harbour Development Corp. G.pin 1493-58-7581 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page I GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: #1493-58-7581 7-PRINCESSANNE 65.1acres Carolyn A. K. Smith 'Fo subdivide and construct 65 single-family dwellings on the 65 acre parcel while providing approximately 25 acres of open space Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan's and City Council's plans and policies for the Transition Area. · Compatibility with the surrounding, existing uses. Impact on City's infrastructure - roads, utilities, schools. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The property is currently vacant, but has been under cultivation in the past. The 65 acre parcel is currently zoned both AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q North: South: East: · Single family dwellings / AG-2 Agricultural Distdct · Wooded, proposed single family / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District · Wooded / AG-1 Agricultural District Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 2 West: · Single family, proposed single fami.ly / AG-1 & AG- 2 Agricultural Districts, PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: With Proposed Zoning: Under the existing agricultural zoning, the 65 acre parcel could potentially be developed into four (4) single family lots or could continue to support uses allowed by right under the agricultural district. The proposal allows up to 65 units on the 65 acre parcel. The R-30 Open Space Promotion option allows for a reduction in the minimum lot size from 30,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet. The lot sizes range from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. Zonin,q History On a large parcel to the south and southwest, City Council granted a Change of Zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to PD-H2 Planned Unit Development Distdct and P-1 Preservation District in 1999 for a small lot (5,000 square feet) age-restricted community. Further to the west, in 1982, City Council also approved a request to rezone agricultural property for single-family development. Modifications to this original request were later granted and the development is known today as "Courthouse Estates." Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The proposed use is compatible with this AICUZ district. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This property is within the Southern Watersheds Management Area. Soils consist of predominately Acredale with areas of Tomotley along the northem portion of the property. The southeast corner of the site, approximately 7.5 acres, exists as woods. There are several existing wooded hedgerows on the property as the site has been segmented into numerous farm fields. The majority of the site had been under cultivation in the past and, as such, this proposal will remove approximately 60 acres of farmland from the City's inventory of agricultural property. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is a sixteen (16) inch water main in North Landing Road that fronts the northern property line. This subdivision must connect to City water. Plans and bonds for construction of the water system will be required. Sewer: There is a sixteen (16) inch sanitary sewer force main and a four (4) inch force main in North Landing Road that fronts the northem property line. This subdivision must connect to City sewer. Plans and bonds will be required for construction of the sewer system. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) ! Capital Improvement Program (CiP): This project is not impacted by any proposal found within the Master Transportation Plan. This development is included, however, in the CIP 6-039 service area and presently, construction of two (2) pump stations and associated sewer lines in the North Landing Road right-of-way are underway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 40 ADT North Landing Road 7,836 ADT ~ 9,900 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 650 ADT Average Daily Trips as defined by the existing AG-1 & AG-2 zoning with 4 houses allowed by right as defined by R-30 zoning with 65 dwelling units Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 4 ewer lmpro~erner, ts R~$ponsJble DepL: Public Utilities ~ I~uslrtess A~e;[: t~,_~!!t,I, Pl~slcal Environment Total Tote] Buaget Una Fprop.atea su~seq ,,em Years Future programm~a Appropriations Year I Ym'r 2 Year 3 Ye3r 4 Year $ Year 6 ;unaln§ I:unas To Date FY_~_~__'~O3 FY213~3-o.t I=Y 3BM-05 ~ 2~05-05 I=Y 2006-07 FY213D?-O8 Requirement :3,520.DL30 3,330,1~0 1 g0.nn~ n · . . S. . . g cl ertl wear Neck Read by 1= ettcl ~ .......... w4-.~-.~m~r~,~ [~a[g~ ~x eno -ID grav~ee~er Bna 3 and teat of 10~f~me main from the pump st~cn site rathe intemec~ of West Neck I;b3md and Nar~ Landing Read (b) Cantmct B ircluda$ the end c~nslructienafanew pstatbnfadl' onWe~tNedc . · design _ . . , . ity . Reed. (c Contract C mdudea the destn and ~onslruction of a_~,. ~raatelyG,S0afeat~g",l~ and 12 gev eewa-~ fmmth . ....... r~ . .,~n.. of C~,~.... E~=m~ [ /ma project la ~cx31dmated with/he walar utJlit.. ,i ~4~. ~..~ a ......... Gee-ge Macon Avenue. . ~roJact 11G~82 ..... ,.=,... r~.m..awr ~mlarovarnams. This project ama ha~ been identitied bythe ~ Health Department eaa ~agaryB health problem. CombiJCtJon of~Js I:~ject is naa dad tm 13'evade se~am ta reldaca failing ae~c systems~fith pact repair pc~m~al and I:revant health haz~de. area. Capacit,/in the pump ~ta~cn and gravity ~ewer .y~tara ~ill b~ included tD mazimi~A aervi~A - - ~ ~ping facilities in the area. The f~rce main aleno Wast Neck Rd ia ~o~ ~. ~ ....... ~ma? nd nl ~m~le ~ nunt:~r Q~¥1~lopmerl£. ~ ~IBB~ -- ~. ~,u= a..u~ nOW mr on-gal ng Bna lulure This project first appeared intha F'Y lgg2-g3 CIP at an asfimatad cost of $1.3aO,Q30. FY 2002-03 CIP to r~ect ezpanded ampe d~3rk and acluel bid prices. Coste~limaba~have been rm~edin~-.e Basis/orEstimate 'I:Y 2e02-O30 I=Y 2003-040 rY 2a~.oSo ~ 2a~° I~ 200~-~-/0 FY 2807-~0 . .... ' -.-_ __. ! ~%.._ :~' ~,:. % !.~:~:~,~,_, ' ~'-' ~-:": ', '~ . . ~ R-om - To A.m~nt ' '-' ~-,,,'~ ~;, k I CCriti ' 03,01-08/02 3000000 , MU~ '-,Pa~l~ T ....... ,DO.O~J'D2 :190 ODD ~ ~~:~:~,'" %:. ~ . , ~ ~'~ .,.2~ -,..~.~ - . ~,,y~ .J , F- ·-c L '% ~ ~ :,'~ , ~al Programmed Finanang ~%~"' '~ ~ '~'~,311[ j FutumFundingRaquimmenta ..... ;,~:~':~' ~:~": :; .'i.. ,; ::': "~-.:,~" ". ':' -'e, t : ,, ' 4 - 182 O.uar. gy Physical Envi~:mment Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 5 Schools School Name Current Capacity Generation Enrollment North Landing Elementary School 590 651 20 Princess Anne Middle School 1,424 1,615 11 Kellam High School 2,200 1,995 13 "generation" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - It is essential that the common area be visible by adjacent residences. A review of the covenants reveals that the height of any fencing adjacent to common areas will be limited in terms of height and building style (no stockade). This will help will visibility and safety. It is recommended that the street trees be spaced no closer than ten (10) feet from a light pole to help eliminate shadows and blockage of light. Shrubs should not be planted any closer than eight (8) feet to the proposed walking path. Adequate - no additional comments. Comprehensive Plan The Courthouse / Sandbridge Issues and Policies section of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the land uses and densities must not be a bontinuation of either the northem urban or the southern rural areas but a transition. (A transition by definition is a change, evolution, shift, alteration or modification.) The Comprehensive Plan states "this area of the City serves as a land use buffer between the clearly urbanizing area of the north and the clearly rural area of the south. Land uses and densities must not be a Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. ! # 27, 28 & 29 Page 6 continuation of either form, but a transition from one to the other" (page 72). The Plan recommends that residential development in this area adhere to the following guidelines: Create high quality neighborhoods through careful planning of land uses, transportation systems, landscape treatments and public improvements (page 72 Policy Document). Staff Comment: The goal is to create a sense of openness by maintaining a large, landscape entrance (approximately 6 acres) and a swath of open space through the interior of the site. The applicant has proposed a neighborhood that maintains scenic vistas as one travels through the development and incorporates an extensive pedestrian trail system throughout with thought to future connections as we//. Along with the well-planned pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters are proposed within the open space area. Design with nature, making a special effort to preserve and showcase significant environmental resources. Carefully integrate such natural features and use them as a basis, where possible, to enhance and define neighborhoods, recreation areas, open spaces, and views of special natural areas (page 72). Staff Comment: The amount of significant environmental features on this site was limited. A stand of trees exists in the southeast corner of the site. it was essential that this single environmental feature be incorporated into the overall design of the subdivision in terms of the number of homes in the wooded area, minimizing the size of the lots, particularly in this area of the site, and forethought on the actual location of the proposed homes within the woods so as to minimize disturbance. The design establishes a means for an expectation that adjacent parcels, should they ever develop, respect the efforts to maintain a natural buffer of value. In addition to preserving the majority of the trees within this stand, open areas are proposed in strategic locations along the roadway to establish a sense of openness as one travels through the development. Construct local roads with minimal pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. Include a well-planned pedestrian circulation system to connect neighborhoods, recreational areas and open spaces. Minimize through consolidation of the number of street accesses to arterial roadways (page 73). Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 7 Staff Comment: The proposed 50 foot right-of-way that serves as the single access to North Landing Road is a departure from the typical urban interior road design of 30 feet of pavement. The road width will be 24 feet with four (4) feet of paved shoulder on either side of the road. Beyond the pavement, adjacent to the street, streetlights and street trees are proposed. A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed beyond the trees and lights that serve as a buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A swale is then proposed within a ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement. As discussed above, a network of trails and sidewalks is proposed within the development with future potential connections with adjacent properties. Growth in this area should be viewed as a special type of development with its own standards suitable to the character of the area. The development standards should be environmentally sensitive, including narrow streets .with less pavement, rural drainage techniques and appropriate aesthetic treatments. The transition area is to be seen as a recreational mecca with residential development only if it supports the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. Residential uses without an open space element are not encouraged (page 73). Staff Comment: This development proposal consists of 25.2 acres or 39 percent of the 65.1 acres as dedicated passive open space. In addition, the applicant has proffered $750. O0 per lot for a total of $48,750.00 to be used for the purchase of open space pursuant to the City's Outdoors Plan. The cash proffer, combined with the amount of open space and the "usability" of the proposed open areas, lends support to the conclusion that this project appears to qualify as one that will advance public accessibility to open space and recreational uses with the residential component as minor. Development that takes place in the transition area should be fiscally neutral. Fiscally neutral means that development must both a) generate more in tax revenue than the public services cost to support it, and b) be of such a density that, when coupled with existing and potential development in the area, it will not generate the need for substantial infrastructure improvements. As an alternative to fiscal neutrality, cash proffers to offset negative fiscal impacts can be considered. In the absence of a finding of fiscal neutral, there should be an extraordinary public benefit to be derived from the project (page 74). Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 8 Staff Comment: While the cash proffers could aid in balancing projects that do not appear to be fiscally neutral, the proposed cash proffers in this instance are specifically designated for the purchase of open space, in light of this, upon examination of the quality of the building materials and the value and amenities within the open space and the character of the surrounding development, these houses will have a value of approximately $350,000 to $450,000 and up. In addition, access to water and sewer is available along North Landing Road; however, plans and bonds for construction of both the water and sewer systems will be required. The development will not generate the need for the City to incur any substantial expense due to infrastructure improvements. The Department of Public Utilities is currently upgrading the existing system along this portion of North Landing )Road. The entire project should be developed at a density that is the lowest of the following: 1. establishes the residential as secondary, 2. assures that the project is in keeping with the character of the transition area, and 3. generates no more traffic than the equivalent of one (1) dwelling unit per developable acre (page 74). Staff Comment: At the request of City Council, staff developed a 'set of criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. The result was the establishment of a 'Transition Area Matrix" that is now used to calculate the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area. Application of the matrix to the submitted plan resulted in a' final "rating" that would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be entei'ed into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of the plan scored relatively Iow. A significant issue, however, is the recent opinion expressed by several City Council members to other rezoning applicants in the Transition Area to have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion, redesigned the proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20, O00 square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a plan that scores high on almost all of the matrix items except the one calling for variation in lot sizes. The scored matrix is included at the end of this report. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 9 The need for widening roads should not be necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Projects of high merit and Iow density should be favored. Staff Comment: The construction of 65 homes on this property will not necessitate modification to the existing roadway. Traffic Engineering staff from the Department of Public Works have reviewed the p/an and have concluded that North Landing Road is under its capacity. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant is proposing to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an overall density of I dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a Conditional Use Permit for R-30 Open Space Promotion that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet. However, the proposed lots range in size from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. The reduction from 30,000 square feet as required under straight R-30 zoning allows a greater percentage of the 65 acre parcel to remain in "open space" for park space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating openness within the development as one moves through it. · In addition to the use permit, a rezoning application is required to change the underlying zoning from AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District to R-30 Residential District. A subdivision variance is also sought as the proposed and preferred road design is atypical of City standards for a residential street. The proposed road section depicts the use of swales for drainage and a smaller width of asphalt (24 feet rather than the required 30 feet). In addition, the sidewalk is not directly adjacent to the roadway but rather buffered from vehicular traffic with street trees and street lighting. Site Design · The concept plan depicts a single entrance into the proposed development off of North Landing Road. Masonry walls parallel to North Landing Road on each side of the entrance road ate proposed. There are approximately six (6) acres of passive open space, free from development, as one enters the site. A large entry feature is proposed within this open space area. The rendering of the entry feature depicts a predominately reddish brick outdoor pavilion with a cupola on the dark color roof and dentil molding surrounding the top. The design of the pavilion is consistent with the Planning Commission Agenda jUne 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L. LC. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page10 Princess Anne Commons Guidelines and complementary to the municipal center and the historic, rural character of the area. The central feature of this subdivision plan is a swath of open green space within the interior of the development. A majority of all of the dwelling units will face or directly back up to some form of open space - either passive recreational open space or a lake (stormwater management pond). The homeowners' association will maintain this open space. Twenty-five (25) acres of total open space is proposed with six (6) foot wide mulched pedestrian trails, park benches, and picnic shelters throughout. Included in the development is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system that internally connects the proposed neighborhood as well as future neighborhoods. Three (3) large stormwater management ponds are proposed and have been incorporated into the design of the subdivision as visual amenities. Two (2) future street connections are proposed to accommodate potential development of adjacent properties. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Vehicular circulation within the development is acceptable. Both the proffer agreement and the concept plan indicate that right and left turn lanes from North Landing Road will be constructed. The proposed streets within the development reflect the rural character of the transition area as they propose less pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. The two (2) travel lanes are twelve (12) feet in width with four (4) feet of paved shoulder on both sides of the street. Included in the development is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system that connects the dwelling units to the open space and provides future pedestrian connections to adjoining properties as well. Five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalks within the rights-of-way are depicted on both sides of the streets with the exception of two (2) cul-de-sacs. Architectural Desiqn · The Conditional Zoning Agreement states that visible' exterior surfaces of the homes, excluding roof, tdm, windows, and doom, must be no less than fifty percent (50%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 11 area excluding the garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. The application states that the anticipated value of the homes should exceed $300,000 although the applicant has stated verbally that the finished homes will ultimately sell for $350,000 to $450,000. Deed Restrictions, administered by a Property Owners' Association, will limit the height and material of fencing so that all open space areas are easily visible and safe. The Deed Restrictions also require that all outbuildings be constructed of the same material and color as the principle dwelling and shall not exceed 200 square feet in size. They also require that all front yards be sodded. Landscape and Open Space · The Conditional Zoning Agreement indicates that 25.2 acres of land (39 percent of the total area) will be dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of the typical R-30 open space promotion option is 15 percent. These landscaped parklands will feature walking trails, park benches, picnic areas, and lakes outside the residential lots and roadways. Two (2) c. overed picnic shelters (12 feet by 20 feet) with a concrete base are proposed. Each building lot will be developed with double the total canopy cover specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table." For example, a 20,000 to 29,000 square foot lot requires at least 900 square feet of tree canopy. This can be accomplished by using all small, medium or large trees or a combination thereof. Small trees, such as a dogwood or crape myrtle, are given 100 square feet of canopy cover. Medium trees, such as river birch and American holly, are given 150 square feet of canopy cover. Large trees, such as bald cypress and Ioblolly pine, are given 200 square feet of canopy cover. Small trees must be at least five (5) feet in height at the time of planting and medium to large trees must be a minimum of 1 ~ inch caliper at the time of planting. The pre-development tree canopy is 18 percent. With the proposed proffered landscaping the estimated post-development tree canopy at 10-year grow out will also be 18 percent. Proffers Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LoL. C. / # 27, 28 & 29 '":~ Page12 PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than 65 building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). Each building lot shall be developed with double (i.e. two times) the 'q'otal Canopy Cover Required" as specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table" published by the Virginia Beach Department of Planning as of the date hereof. This proffer is acceptable. This development proposes a centralized open space with additional pockets and ribbons of open space that serve buffers to adjacent uses and visual relief for both the pedestrian and motorist. The proposal is at a density of 1.0 unit per acre. Because the applicant is utilizing the R-30 open space promotion option, the lots are required to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet. The proposed lots range in size from 20,000 to 25, 000 square feet. The use of smaller lots than the typical R-30 30,000 square feet provide additional land available for open space. When the property is developed, a central park containing approximately 25.2 acres of landscaped parklands and lakes featuring passive park areas, community activity areas featuring an extensive pedestrian pathway system, park benches, covered shelters and picnic areas lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners' Association. This proffer is acceptable. The applicant has proposed a neighborhood that maintains scenic vistas as one travels through the development and incorporates an extensive pedestrian trail system throughout with thought to future connections as well. Along with the well planned pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 13 PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: are proposed within the open space area. When the property is developed, the pedestrian pathway system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. This proffer is acceptable. The plan incorporates an extensive pedestrian trail system including a six (6) foot wide mulched trail within the open space areas and a five (5) foot wide sidewalk throughout the subdivision. Future connections to adjacent properties are also depicted on the submitted plan. PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: At the entrance to the community, the Party of the First Part will construct both right and left tum lanes from North Landing Road and a brick wall, 18 inches in height parallel to North Landing Road on each side of the entrance road as depicted on the Concept Plan. The proposed rezoning will generate sufficient tuming volumes to warrant left and right tum lanes on North Landing Road. Department of Public Works standards specify the storage and bay taper must each be a minimum of 100 feet for the left and right tum lanes. The entrance location may need slight adjustment to provide for the turn lanes. This refinement will be determined during final site plan review should these requests be approved.. