Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 27, 2002 AGENDACity of Virginia Beach "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL E. OBERNDORF At-Large VICE M,4YOR ROBERT C. MANDIGO, JR. Kempsvdle - District 2 District 1 Bctyside - District 4 S. McCL~V.4N, Rose Hall- District 3 MADDOX~ Beach - District 6 Princess ,4nne - District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT- At-Large V~UEVA - At-Large At-Large WOOD, Lynnhaven -Dt~trict 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City Manager LILLEY CiO, Attorney g~I41TH, MMC, City Clerk CITY HALL BUILDING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINI~ BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) FAX (757) 426-5669 E MAIL:Ctycncl~vbgov. com August 27, 2002 CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - Ao ROCK N ROLL ½ MARATHON Tim Murphy, Elite Racing Bo TOWN CENTER BLOCK 5 Lou Haddad, President - Armada Hoffier 2:00 PM C. MOSQUITO CONTROL VIDEO II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION Ao - Conference Room - CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL 3:30 PM C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION Vo FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - A. B. Co 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf INVOCATION: Reverend Robert E. Cooper Charity United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS August 13, 2002 Go MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS STATE FUNDS FOR RESTORATION OF OYSTER HABITAT The Honorable Frank W. Wagner, Senator - 7th District The Honorable John J. Welch, 111, House of Delegates - 21st District KING NEPTUNE 2002 AND HIS COURT Nancy A. Creech, Executive Director, Neptune Festival H. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. EXCESS PROPERTY - 2268 Pleasure House Road - District 4, Bayside 2. HAMPTON ROADS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENTAL STATION 3. THE BUFFINGTON HOUSE 4. JUDICIAL CENTER--LEASING - Office Space J. ORDINANCES Ordinance to declare EXCESS PROPERTY on 6,197.5 square feet extending eastwardly from Lake Bradford to Lake Joyce in the Chesapeake Beach area, formerly acquired from the City of Norfolk; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to convey this property to Danny K. Martin for future development. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute LEASES of city-owned property: Hampton Roads Agriculture Experimental Station at Diamond Springs Road to the United States of America (Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration). (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) bo The Buffington House at 2441 North landing Road to Michael Connors. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Co Judicial Center office space at 2425 Nimmo Parkway to the Virginia Beach Bar Association (VBBA). (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $46,658 grant from the Virginia Department o Emergency Medical Services to the Department of Emergency Medical Services' (EMS) FY2002-03 operating budget re the "Two-for-Life" program. Ordinance to TRANSFER $116,136 from contractual services to the FY2002-03 Department o General Services operating budget re three additional full time custodial worker positions to serve Automotive Services, Animal Control, Helicopter Shop, Mosquito Control, Pendleton Child Services, Police K-9, Police Training Gym, Pungo Police Substation and the Special Operations and SWAT Trailer. K. RESOLUTIONS Resolution requesting citizens to vote affirmatively for the November Referendum re issuance of General Obligation Bonds to fund educational improvements at the College of William and Mary, Old Dominion University, Norfolk State University, and Tidewater Community College as well as Parks and Recreational facilities. ° Resolution requesting citizens to vote affirmatively for the Hampton Roads Transportation Referendum re increasing the sales and use tax by one percent (1%) and this revenue to be used solely for transportation improvements in this area. Resolution establishing the Virginia Beach Transition Area Technical Review Committee providing for its membership and responsibilities. L PLANNING Application of MARK and LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART N. DUFFEN, AIA) for an enlargement in a nonconforming use to add square footage to the rear unit of a duplex on the east side of Beech Street, Cape Story By The Sea and Cape Henry Shores, at Admiral Drive, containing 6,900 square feet. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) ° Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of DAKOTA ASSOCIATES, LLC, for discontinuance, closure and abandonment re a portion of Joseph Place north of Mabel Lane to create a cul-de-sac, containing 3,604.68 square feet. (DISTRICT 6- BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of CHARLES T., FLOYD T. and IRVING N. DEARY for a Conditional Use Permit to add an automated car wash to the existing fuel sales at 1689 Laskin Road and First Colonial Road, containing 23,697 square feet. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVE~ Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential DuPlex to Conditional B-2 Community Business re a 7-11 on property at the east side of Salem Road, north of Lynnhaven Parkway, containing 28,677.72 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of DANNY MARTIN for a Change of Zoning DistriCt Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) at Pleasure House Road and North Greenwell Road, containing 1 acre. ( DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) DEFERRED: Recommendation: July 2, 2002 APPROVAL Mo APPOINTMENTS CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERSONNEL BOARD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE - COIG TOWING ADVISORY BOARD VIRGINIA BEACH/JAMESTOWN 2007 STEERING COMMISSION WETLANDS BOARD N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 4274305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) 08/22/02 AGENDA\08f27/02~v www.vbgov.com CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING A. Bo Co - Conference Room - ROCK N ROLL ½ MARATHON Tim Murphy, Elite Racing TOWN CENTER BLOCK 5 Lou Haddad, President - Armada Hoffier MOSQUITO CONTROL VIDEO 2:00 PM II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS 1/I. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room 3:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf 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: Reverend Robert E. Cooper Charity United Methodist Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIl, E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS August 13, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION Besolution CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3 712 of the Code o f Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public bUsiness matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS : -. STATE FUNDS FOR RESTORATION OF OYSTER HABITAT The Honorable Frank W. Wagner, Senator - 7th District The Honorable John J. Welch, Ill, House of Delegates - 21st District KING NEPTUNE 2002 AND HIS COURT Nancy A. Creech, Executive Director, Neptune Festival PUBLIC HEARINGS EXCESS PROPERTY - 2268 Pleasure House Road - District 4, Bayside HAMPTON ROADS AGRICULTURAL EXPER/MENTAL STATION THE BUFFINGTON HOUSE 4. JUDICIAL CENTER--LEASING - Office Space BEACON Sunday, August 18,'2002 oped city property, Tuesday, August 27, :2002 at 6:00 p.m., in the C. ouncil Chambers of the City Hall Building (Building #1) at the Virginia ueach Municipal Center Virginia Beach Virginia The pro err [ located at 2268 Pleasure ~lou=- D... T~--'--. ' .... P y *S · . ~ ,,,.mu..[~ purpose Ol' this lie ' ' be to obtmn pubhc inp~ to detem~in,, .,,~dk. ...... .anng w[ll declared 'Excess of the City's ........ .,,~ pmpel~ Should be needs". If you are Physically disabled or visually impaired and -need assis. tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 4.274303; He. aring impaired, call TDD only 427-4~05 (TDD - Tele- phone Device mr the Deaf). Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Offi of Re_al Estate Bui ding #2 Room 392 -o o'- ............ ;ce al ' , , ,=t u,t: wr~lnl8 ueacn M ' ' ~)~57~4elr~1Th. Real Estate Office telephone numb~rl~-~ BEACON Sunday, August 18,'2002 P__L[~,L~HEARING LEASE OF 2.500 S~ LAND ~50' X 50'I, · The V'w'cqr~a~' ~O-N?-~-~?IG-S ROAD. VIRG.IA BEACH ,,pM ~.,acn [;Ity Council will hold a P ' seal ' UBUC HEARING on the ~ leasing, o.f agprox mately 2 500 s uam f of ' (50 X 50') Iocatea at the H , q . eet avadable land · . ampton Roads Agricultural Ex ri Uon off of Diamond · . . pe ment Sra- ,_. ,. _ __ Spnn~s Road, in Vir~ma Beach, Virginia on Tues- uey, ~mgust 2/', 2002 at 6:00 p.m.. in I~e Virginia Beach Cijy Council Chamber (Building #1 at the V'~,inia Beach Municipal Center). The .1~. (.5~ X. 50 ) to the United States of America for,r~,,~ lable ~eoeral Aviation Admini ' ~ Station. stratk~: as a Low Le~l Wind Shem' Detection Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to te~eptmne number is 427J,161. · ~ Real Estate Office Ruth Hodges Sm~, MMC C~y Ck~k BEACON Sunday, August18,,2002 LEASE OF APflROX~RES Or ~ A~dn 44 AT The ''~' .1 NORTH LAND_IN~INIA BEACH wrgmm ueach City ~ouncil will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the .proposed leasing or approximately 8.67 acres of available land, with ~mprovements (the Buffington House), located at 2441 North Land n Road, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 6:~}(~ p.m., in the Virginia Beach City Council Chamber (Building #! at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center). The purpose of this hearing will be to obtain public comment on the City's proposal to lease the approxi. mately 8.67 acres of available land, w th improvements (the B .u~fln ton House) to MicJ~ael Connors, for use as a residential residence g' Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Department of Public Works/Office of Real Estate, Room 392, Build. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Ck~rk . BEACON Sunday, August 18,'2002 · The Judicial Center .The virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed leasing of available office space located on the ground floor of the Judicial Center, on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., in. the Virginia Beach City Council Chamber (Building #1 at the Virg nia Beach Municipal Center). The purpose of this hear ng will be to obtain public comment on the City's proposal to lease approximate 200 square feet of avai able office space to the Virginia ~each Bar Association. Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Department of General Services, Room 228, Building #18, in the Vir- ginia Beach Municipal Center. The General Se~ices Office telephone number is 427-4567.. Ruth Hedges Smith, MMC City C~ed< J. ORDINANCES Ordinance to declare EXCESS PROPERTY on 6,197.5 square feet extending eastwardly from Lake Bradford to Lake Joyce in the Chesapeake Beach area, formerly acquired from the City of Norfolk; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to convey this property to Danny It. Martin for furore development. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYS[DE) Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute LEASES of city-owned property: ao Hampton Roads Agriculture Exper/mental Station at Diamond Springs Road to the United States of America (Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration). (DISTRICT 4 - BAYS[DE) bo The Buffington House at 2441 North Landing Road to Michael Connors. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Co Judicial Center office space at 2425 Nimmo Parkway to the Virginia Beach Bar Association (VBBA). (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $46,658 grant from the Virginia Department of Emergency Medical Services to the Department of Emergency Medical Services' (EMS) FY2002-03 operating budget re the "Two-for-Life" program. Ordinance to TRANSFER $116,136 from contractual services to the FY2002-03 Department of General Services operating budget re three additional full time custodial worker positions to serve Automotive Services, Animal Control, Helicopter Shop, Mosquito Control, Pendleton Child Services, Police K-9, Police Training Gym, Pungo Police Substation and the Special Operations and SWAT Trailer. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Sale of Excess City Property - 2268 Pleasure House Road MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: Developer Danny Martin proposes to acquire a portion of a 25' stdp of City owned property that runs between Lake Bradford and Lake Joyce. This City owned property runs through several subdivisions in the Chesapeake Beach area of the City and was acquired by Virginia Beach from the City of Norfolk in the 1960's. Mr. Martin is interested in purchasing approximately 6,197.5 square feet of the 25' strip that runs through three parcels of land: GPIN 1479-48-7476-0000, GPIN 1479-48-7522-0000, and GPIN1479-48-6524-0000. Mr. Martin is the contract purchaser of these properties and has submitted a development plan for their rezoning. The record owner of the subject parcels is Robert E. ,Stafford, Sr., Trustee. Council has previously declared portions of the 25' stdp as excess and has sold them to the adjacent property owners. Considerations: The Excess City Owned Real Property Committee reviewed the applicant's request and recommended that the portion of the 25' strip requested, be declared excess by City Council and had no objection to its conveyance. The City does not need the land and staff has no objection to declaring the said portion of the 25' strip excess of the City's needs and conveying same to Mr. Martin, once he has acquired the adjacent parcels. The portion of the 25' strip of land which runs through the aforementioned parcel contains 6,197.5 SF+ (0.1423+ Acre)and has an appraised value of $15,000. Public Information: Advertisement for public hearing as required by §15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia and advertisement of City Council agenda. Alternatives: Sell the portion of the 25 foot stdp to Mr. Martin or retain ownership of the subject site. Recommendations: Staff recommends that Council Adopt the ordinance and declare the 6,197.5 square foot parcel to be in excess of the City's needs and authorize the City Manager to convey same to Danny K. Martin Attachments: Ordinance, Summary of Terms, Location Map, Plat, and Pictures Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works~ 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 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING CERTAIN PROPERTY EXCESS AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO CONVEY SAME TO DANNY K. MARTIN WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") acquired title from the City of Norfolk in and to a parcel of real property which included a strip of land 25 feet wide extending eastwardly from Lake Bradford to Lake Joyce (the "Property") by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 1018, at Page 15, as shown on Location Map, attached hereto. WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that a portion of the PROPERTY referenced as "AREA TO BE DECLARED EXCESS (APPROX. 