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners' Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all COmmon areas, including the community owned open space with pedestrian pathway system, the entrance feature and community activity area. This proffer is acceptable. Beyond defining maintenance responsibilities, the Deed Restrictions will also limit the height and materials of fencing adjacent to open space areas, restrict the building materials of accessory Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 14 PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 6 structures, limit the placement of flags and other decorative items, etc. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than fifty percent (50%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two story dwelling shall contain no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding the garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. This proffer is acceptable. The size of the proposed homes and the quality of the building materials will contribute to the high quality appearance of this subdivision. The required two (2) car garage for each dwelling will help alleviate the necessity for on-street parking on the proposed street. The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing thirty-three percent (33%) of the property to open space preservation, via the dedication of the 20.6 acres to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantor agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty and 11 / 100 Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantor in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment for each residential lot as shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page15 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The cash proffer of $750. O0 per lot equates to a total of $48,750.00 for all 65 lots. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to R-30 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. This proffer is acceptable as it reaffirms that ali provisions of the City Code must be met and that the rezoning proposal does not eliminate the applicant's responsibility to adhere to adopted rules and regulations. City Attorney's Office: The City Attomey's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request These requests are recommended for approval. The applicant proposes to develop a 65.1 acre site into 65 residential lots resulting in an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The request consists of a conditional use permit for R-30 opens space promotion that allows the square footage of the home sites to be a minimum of 18,000 square feet, although the actual size of the proposed lots ranges between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. This allows a greater percentage of the parcel to remain in "open space" for park space (passive recreation in this case) and scenic vistas with the goal of creating openness within the development as one travels through it. The Conditional Zoning Agreement indicates that 25.2 acres of land (39 percent of the total area.)will be Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page16 dedicated to passive recreational open space. The minimum open space requirement of the R-30 open space promotion option is 15 percent. During the design phase of this development during discussions with staff, the applicant recognized that it was essential that the important environmental feature (the large stand of trees) be incorporated into the overall design of the subdivision in terms of the number of homes in the wooded area, particularly in minimizing the size of the lots in this area of the site. As a result, the actual location of the proposed homes within the woods has been predetermined so as to minimize disturbance. The retention of a majority of the trees dictates an expectation that adjacent parcels, should they ever develop, respect the efforts to maintain a natural buffer of value. In addition to preserving the majority of the trees within this stand, open areas are proposed in strategic locations along the roadway to establish a sense of openness. This development attempts to create a high quality neighborhood that has been designed to preserve a large amount of open space and showcase the environmental resources on the site. Staff approached the review of this plan in the Transition Area differently than onefor a subdivision typically found in the northern part of the City. This development is a special type of project with its own development standards suitable to the atmosphere and character desired for this area. Development in the Transition Area should be associated with significant open space and recreational amenities. This development builds off of a centralized open space as well as additional pockets and "ribbons" of open space at the property's perimeter. These ribbons of open space aid in preventing an undesirable scenario, atypical of the rural character of the area, of back-to-back rear yards. A substantial amount of the parcel (39 percent) will remain as undeveloped open areas, but perhaps equally important to the amount of land reserved for open space is the actual accessibility and usability of the proposed open areas. A vast majodty of the homes will back up to or be adjacent to either open space or forested areas. This includes lots 56 through 65 that will back up to a platted ingress/egress easement to the property to the west that varies in width from approximately 35 feet to 140 feet wide. This easement will serve as a buffer to the existing uses to the west. Also included in the open space component is a well-planned pedestrian circulation system with extensive internal connections. Along with the pedestrian system, park benches and large picnic shelters are proposed within the open space area. Approximately six (6) acres will be heavily landscaped as the entrance into the community from North Landing Road as well that will also aid in maintaining the rural vistas from the road. At the request of City Council, staff developed a set of cdteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. The result was the establishment of a 'q'ransition Area Matrix" that is now used to Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C./# 27,28 & 29 Page17 calculate the potential density of a development proposal in the transition area. Application of the matrix to the submitted plan resulted in a final '~rating" that would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting 65 units. A factor that must be entered into the equation, however, is the fact that the matrix calls for variation in lot size for the purpose of clustering and gaining open space. This component of the plan scored relatively Iow. A significant issue, however, is the recent opinion several City Council members expressed to other rezoning applicants in the Transition Area to have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. This applicant, knowing that several Council members expressed that opinion, redesigned the proposed layout a number of times to increase the lot sizes to the desired 20,000 square feet while still trying to achieve the other objectives as expressed by the Transition Area Density Matrix. The result is a plan that scores high on almost all of the matrix items with the exception of the one calling for variation in lot sizes. The design of the subdivision and the amount of cash proffers set aside for acquisition of open space demonstrate the promotion of open space within this proposal. Staff concludes that the applicant's proposal meets the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area and recommends approval of these requests subject to the conditions below as part of the Open Space Promotion. Conditions When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than 65 building lots and shall be landscaped substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PLACE, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, SHEET 2 OF 2", dated May 7, 2002,'prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. This includes adherence to: the species of plants listed on the plan, the design of the bio-retention benches in the stormwater management ponds, and all other notes on the said plan. The entry feature shall be constructed substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "Entry Feature for Victoda Park," dated May 28, 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The design and building materials for the proposed picnic shelters shall be of similar style and quality of the specifications of the shelter entitled 'q'he Timberland" design, identified in the EnWood Structures catalog, a detail of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Planning Planning Commission Agenda ~.~ June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 '& 29 Page18 Department. The final design shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page19 Planning Commission Agenda '~~~ June 12,2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C./# 27,28 & 29 ~ Page 20 ..,' / Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, EEC. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 21 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 22 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 23 Z__.__~~--.~ & ~ ~"'~ACT~ SU~R~E TYPICAL SECTIDN PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY ' Proposed Shelter Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29 Page 24 Planning Commission Agenda ?-~ - June 12, 2002 HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C. / # 27, 28 & 29~!'~.-';'" Page 25 TRANSITION AREA DEVELOPMENT DENSITY CALCULATION For Harbour Development, N. Landing Road, June, 2002 The purpose of the following is to provide a means for evaluating a development that has been proposed against criteria based on the stated policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Criteria Total Comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project preserves and integrates into the overall 2.0 project the natural resource amenities on the site. Amenity Nature and degree of the 4.0 amenity Design Degree to which the 4.6 project incorporates good design into the project (A) TOTAL: 10.6 J (B) TOTAL / 11 possible points 0.96 (c) (D) TOTAL ! 11 * 0.5 = Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre = 0.48 ] .98 du/acre (E) Line D * total I developable acres (65.1 acres) = I 64 units Line A -- Line B -- Line C -- Line D -- Line E -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible 1 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the site. total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 1 of 7 The following worksheets judge the development proposal according to the proposal's consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area, particularly in regard to natural resources, amenity, and design. As appropriate, sketches, pictures and narrative are provided to clarify the concepts as a means of helping to make the determination of consiency with the criteria. (1) Natural Resources: existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and related features Total a) Are natural resources protected? Comments: · The site consists ofabandonedfarmfields, YES (0 to 1 broken up by wooded windbreaks. The point) 1.0 northeastern corner of the site possesses the only substantial stand of trees. · There are no other significant natural resources. · The stand of trees in the northeast comer is retained to the extent that the only clearing is the 'envelope' for the houses and the area for the street. · The windbreak at the front of the site, which NO (0 points) provides a nice screen that helps in preserving the rural vista, is not preserved. b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: · The wooded area in the rear corner is YES (0 to 1 retained except for building envelopes and point) 1.0 streets. · Tree windbreaks are removed. NO (0 points) TOTAL (NATURAL RESOURCES) 2.0 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 2 of 7 (2) Amenity: a feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site consistent with the goals and objectives Total of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? Comments: ~ YES (0 to 1 point) 1.0 · Yes, the amenity, in the form of the open space and trails that run through it, is both visually and operationally available to those who do not own property in the development. NO (0 points) b) Does the amenity consist of active recreational components? ,Comments: , · Yes, but only to the extent that walking and YES (0 to 1 1.0 running on trails and within the open space is point) considered 'active.' · A factor to be considered, however, is that on a parcel less than 100 acres, it is difficult to provide a significant active recreational component while still achieving the other objectives expressed in this Matrix. I NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 3 of 7 c) Are physical improvements made that improve access to the natural resources on the site OR does the amenity consist of physical improvements to the property? YES (0 to 1 Comments: I point) 1.0 · Trails · Picnic shelters : NO (0 points) d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? YES (0 to 1 'Comments: point) 1.0 · Yes NO (0 points) TOTAL (AMENITY) 4.0 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 4 of 7 (3) Design: creation or execution in an artistic or highly- skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of Total the Compressive Plan for the Transition Area. a) Are natural or manmade water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? YES (0 to1 Comments: point) 1.0 · Yes ' NO (0 points) b) is there an attempt to integrate units with amenities within the development? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · Yes, the open space and trails run around point) 1.0 clustered areas of residential lots. ! I NO (0 points) I Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 5 of 7 c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) . 1.0 · The existing vista at the front of the development created by the treed windbreak is removed and replaced by a formalized landscaped open space area. · An entry feature anchors the entrance, with the homes to be built in the development seen in the background. · The 'rural' vista is replaced by a formal, more suburban/exurban vista. NO (0 points) d) Are a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering of homes used to achieve a primarily open space development? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) 0.6 · Mixture of lot sizes is not used. · Homes are clustered into four areas, providing open space and trail opportunities. NO (0 points) Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 6 of 7 e) Does the development use distinct roadway and "hard infrastructure" that fits the image of the existing rural community? YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) 1.0 · yes I , NO (0 points) I TOTAL (DESIGN) 4.6 Transition Area Development Density Calculation Page 7 of 7 Item #27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG- 1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District; Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion; Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain Elements of the Subdivision Ordinance South side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road District 7 Princess Anne June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: We'll go to Items 27, 28 & 29. Number 27 is a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-30 Residential; number 28, is a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and number 29, is an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. This is for Harbour Development Corporation. The property is located on the north -- excuse me, on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road in the Princess Anne District and there are three conditions. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mrs. Wood. Again, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon representing the applicants Mr. Kensler, Mr. Sadler, who are here today. All the conditions -- the three conditions are'all acceptable. On behalf of my clients, we want to briefly thank Carolyn Smith, Stephen White and the Planning staff for all their work on this application. My clients have worked very closely with them and I think, as you said at the informal session this morning, this a first rate plan. It's an excellent plan not like anything else that's been done in the City. And we appreciate you recognizing that by putting it on the Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. John Baum: I wanted to ask a question. There's another parcel in between that and the Vo Tech School. Is that right? Do you know who owns that? Eddie Bourdon: There's a - John, I have an aerial of that if that would be of any use to you. John Baum: Yes. Robert Miller: John, there it is. John Baum: Well. Eddie Bourdon: Oh, there we go. We got it here to. One that's been timbered9 John Baum: Yes. ' Item #27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Page 2 Eddie Bourdon: I just asked my clients. I do not know who owns that parcel that's been timbered that's between us and at Vo Tech. John Baum: You know, you drive by frequently you see something happen and one reason why I wanted to bring that up, our crazy government -- Wetlands definition -- Wetlands by their definition. There's nothing wrong with developing it in my opinion, but it's been so erratic that I just wish people would notice some of these go up, some go down. Who knows who approves? The reporters have no interest in Freedom of Information Act. I love to read the language when they approve these and when they disapprove, so that's not your client's fault. Eddie Bourdon: I do know Mr. Baum and from my personal experience, you have forest a piece of property in this area and you timber it without taking the proper precautions and having delineation to go first, it all becomes Wetlands once you timber it. John Baum: Right. Well, if it delineated before the tree's cut it's not Wetlands. Eddie Bourdon: That's correct. John Baum: In last October, they become no longer Wetlands and you could do anything you want to and soon as you work it, it looks greasy and wet and everything else, but, that's government reasoning. Eddie Bourdon: You're absolutely correct. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott. So much time and effort has been spend developing additional guidelines, additional approaches to properties in the Transition Area that are up for development. This property seems to - it seems to meet the criteria and I think, from my opinion, that the developer and the staff have done an excellent job in putting this together. Would you like to comment on this because this is a little more sensitive area then we typically deal with here. Robert Scott: I would. I appreciate the opportunity. I can't think of an area that's been more difficult for us to deal with than in the policy areas related to the developing of the Transition Area over the last nine months or so. In fact, some people would say longer than that. But recently, we've developed with the Planning Commission's help, a matrix for evaluating these applications and we've consistently applied them to applications that have come in over the last several months now. In this case, first of all, let me say that the matrix takes into account a number of different factors. It takes into account the design of the subdivision. It takes into account the appearance from the street. Takes into account protection of natural resoumes. It takes into account the design and the layout and the relationship of open space to the development. In all of those cases, two things can be said. First of all, I do affirmatively believe that Council is comfortable with the direction we are heading from a policy point of view on every one of those issues. They expressed that through their words and through their actions. And also, I can say, that the application here rate very high no every one of those points. It does not rate Item #27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Page 3 particularly high on the issue of lot sizes and the way lot sizes are employed throughout the subdivision but I can in good faith say I have the same degree of comfort about Council's view on that point. Council has not express to us as they have with those other points a level of comfort with our approach to lot sizes. And I think the fact is something that we need to work on further and we are working on further. And we hope that we can bring to a truthful conclusion with all the parties involved. The difficulty that our staff in this is asking the developer to amend his plans to accommodate a policy we're not sure Council is comfortable with. I would really have a difficulty with that. So, I think it just needs to be noted that where as the matrix one when applied as drafted - I think 62 lots on its property. We are recommending the 66 because the short comings is in an area of doubt that we have about how solid everybody is on the policies related to lot size in that area. We felt that it was probably inappropriate to hold an applicant responsible for building or complying with the condition that evidentially lacks a level of confidence. And I just think that needs to be noted so that everybody knows where were coming from. I do have a great deal of faith generally in the approach of applying this matrix. I think it does some good. I think it provides clarity. I think it provides some points that people can see and understand and relate to easily. And I think it's something that we would like to continue to do. By enlarge, this application has matched up very well against it and my write up reflects that. But I did want to make sure that the Planning Commission knows about that one point and why we differed on that one point regarding the matrix and what our reason behind that was. If you feel that our reasoning is not sound and that we should have gone in a different direction, well you have the facts here at your disposal to do that. But I felt it was encumbered upon us to explain why we did what we did with the matrix and as it relates to this application. I appreciate the chance to explain that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dot? Eddie Bourdon: I just want to add one thing I forgot to add. My clients also met with the group out there on N. Landing Road, one of the primary members being another former Chairman Dick Cockrell. We've met with all the folks who live out in that area. I wanted to let the Commission know that as well. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon: Again, number 27, 28 & 29 is Harbour Development Corporation. A Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-30, number 28, it's a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; number 29, it's an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. This property is located on the south side of N. Landing Road, west of West Neck Road. Are there any objections to items 27, 28 & 29? If not, I would move to approve number 27, 28 & 29 with three 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. Item #27, 28 & 29 Harbour Development Corp. Page 4 AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 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 1 ABSENT Applicant's Name: Harbour DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Development Corporation, L.L.C. List All Current Property Owners: Burch Family Ltd~ partnerShip Arline M. Rosenmier~ Successor Trustee Michael J. Stafford, Sr., Trustee 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) Timothy A. Butch, Sr., General Partner Pearl S. Burch, Partner James H. Burch, Partner Nancy Mikutowicz, Partner Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list ali officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list 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 R. Kinser .Ed Sadler Preston Fussell FORM NO. P.S. l~) City of Virginia Flcach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONPENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5542 DATE: June 26, 2002 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilson~O~ DEPT: DEPT: City Attorney City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 9, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 21, 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 BY: I S¥I~[S. ]~0Ut~DON. I AtI~N & [iVY. RC. HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C., a company, BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, ARLINE M. ROSENMEIER, Successor Trustee of the Joseph Revocable Trust MICHAEL J. STAFFORD, SR., Trustee of the ROBERT E. REVOCABLE TRUST Virginia limited liability, TO {PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA Virginia H. Howlett, STAFFORD, Jr., SR. BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of THIS AGREEMENT, made this 21st day of May, 2002, by and between HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, ARLINE M. ROSENMEIER, Successor Trustee, and MICHAEL J. STAFFORD, SR., Trustee, Grantor, parties 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 parties of the second part are the owners of that certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the 'City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 65.1 acres and described in Exhibit 'A~ attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is hereinafter referred to as the 'Property'; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-30 Residential District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and GPIN: 1493-58-7581 RETURN TO: SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. PEMBROKE ONE BUILDING, THE FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 PREPARED BY: ; S¥13;S. ; AIII.71~N & L.t_"vY. WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development. of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and someHmes incompatible uses co~/]ict and that in order to pe~,-it ~it~ering uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certa/n reasonable conditions §overn/ng the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally appl/cable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezonin§ application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-30 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said ~mendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezonin§ and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its 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 governin§ body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zonin§, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors/n interest or title 'and which will not be required of the Grantor until the Property is developed: 1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is t° be developed, it shall be as a sin~e f~mily residential community of no more 2 PREPARED I ,~Y~'~. I~t)~I~I)()N. I AII~.'I,~ & LD/~. P.C than sixty-five (65) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit. entitled "REZONING EXHIBIT OF VICTORIA PARK", dated May 7, 2002, prepared by Hassell & Folkes, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach DepazC[uent of Planning ("Concept Plan"). Each building lot shall be developed with double (i.e. two times) the "Total Canopy Cover Required" as specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table" published by the Virginia Beach Depax~ent of Planning as of the date hereof. 2. When the property is developed, a central park containing approximately 25.2 acres of landscaped parklands and lakes featuring passive park areas, community activity areas featuring an extensive pedestrian pathway system, park benches, covered shelters and picnic areas lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. 3. When the property is developed, the pedestrian pathway system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. 4. At the entrance to the community the Party of the First Part will construct both right and left turn lanes from North Landing Road and a brick wall, 18 inches in height parallel to North Landing Road on each side of the entrance road as depicted on the Concept Plan. 5. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") a~ministered by a Property Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintain~g all common areas, including the community owned open space with pedestrian pathway system, the entrance feature and community activity area. 6. Ail residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than fifty percent (50%) brick, stone, stucco or simil~_r quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet 3 PREPARED BY: SYI([S. I~OUI:tDON. AtI~N & LIVY. P.¢ of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The Deed Restrictions shall require,. each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. .: 7. The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing thirty-nine percent (39%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of 25.2 acres to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantor agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantor in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. 8. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-30 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to .the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even ff the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, 4 PREPARED BY: gY[[$. ]~OUEDON. All[I~N & I.[VY. however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in thg. Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, .and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions 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 pexmits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor 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 Offic'e of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: I$¥[~. ]~OURDON. A~II~J~I & I_D~. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH to-wit: HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, L.L.C., ~ginia ]~mited liability company June The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of 2002, by Robert R. Kinser, Managing Member of Harbour Development Corporation, L.L.C., a Hm~ted liability company, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002 PREPARED BY: ~Yl([$. t~OURDON. AII[RN & lIVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: BURCH FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP Timothy .~urch, Sr., General Partner STATE OF VIRGINIA ---~c~t,f ~' C~f / COUNTY OF to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,~"~g&~day of May, 2002, by Timothy A. Burch, Sr., General Partner, of the Butch Family Ltd. Partnership, Grantor. My Commission Expires: '~-~C0mn,~i0n £,.'l:ir= ~.',=ch 31,2025 PREPARED BY: I SY[[$. t~OUt~DON. I ~JIEP~ & LEVY. P.C WITNESS the foUowing signature and seal: ,,. GRANTOR: Arline M. Rosfenmeier, S¥ccessor Trustee of the Joseph H. Howlett, Jr. Revocable Trust STATE OF ~ CITY/COUNTY OF to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2002, by Arline M. Rose, meier, Successor Trustee of the Joseph H. Revocable Trust, Grantor. day of ~ Howlett, Jr. My Commission Expires: PREPARED BY: SYELf. [IOURDON. AtlI~,N & LIVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: '.' l~liChael d. ~affo~d,-~ Trustee of the Robert E. Stafford, Sr., ReVo~:able Trust STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged 2002, by Michael J. Stafford, Sr.,/-T4-ustee Trust, Grantor. My Commission Expires: af the ta! aefore me this 3,~ ~ day of May, obert E. Stafford, Sr. Revocable PREPARED BY: SYI~[$. I~OUI~DON. AIlF-.I~N & LIWY. P.C EXHIBIT "A" All of that certain piece or parcel of land situate near Princess Anne CourthouSe in the Seaboard Magisterial District in the County of Princess Anne, Virginia, and mqre particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southern side of State Highway Route 165 known as North Landing Road, as evidenced by the dedication of a fifteen (15) foot strip of land to Princess Anne County, where saxne intersects the eastern line of the lane to the Boomer residence, as shown on the plat entitled "Survey of M. W. Flora Property, Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County, Virginia", dated December 5, 1961, made by Wilfred P. Large, Certified Land Surveyor, said plat to be recorded simultaneously with this deed; and running thence easterly along the southern side of North Landing Road, N. 70° 15' E. a distance of 419.47 feet to a point and running thence 8. 