6,197.5 SF/ 0.1423 AC.)" as shown on Location Map is in excess of the needs of the City of Virginia Beach and should be sold to Danny K. Martin; and WHEREAS, an appraisal of market value has been prepared by a qualified appraiser and has been delivered to and approved by staff of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the portion of the Property containing approximately 6,197.5 square feet in area is hereby declared to be in excess of the needs of the City and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to convey said portion of the Property to Danny K. Martin. 2. That the appraised value of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000) is to be the sale price of the portion of the property. 3. The conveyance of the approximately 6,197.5 square foot site is subject to Danny K. Martin's acquisition of the following three parcels of real property: GPIN #1479-48-7476, GPIN #1479-48-7522, and GPIN # 147948-6524. Danny K. Martin shall provide the City copies of the recorded instruments showing transfer of title of the foregoing parcels to Danny K. Martin, prior to closing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 day of That the approximately 6,197.5 square foot site (the "Site") shall be conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, and restrictions with the final wording thereof to be satisfactory to the City Attorney. a. The City shall reserve the right to establish easements for drainage and utilities under, over, across and through the Site. Site shall be resubdivided to eliminate interior lot lines. This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the~ ,2002. CA- PREPARED: August 12, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT P6glic Works APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Depariment of Law ~ SUMMARY OF TERMS SALE OF EXCESS PROPERTY AT 2268 PLEASURE HOUSE ROAD SELLER: PURCHASER: PROPERTY: SALE PRICE: SETTLEMENT DATE: City of Virginia Beach Danny K. Martin Approximately 6,! 97.5 SF± (0.1423± Acre) $15,000 as per appraisal Upon completion of Purchaser's rezoning and proof of acquisition of three parcels of real property as set forth below CONDITIONS OF SALE Conveyance of the Property is subject to Danny K. Martin's acquisition of the following three parcels of real property. GPIN #1479-48-7476, GPIN #1479- 487522, and GPIN #1479-48-6524 Danny K. Martin shall provide the City copies of the recorded instrumems showing transfer of title of the foregoing parcels to Danny K. Martin, prior to closing. The City shall reserve the right to establish easemems for drainage and utilities under, over, across and through the Property. · The Property shall be resubdivided to eliminate interior lot lines. LJ I SCALE f.1600' SITE LOCATION MAP m __ AREA TO BE DECLARED EXCESS (APPROX. 6,197.5 S.F./0.1423 AC.) LOCATION MAP SHOWING EXCESS CITY OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 2268 PLEASURE HOUSE ROAD SCALE: 1" -- 100' PREPARED BY P/VV ENG. DRAFT. 7-26-02 II I I Excess City Property - Robert E. Stafford, Sr., Trustee From of 2268 Pleasure House Road - The 25' strip r.n~ along the southern property line headed to the east From of 2268 Pleasure House Road - The 25' strip mas along the southern property line headed to the east AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Lease of City Owned Property to United States of America MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: ~, The United States of America (Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration) e,ntered into a lease agreement with the City of Virginia Beach in 1986, for the purpose of e~,tablishing a Iow level wind shear alert system on the City owned property known as the Hampton Roads Agricultural Experiment Station, located off of Diamond Springs Road. The purpose of the station was to assist in recognizing adverse wind conditions that might affect flights in and out of Norfolk International Airport. The site is fifty feet (50') square and contains 2,500 square feet of area within the City property. Because the preperty was under long term lease to the State of Virginia, the Commonwealth executed the document to consent to the lease to the United States. The original lease was approved and executed by the City, State and Federal Officials and the facility was subsequently built. The lease was renewed in 1991 and again in 1996. The current lease has expired and the United States desires to continue use of the facility for its intended purpose. Considerations: This facility is vital to the safe operation of the regional airport and the City of Virginia Beach and the State of Virginia have previously agreed to allow the usage without monetary consideration. There are no plans to utilize this parcel of property for any usage other than is presently established, for the foreseeable future. Public Information: Advertisement of public hearing as required by Virginia Code § 15.2 -1800 and advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Renew Lease Agreement or require the United States Government to remove the facility. Recommendations: Adopt the ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the Lease with the United