23° 19' E. a distance of 279.01 feet to a point; and running thence N. 66° 41' E. a distance of 189.39 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 01' E. a distance of 365.79 feet to a point; and rurming thence S. 32° 32' E. a distance of 733.05 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 37' E. a distance of 997.11 feet to a point; and running thence S. 32° 27' 45" E. a distance of 402.31 feet to a point; and running thence S. 49° 56' 35' W. a distance of 1144.41 feet to a point; and running thence N. 32° 24' 51' W. a distance of 1483.87 feet to a point; and running thence N. 26° 40' 06 W. a distance of 102.86 feet to a point; and running thence N. 13° 48' 31" W. a distance of 107.93 feet to a point; and running thence N. 8° 37"24" W. a distance of 553.62 feet to a point; and running thence N. 11° 59' 58" W. a distance of 909.02 feet, to the point of beginning. GPIN: 1493-58-7581 CONDREZN/HARBOUR/PROFFER7 REV.5/21102 10 Catholic Di°cese of Richmond Star Catholic' Church Street Closure- Arctic Cresc~ ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (Church / Additions) - Approved 4-12-94 Rezoning (R-5S Residential to RT-3 Resort Tourist) - Approved 6-9-92 Street Closure - Approved 3-10-92 Conditional Use Permit (Chumh / School Expansion) - Approved 5-9-95 Conditional Use Permit (School) - Approved 9-25-90 3. Conditional-.U. se Permit (Parking Lot) -Approved 8-14-01 Conditional Use Permit (50 unit Motel) -Approved 11-8-65 Rezoning (R-3 Multiple Family Residence to M-H Motel-Hotel) and Conditional Use Permit (36 unit Motel) - Approved 8-10-64 4. Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) - Approved 4-11-00 5. Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) - Approved 1-26-93 6. Conditional Use Permit (Parking Lot) - Approved 2-14-95 7. Street Closure - Approved 3-10-98 8. Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) - Approved 5-26-92 9. Street Closure - Approved 5-8-01 e CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM. TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Street Closure MEETING DATE: July 9, 2002 Background: Application of Catholic Diocese of Richmond for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Arctic Crescent beginning at the western boundary of 14th Street and running westedy to the western boundary of Lot J. Said parcel contains 5,373 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a street closure for Arctic Crescent. The chumh desires to close this right-of-way as part of their master planning for all of the properties in this area that the church owns. The closure will allow consolidation of properties the church owns on both sides of Arctic Crescent. The construction of a cul-de-sac at Arctic Crescent, 14th Street and Arctic Circle, with a curb cut at Arctic Circle, will leave the dghts of ways open for the construction and maintenance of the North Lake Holly Drainage Capital improvement Program (C.I.P.) Project, yet gives the appearance of a private ddve. The Viewers have reviewed the revised plats showing the area of proposed closure and have determined that there will be no public inconvenience from the closure of this fight-of-way. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The applicant shall dedicate certain dght of way to the City for Arctic Crescent as depicted on the Exhibits filed with the application. The net area of dght of way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right of way being dedicated to the City by the applicant will be purchased from the City. The Attachments: Ordinance Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 2 purchase pdce to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of Cites Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. The applicant is required to re-subdivide the property and vacate intemal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent at the western boundary of Lot J, and at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14t~ Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are pdvate utilities (Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas) within the right-of- way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a conditional use permit for a church for this area prior to recordation of the street closure plat. A 20-foot drainage easement is required along the northem portion of 14th Street and Arctic Crescent for the existing storm drainage pipe system. A 20-foot Public Utility easement shall be dedicated for each utility located within the proposed street closures. The existing utilities are a 6 inch water main and 24 inch gravity sanitary sewer. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ORDINANCE NO. IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN STKEET KNOWN AS ARCTIC CRESCENT AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED: PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF ARCTIC CRESCENT TO BE CLOSED & VACATED BY CITY COUNCIl. OF VIRGINIA BEACH WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the Catholic Diocese of Richmond apphed to the Council of the City ofVirgin/aBeach, Vkginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and WHEREAS, it is thejud~nent of the Council that said slzeet be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before July 8, 2003; NOW, THEREFORE, SECTION I BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Vkginia Beach, Vir~nia, that the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject tb certain conditions being met on or before July 8, 2003: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Vir~nia, designated and described as "AREA OF STREET CLOSLrR.E, AREA OF CLOSURE - 5.373 SQ. FT. / 0/123 ACRES" shown as the cross-hatched area on that certain plat entitled: '*PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF ARCTIC CRESCENT TO BE CLOSED & VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA BEACH" Scale: 1"=40', dated May 14, 2002, prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. GPIN: (Parcels adjacent to these portions of street) 2427-16-5054, 2427-16-4102, 2427-15-4865, 2427-15-5804 and 2427-15-5854 SECTION II The following conditions must be met on or before July 8, 2003: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The applicant shall dedicate certain right of way to the City for Arctic Crescent as depicted on the exhibits filed with the application. The net area of right of way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right of way being dedicated to the City by the applicant will be purchased from the City. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The Applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent at the western boundary of Lot J, and at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14th Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure. 4. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are private utilities (Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas) within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant must provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a conditional use permit for a church for this area prior to recordation of the street closure plat. 6. A 20-foot drainage easement is required along the northern portion of 14~h Street and Arctic Crescent for the existing storm drainage pipe system. 7. A 20-foot Public Utility easement shall be declie~mct SECTION III 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before Jul5 8, 2003, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 2. If all conditions are met on or before July 8, 2003, the date of final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. SECTION IV 3. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor." Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 9th day of July, 2002. CA-$394 Date June 20, 2002 C:kDocuments and Settings\bdukekLocal Settings\Temp\ca8394.ord.wpd APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning Departmem APPROVED A~S TO LEGAIr~FICIENCY: City Attorney CATHOLIC DIOCESE / # 30 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: Street Closure for a portion of Arctic Crescent ADDRESS: Arctic Crescent - Beginning at the westerly boundary of 14th Street and running westerly to the western boundary of Lot J ,Map M- 6,7 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Star Sea Catholic Church ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: PURPOSE: STAFF PLANNER: APPLICATION HISTORY: $~reet ~'losure - Arctic Cresc. 6 - BEACH 5,373 Square Feet To close a portion of Arctic Crescent and incorporate the land area into church property. Faith Christie The application was deferred on May 8, 2002 at the request of the applicant to resolve several issues associated with the proposal. Staff and the applicant have reached agreement on the portion of public right of way to be closed. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zonin,q Arctic Circle, Arctic Crescent and 14th Street are all improved rights- of-ways. The area is zoned R-5S Residential District and RT-3 Resort Tourist District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Star of the Sea Catholic Church / R-5S Residential and RT-3 Resort Tourist · Church offices and accessory uses and Lake Holly / R-5S Residential · Lake Holly and Pacific Avenue · Single family dwellings / R-5S Residential Zoninq History The church has occupied the site since the eady 1900s. There have been several conditional use permits approved for church expansions, a school, and a church / commercial parking lot. A street closure and a rezoning on the sanctuary site were approved in 1992. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a four (4) inch water main in Arctic Circle, and a six (6) inch water main in Arctic Crescent (from Arctic Circle to Pacific Avenue) There is a 24 inch gravity sanitary sewer in Arctic Crescent A 20-foot Public Utility Easement must be dedicated for each utility located within the proposed street closures. Public Works Public Works / Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Projects: 2. As an element of the above work the City has obtained a Temporary Construction Easement along Arctic Circle, costing $7,473.00, to complete the work. A copy of the easement plat is on file in the Planning Department. 3. After completion of the project the City will need permanent access to the forebay and lake bank to provide for periodic maintenance. Public Works / C.I.P. Projects advises staff that the North Lake Holly Drainage Project, CIP 7-005, cannot proceed forward or be maintained once completed without guaranteed access to the lake banks. Public Works / Operations states there is an existing storm drain system along the northem side of 14th Street and Arctic Crescent. A twenty (20) foot wide drainage easement over the existing pipe is required, unless development plans are submitted which would relocate the system. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No comments at this time. The Fire Department will review fire and safety impacts during the detailed construction plan review. Private Utilities Hampton Roads Sanitation District: There are no sanitation district utilities in the portions of Arctic Circle, Arctic Crescent, and 14th Street that will be affected. Dominion Virginia Power: Overhead electric facilities (power lines) exist within the proposed street closure areas. Dominion Virginia Power is opposed to the request. The applicant is required to resolve this issue prior to recordation of the street closure plat Virginia Natural Gas: Gas facilities exist within the proposed street closure areas. The applicant is required to resolve this issue prior to recordation of the street closure plat Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as resort area, an area planned for lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural, and other compatible uses. The general land uses identified in the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan apply to all development and redevelopment within this area of the city. Evaluation of Request Staff recommends approval of the street closure request for a portion of Arctic Crescent maintenance of the C.I.P. project. A copy of the concept plan is contained in this report. Mark Johnson of the Public Works Department conveyed the information to the church's representation on August 24, 2000. Additional meetings were held with church representatives in December 2000 regarding the proposed plans for street closures and a master plan for the church properties. Staff understood that the church was satisfied with the concept plan, would prepare a master plan for the church properties, and would make application to close the affected right-of-ways. When staff received the request currently being reviewed, staff contacted the church's representative regarding the previous discussions for the master plan of development. The church's representative informed staff that the church does not choose to pursue those plans at this time. No other information has been provided regarding the use of the area being requested for abandonment through these street closures. After the May 8th Planning Commission hearing, staff suggested to the applicant that the proposed right of way closure conceptually designed by the Department of Public Works / C.I.P. Projects Division may be a benefit to the church for several reasons. The design allows closure of Arctic Crescent alo,nthg the church owned properties. The construction of a cul-de-sac at Arctic Crescent, 14 Street and Arctic Circle, with a curb cut at Arctic Circle, leaves the rights of ways open for the construction and maintenance of the North Lake Holly Drainage Project, yet gives the appearance of a private drive. The church was agreeable to the suggestion and prepared plats that comply with the Public Works / C.I.P. Projects design. The Viewers have reviewed the revised plats showing the area of proposed closure and have determined that there will be no public inconvenience from the closure of this right of way. Conditions The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The applicant shall dedicate certain right of way to the City for Arctic Crescent as depicted on the Exhibits filed with the application. The net area of right of way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right of way being dedicated to the City by the applicant will be purchased from the City. The purchase pdce to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of thb policy are available in the Planning Department. The applicant is required to re-subdivide the property and vacate intemal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining pamels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent at the westem boundary of Lot J, and at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14th Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way DrODOSed for closure_ Pr~limin~n/ o = A 20-foot drainage easement is required along the northern portion of 14th Street and Arctic Crescent for the existing storm drainage pipe system. ao A 20-foot Public Utility easement shall be dedicated for each utility located within the proposed street closures. The existing utilities are a 6 inch water main and 24 inch gravity sanitary sewer. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. INOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of a[~[~licable Cit]/ Ordinances. :[ Item #30 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Discontinuance, closure and abandonment Parcel 1: closure of a portion of 14th Street beginning at the western Right-of-way of Pacific Avenue and running westerly to the Eastern boundary of Arctic Circle Parcel 2: closure of Arctic Circle beginning at the southern boundary Of Arctic Crescent and running in a southerly direction to its terminus Parcel 3: closure of a portion of Arctic Crescent beginning at the Western boundary of 14th Street and running westerly to the Western boundary of Lot J District 6 Beach June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #30, it's the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, which is a discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the following parcels: Parcel 1, it's a closure of a portion of 14th Street beginning at the western fight-of-way of Pacific Avenue and running westerly to the eastern boundary of Arctic Circle; Parcel 2, closure of Arctic Circle beginning at the southern boundary of Arctic Crescent and running in a southern direction to it's terminus; Parcel 3, closure of a portion of Arctic Crescent beginning at the western boundary of 14th Street and running westerly to the western boundary of Lot J. And there are eight conditions. John Richardson: Hi Ms. Wood. I'm John Richardson and I represent that applicant in this matter. The conditions are acceptable. I wanted to thank Faith Christie, but Stephen White tells me she's out sick today but she was instrumental in resolving this. She suggested this revised layout to resolve this issue between the church and the staff. So we appreciate that. We previously asked at the last meeting when the matter was deferred so we could consult with staff that you might be kind enough to permit us to expedite this matter to Council. I know Mr. Salle' pointed out that we have a number of things to meet but the church is just anxious to keep this moving forward. So, if that's possible, we'd like that but if not, we understand. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Richardson. John Richardson: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Okay, item #30 is... Robert Miller: Dot? Dorothy Wood: Yes ma' am? Kay Wilson: Vice chairman, the only parcel that is actually being closed in this application is Parcel 3. One and two are not being closed. Item #30 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 2 Dorothy Wood: Okay. Ag~n, that's parcel 3, it's a portion of Arctic Circle beginning at the western boundary of 14~' Street and running westerly to the western boundary of Lot J. John Richardson: Yeah, that's con'ect. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any objection to Item 30? Hearing none. I would move to approve number 30 with eight 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 Item #28 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Discontinuance, closure and abandonment District 6 Beach May 8, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: Next item is Item 28, Catholic Diocese of Richmond. John Richardson: Good afternoon Mr. Ripley, Members of the Commission. My name is John Richardson. I'm a local attorney. I represent the Catholic Diocese of Richmond in our application for closure of a portion of the street surrounding church property at the Oceanfront between 14th and 15th Streets and Pacific Avenue. There are two concerns as the matter comes before the Commission, as you're all well aware. They are recommended for denial by staff. Staff raises two concerns in the evaluation as I see it. The first is that Public Works recommends that the right-of-ways remain open so that North Lake Holly Drainage Project may be developed and maintained. We are most willing to include in the ordinance any easements whatsoever to the City Attorney, or staff wants to see the ordinance permitting the City complete and full access to Lake Holly. My engineer Bruce Gallup made a very good point that there are many lakes in the City that are surrounded by residential subdivisions that are not ringed by a road, by hard paved roads, the City has access. The City maintains these lakes. We're more than happy for the City to have access across the paved portion of the land to maintain the lakes. That's an issue that we hope can address in that fashion. The other issue that seemed to be raised was we were going to have traffic, which now enters the church parking lot from 15th Street to come into the church parking lot, which is in front of the church and exits onto 14th Street, that we would be blocking off that access on 14th Street so that would permit - would have to require rather, all cars to come in and go out on 15th. That is not our intent either, and we would be happy to put that in the ordinance as well. That we we'll have traffic exiting the parking lot onto 14th Street -- 15th Street is one way so traffic can exit - can't make a right turn to go back out of 15th. Staff's point is well taken, if we were going to require folks to come out there and go left, they would be flooding into the neighborhood, and that is not request, and we will be more than happy to put that in the ordinance as well, that we will not seek to have u-affic going to 15 . It will continue the same manner whmh ~t s going now, onto 14th Street. The input for this, and what is been the churches focus, and having this done is the people like to leave 17th Street and make a right and come around Arctic Avenue at about a 100 miles an hour going up to Pacific Avenue. And the church has just had enough of it. It's a safety hazard, and it's a problem for the church. And the church owns all the property around this particular compound. The land to the south of it is the convent. The rectory is a little bit to the west of that on the other side of the street, so hopefully that'll address the staff's issues. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Bruce Gallup is here who is the engineer that worked with us on the project. Ronald Ripley: Bob Vakos has a question. John Richardson: Yes sir. Robert Vakos: John, help me with a little bit of this. This is not the first time that we've talked about this. I think there was some discussion several years ago about a master plan of possibly even affecting 15th Street. Item #28 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 2 John Richardson: The church at this point in time is not yet come to grips with how the church should have a school, which will play into the church's development in the future. The school obviously is not a part of the church itself. It's a separate entity. But we don't know how we intend, at this point in time to develop the property so that the school hopefully can be on one single campus. We don't want to put one car on 15th Street because that's where children cross to go back and forth between the school-yard and the gym. Robert Vakos: Actually, closed part of time during the day too, isn't it? John Richardson: And that's in gesture, but we don't' really want to enhance traffic at all on 15th, SO at this point in time, the church hierarchy has not made that decision. Robert Vakos: So there's not a master plan? Because you also have this site with the Aloha and all of that, and I thought all of this was going to try and come in at one time. John Richardson: And it may well, but at this point in time, we're just trying to address this issue which is a plague to us every summer of having folks "Fireball Roberts" around the church property coming from Pacific to... Robert Vakos: And I've driven through there too. I don't go a 100 miles an hour but... John Richardson: One of my war pals mentioned he was opposed to this because he likes to make that short cut on his way down to here. Robert Vakos: And that was my next question. I guess it's a question for staff. Mr. Scott, have we looked at that as to how much this is used? Because, you know, with the folks who live back there, obviously they can't get to Pacific Avenue through 15th Street. They have to use 14th. Is this an issue that we've looked at from traffic engineering as to cutting this off? Robert Scott: Yes. I have to say this. I think Mr. Richardson's comments are encouraging. I think - got to believe that there is a solution to take care of the City's concerns and the church' s concerns at the same time. At this moment, I think insufficient discussion toward that end has taken place. We do have some needs to maintain use of some of that right-of-way for certain specific purposes. But it's limited and I think