States Attachments: Ordinance; Summary of Terms; Plat; Location Map Recommended Action: Approval 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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE WITH TI-IE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF CITY OWNED LAND LOCATED OFF OF DIAMOND SPRINGS ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach ("the City") is the owner of that certain parcel of land located on the property known as the Hampton Roads Agricultural Experiment Station off of Diamond Springs Road in Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "Property") which is currently under long-term lease to the Commonwealth of Virginia; WHEREAS, with the consent of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the City has leased to the United States of America, a 2,500 square foot site, located within the Property as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, (the "Premises") for use by the United States of America as a Low Level Wind Shear Detection Station (the "Facility") and for no other use,; WHEREAS, the current lease has expired and the United States of America desires to enter into a new lease for its use of the Facility; WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the Facility will benefit the citizens of the City of Virginia Beach and the surrounding communities by providing a site for a Low Level Wind Shear Detection station to serve the Norfolk International Airport; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has consented to a new lease for the use of the Facility; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease between the United States of America and the City for 2,500 square feet of land at the Hampton Roads Agricultural Experiment Station in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of ,2002. 29 30 31 32 CA-8516 R-2 07/30/02 C'\WINDOWS\TEM~Wmdsh¢2.wpd APPROVED AS TO LEGAL Law Department APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: SUMMARY OF TERMS LEASE FOR Tile USE OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF CITY PROPERTY LESSOR: LESSEE: City of Virginia Beach. United States of America (Federal Aviation Administration) PREMISES: Approximately 2,500 square feet of City property located off of Diamond Springs Road and known as the Hampton Roads Agricultural Experiment Station. TERM: June 30,2002 -June 30,2007. RENT: No rent shall be charged. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF UNITED STATES: Will use the Premises for a low level wind shear detection station and no other purpose. Will remediate at its sole cost and expense, all hazardous substance contamination or adverse environmental conditions on the Premises occurring as a direct result of the installation, operation and/or maintenance of the facility. Will maintain and perform any and all necessary repairs and replacements to the Premises and restore the Premises to as good a condition as that existing at the time of the United States' initial entry upon the'Premises under this lease or any prior lease, ordinary wear and tear excepted; or make an equitable adjustment in the lease amount for the cost of such restoration of the Premises or the diminution of the value of the Premises ifunrestored, whichever is less. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY: Will inspect the Premises for compliance with the terms of the Lease and all state, local and federal laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations. TERMINATION: The City may terminate with 365 days written notice to the United States. The United States shall not be reimbursed for any expenses or damages incurred as a result ofthe City's termination. The United States may terminate with 30 days written notice to the City. C:\WINDOW S \TEM]~Wiad~ar.mm. wl~l LOC, ATION MAP SCALE: 1" -- METER PO~,t'ER CABLE :\ · r" (SENSO~ PROPERTY ~ TO BE LEASED DIAMOND SPRING.DGN M.J.S. 6.02 // ~' SHOWING ..~, I THE UNITED STATES OF ~ERICA"'~~...~I -~ LOCATION-H~PTON /-"~ ~' ROADS AGRICULTU~L EXPERIMENT STATION OFF OF DIAMOND SPRINGSROAD~- ':, ,s~: ~,, = 200' ~ . P~P~D BY P~ ENG. ~D DE~. 2~JUN-2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Lease of City Owned Property to Michael Connors MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: The City owns the property located at 2441 North Landing Road more commonly known as the Buffington House. The Burlington House has been leased by the City as a private residence since prior to1990. The current tenant, Michael Connors (the" Lessee") has leased the Buffington House from the City since 1994. However, the current lease has expired and the Lessee desires to remain at the Buffington House which requires the execution of a new lease. Considerations: The Lessee has been an excellent steward of the Buffington House. He has maintained the building and grounds in a proper manner; promptly notified the City of any problem requiring the City's attention; and has been punctual in the payment of his rent. The City has, from time to time, looked at the alterative uses to which the property might be put, but no firm plan has ever been formulated. Accordingly, City staff has determined that the renewal of the lease with the current Lessee will assist the City in the maintenance of the Buffington House and the surrounding grounds and prevent vandalism. The lease is for a term of one year with renewal options of four additional one year periods. For additional considerations, see the attached Summary of Terms. Public Information: Advertisement of public hearing as required by Virginia Code § 15.2 -1800 and advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the Lease Agreement or deny leasing of subject premises to Michael Connors. Recommendations: Adopt the ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the lease with Michael Connors. Attachments: Ordinance; Summary of Terms; Location Map (Exhibit A); Floor Plan and Photographs (Exhibit B) Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate<~ City Manager: ORDINANCE NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE WITH MICHAEL CONNORS, FOR THE CITY OWNED DWELLING AND SURROUNDING LANDS KNOWN AS THE BUFFINGTON HOUSE, LOCATED AT 2441 NORTH LANDING ROAD 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach ("the City") is the owner of that certain parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.67 acres together with the improvements thereon, located at 2441 North Landing Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and more commonly known as the Buffington House as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Premises"); WI~REAS, the City has leased the Premises to Michael Connors ( the "Lessee") for use as a residential dwelling and for no other use; WHEREAS, the current lease has expired, and the Lessee desires to enter into a new lease with the City to continue to use and occupy the Premises as a residential dwelling; and WHEREAS, City. staffhas determined that the leasing of the Premises to the current Lessee will assist the City in the maintenance of the Premises and the grounds and prevent vandalism. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease between Michael Connors and the City for the Buffington House in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the ,2002. day of CA-8520 R-2 7/30/02 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: AI~ROVED AS TO CONTENTS: ..SUMMARY OF TERMS LEASE FOR ~ USE OF THE BUFFINGTON HOUSE LESSOR: City of Virginia Beach. LESSEE: Michael Connors PREMISES: Approximately 8.67 acres located at 2441 North Landing Road together with the improvements thereon known as the Buffington House. August 1, 2002 - July 31, 2003. Lease may be renewed for 4 one -year terms at the sole discretion and option of the City. RENT: Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200.00) initial term. For the renewal terms rent shall be as follows: 1't renewal- $7,500.00 per year; 2~a renewal- $7,800.00 per year; 3~ renewal- $8,100.00 per year;4th renewal- $8,400.00 per year. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LESSEE: Will use the Premises for a residential dwelling and for no other purpose, and shall make no alterations, modifications or improvements to the building or the grounds without the prior written consent of the City. Will maimain and perform any and all necessary repairs to the interior of the building and will (i) maintain the Premises clean and in good condition; (ii) perform routine maimenance; and (iii) maintain the landscaping and the grounds of the Premises in a clean and orderly condition. Will be responsible and liable for all damage to the Premises, including the building and the grounds, caused by the willful or negligem acts or omissions of Lessee or its agents or invitees, or for any breach of Lessee's obligations under the Lease. Will indemnify the City for any and all claims arising from Lessee's use and occupation of the Premises, including any and all adverse environmemal conditions caused by Lessee. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBHATIES OF CITY: Will inspect the Premises for compliance with the terms of the Lease and all state, local and federal laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations. Will maintain fire, hazard and casualty coverage on the building. However, the City shall not be responsible for damage or destruction cause by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of Lessee, its agents or invitees. TERMINATION: The City may terminate if Lessee fails to cure a default within 30days after receipt of written notice of default, or for any public purpose with 60 days prior written notice to Lessee. I'I:\WI~$ETaM~E'TO~B~GT.ON'X2002 msewal~nm of T~ma.luly 31, 2002.wlod LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,600' ©© ,../ MAP SHOWING cr'I"Y OWNED PROPERTY (THE BUFFING'TON HOUSE) LOCATION BUFRNG'rON HOUSE.DGN M.J.S. - 2441 NORTH LANDING ROAD PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADD 17-JUL-2002 I si'. FLoOi~ PLAN 2441 North Landing Road Buffington House i~ U F I= f N (~'r o N (OLD HOUSE WHITEHUR;~T HOUSE) NORTH LANDING R0/kD ~/639 NOV oo N 2441 North Landing Road Buffington House ~'LOOF~ ~r. '-r, ~. . ~4..4.1 NoI~'TH LANDING ROAD CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Lease of Office Space at the Judicial Center to the Virginia Beach Bar Association MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 'Background: The Virginia Beach Bar Association (the "VBBA") has been leasing approximately 200 square feet of office space at the Judicial Center since 1993. However, the current lease has expired and the VBBA desires to remain at the Judicial Center which requires the execution of a new lease. Considerations: The City staff has determined that the presence of the VBBA in the Judicial Center is in keeping with the various law -oriented uses housed in the building. The VBBA's location adjacent to the Law Library gives citizens as well as attorneys the opportunity to make contact with the VBBA and its members. Accordingly, renewal of the lease is recommended by City staff. The lease is for a term of five years. For additional considerations, see the attached Summary of Terms. Public Information: Advertisement of a public headng as required by Virginia Code § 15.2 -1800 and advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the Lease Agreement or deny leasing of subject premises to the Virginia Beach Bar Association. Recommendations: Adopt the ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the lease with the Virginia Beach Bar Association. Attachments: Ordinance; Summary of Terms; Location Map Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: Approval General Services/Director's Office 2 3 4 5 6 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE WITH THE VIRGINIA BEACH BAR ASSOCIATION FOR 200 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE IN THE JUDICIAL CENTER, LOCATED AT 2425 NIMMO PARKWAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach ("the City") is the owner of that certain parcel of land together with the improvements thereon, located at 2425 Nimmo Parkway, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and more commonly known as the Judicial Center as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"); WHEREAS, the City has leased approximately 200 square feet of office space in the Judicial Center (the "Premises") to the Virginia Beach Bar Association (the "VBBA") for general office use and for no other use; WHEREAS, the current lease has expired, and the VBBA desires to enter into a new lease with the City to continue to use and occupy the Premises as an office; and WHEREAS, City staff'has determined that the leasing of the Premises to the VBBA is in keeping with the law-oriented uses located in the Property and the continued presence of the VBBA will afford citizens as well as attorneys the opportunity to make contact with the VBBA and its members. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease between the Virginia Beach Bar Association and the City for 200 square feet of office space in the Judicial Center in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the ., 2002. CA-8564 R-! 8/05/02 day of APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Department ~/ APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Dept of General Services SUMMARY OF TERMS LEASE FOR THE USE OF 200 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AT THE JUDICIAL CENTER LESSOR: City of Virginia Beach. LESSEE: Virginia Beach Bar Association PREMISES: Approximately 200 square feet of office space at the Judicial Center located at 2425 Nimmo Parkway. TERM: July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2007. RENT: Two Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($2,200.00) annually. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LESSEE: Will use the Premises for an office and for no other purpose, and shall make no alterations, modifications or improvements to the Premises without the prior written consent of the City. Will maintain public liability insurance for the Premises with policy limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limits per occurrence. Will be responsible and liable for all damage to the Premises, including the building, caused by the willful or negligent acts or omissions of Lessee or its agents or invitees, or for any breach of Lessee's obligations under the Lease. Will indemnify the City for any and all claims arising from Lessee's use and occupation of the Premises. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY: Will inspect the Premises for compliance with the terms of the Lease and all state, local and federal laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations. Will provide, at Lessor's expense, electrical service, janitorial services, heating, air conditioning as conditions require, during normal business hours, and hot and cold water for drinking, cleaning and lavatory purposes. TERMINATION: The City may terminate if Lessee fails to cure a default within 30days after receipt of written notice of default, or for any public purpose with 60 days prior written notice to Lessee. F:',Users\VValldej\W P\BZA\VaBch BarLse sum.wpd © © IA, ,?BEACH 2425 NlM SCALE: 1" : 400' NG Center) PARKWAY'' PREPARED BY P/W ENG. DRAFT. 31-