we need to investigate together with the church. What basis we can move forward With to see that everybody's concerns have taken play - are taken care of. We have just as much interest to keeping the "Fireball Roberts" off that street as Mr. Richardson does. Along time since I've heard that name. John Richardson: I beg myself (inaudible)... Robert Scott: But I think that's a concern that we share. We're not opposites that are viewed on that matter so, I think that if we could find a way, and I'm speaking as one of the viewers who have discussed this, if we could find a way to reserve for the City, the rights to Arctic, I think it's actually, is it Arctic Circle? John Richardson: Arctic Crescent, I think Mr. Scott. Item #28 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 3 Robert Vakos: And I see this as two issues. And, you know, one of them being Arctic Circle. And I think we all a~ee that, you know, there needs to be some sort of way that the City can go in there and service the lake on it. But I think the other issue that I'm really addressing is 14th Street or what is Arctic Crescent, I guess, which is that access point out to Pacific Avenue from that neighborhood. Is that a legitimate concern of the traffic and of the City as to, if we, you know, we grant this today we basically shut that OUt. Robert Scott: Well, I think that it is. But, you know, my view of it is, as I drive through that, it's very narrow. There's often cars parked along side. It represents a difficulty in traffic moving down. I guess it has to do with, somebody mentioned early, an overview of the area and I think all of 15th Street, as an alternative still has to be investigated, if we can accommodate southbound movement on Arctic Avenue? Picture a car at the comer of Arctic and 17th Street moving southbound. Sooner or later that car, if it wants to get back out to Pacific it's got to have a viable way to do it. I got to believe there is a viable way. We got to come to an agreement among all the parties here on how that is going to operate. So yes, there's two related but separate issues here. One is the movement of traffic in that area, and the other is the need for continued public use of Arctic Circle. My belief is that the public's interest in these matters can be accommodated within the frame work of a street closure application that benefits the church so long as certain understandings with the effected City agencies are arrived at, and as to how that all going to take place. And, perhaps another discussion or two is what's needed to bring that about but this is not any more difficult than that as I see it. Robert Vakos: Well, I think that the, and this, it's what I started with is, we have a master plan as to what this is all going to look like, and it may involve street closures that would make this thing a lot easier. And I guess I really haven't heard from him, I did a couple of years ago, from some folks who were against this closure. I really haven't heard at this go around, so I'm somewhat reluctant as to what, on how things should go. John is there any other way that you alt can prevent - I guess that is a public street, you know, there's all kinds of speed bumps and, you know, things of that nature to slow people down if that's the problem that your church is experiencing. John Richardson: That's part of it. But there's also many lot of folks in the summer time wander around in there, around the church property at night, and we don't have the right to tell them they you don't have the right to walk on a public street. We would if we able to close this. Robert Vakos: And you said you would have it open for the parking for your parishioners to leave through that so that would have to be controlled in sorer: way also. John Richardson: Yes sir. It would be. I mean, we'd add a simply private entrance, 14th Street from the church parking lot to exit out of the parking lot on 14th to leave and go north or south on Pacific Avenue which is what occurs now. Robert Vakos: Would a deferral help this at all as far as. I know it would help the whole issue of Arctic Circle, and the easements and all that, but as far as 14th Street or Arctic Crescent, would a deferral help this at all, or are we just too far away from having any kind of master plan? Item #28 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 4 Robert Scott: Well, I'm... Betsy Atkinson: Would there be a time like this wouldn't go into effect until after that's finished? Robert Scott: No, it's a permanent need that we've got. But it's not an everyday need. John Richardson: And we're willing to give a permanent easement, Ms. Atkinson. We'll give a permanent perpetual easement to the City for any purposes. We're not limited to the cleaning. City trucks are welcome. Betsy Atkinson: Right. Robert Scott: Well, I'm picking up on that. I'm saying there's need to be an agreement reached that's suitable for the church and suitable to our operating apartments that need that street. With the language that specifies exactly what the terms of the easement are or any other agreement, whether, however, it's an operating agreement or something like that and I think we need to what is necessary to come to that agreement. Betsy Atkinson: Shouldn't we have that agreement before us before we vote on this? Robert Scott: Yes, exactly. Betsy Atkinson: So, we need at least a 30-day deferral for the guys to get together and figure out what that easement would be. John Richardson: Would Planning Commission be kind enough to expedite this to Council if that occurred because it's summer time when this is such a problem. Betsy Atkinson: I would - would that be alright Mr. Richardson? John Richardson: If we were February, this wouldn't be an issue. Betsy Atkinson: Right. John Richardson: But its.., summer time is driving... Betsy Atkinson: Right. And.just as aside, I come through there all the time, but if I knew that road was closed what I would do is I wouldn't keep going on Arctic when I got to 17th Street. I'd.just take a left on 17th and go up to the light, take a right on Pacific, so I wouldn't go up 16th street and I know I can't go up 15th Street because it's one way, the wrong way, so I think people just learn to make a different decision. Knowing it's open, I'd shoot right through there. John Richardson: I will say - we would not be inclined to agree with a proposition that would involve signs saying Private Road, because people are not or, in,, to pay attention to that and it would be just another police enforcement issue. We want to be able to close the cul-de-sac. Okay, fine. Maybe, I misunderstood you. Betsy Atkinson: I understand that. I don't think we have a problem with that. I just Item #28 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 5 Dorothy Wood: They really need it or like it. Robert Scott: Well, I think before the viewers could tell you. First of all, let me recap. The job of the viewers is to report to you what public inconvenience, if any, would result of a closure. So we studied it. For us to tell you that we are without public inconvenience I think we have to conclude two things. Number one, we got to conclude that there is an adequate method of circulating the public' s traffic through that area without the need for this street. I suspect we can do that. We're going to have to look at it. Number two, were going to have to conclude that the public's operating needs as to Arctic Circle and the maintenance of the Lake Holly Dredging Project are adequately taken care of, in the long term because this is not for a couple of months, we're going to need it all the time. And I think we can do that. And once those two things are done, then I suspect that the viewers are going to come back to you and report that on the grounds of these understandings, that we've reached with the applicant, the catholic church, we're ready to report to you that no public inconvenience will result. John Richardson: And this will be in the ordinance, Ms. Wood. This will not accommodate just a handshake, it will be actually the ordinance we present to City Council. Charlie Salle': John. John Richardson: I presume. John Richardson: Yes sir. Charlie Salle': I just pointed out as you well know, in terms of getting this done before the summer you got to get the land appraised, as far as purchased from the City, and the subdivision plat incorporating all of that, so you're not likely to see this finished, in my judgment before the middle or end of summer but maybe you can explore. I mean the City can actually close streets to vehicular traffic without physically, without legally closing the street so you may want to look into that to go hand in hand... John Richardson: Yes sir.' Charlie Salle': With what's going on here. John Richardson: And we may be able to lock that up. It certainly will give us the foundation to ask that be done, and until it's permanently put in place because we have to deal with the utilities, and that's also part of it. As we develop the church properties, the utilities will be buried and those all well be taken care of. Ronald Ripley: I think Mr. Miller had a motion, which he wanted to make? Robert Miller: Make a motion that we defer this thing. Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Motion made by Bob Miller, seconded by Don Horsley. Item #28 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 6 ATKINSON BAUM CRABTREET DIN HORSLEY MILLER RIPLEY SALLE' STRANGE VAKOS WOOD Ronald Ripley: AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE By a vote of 11-0, the vote passes. matter -- this body? Anything else to come before this Heating none, this meeting's adjourned. APPLICATION STREET CLOSURE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PAGE4 OF4 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 ail members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~o[+ec V, ~olliwn 1Bi,hot, o~ q4qe ~iic bi'cv~ ~ l~i~onr_J / ~ 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 ail officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessar).,) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) S~DULE OF GPIN NOS. OWNERS OF RECORD 2427-15.6575-0000 2427-15-6646-0000 2427-15-5797-0000 2427-15-5871-0000 2427-15-5854-.0000 2427-15-5804-0000 2427-15-4865-0000 2427-15-4951-0000 2427-15-4901-0000 2427-15-3931-0000 2427-15-2967-0000 2427-16-4102-0000 2427-16-5054-0000 2427-16-6175-0000 STAR OF THE SEA CATHOLIC CHURCH CONVENT MOST REVEREND WALTEK F. SULLIVAN (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) BISHOP WALTER F. SULLIVAN (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) WALTER F. SULLIVAN (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) REV. JOHN J. RUSSELL (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) REV. JOHN J. RUSSELL (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) REV. JOHN J. RUSSELL (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) REV. JOHN J. RUSSELL (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) REV. JOHN J. RUSSELL (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) MOST REVEREND WALTER F. SULLIVAN (Star of the Sea Catholic Church) MONTAGUE STEINHART (Letter of Acknowledgment Attached) CATHOLIC BISHOP DIOCESE OF RICHMOND STAR OF THE SEA CATHOLIC CHURCH CATHOLIC BISHOP OF THE DIOCESES APPOINTMENTS DEVELOPM[ENT AUTHORITY HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOA_KD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERSONNEL BOARD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD REVIEW A_ND ALLOCATION COMMI'ITEE (COIG) SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION (TTDC) M. * ~ UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT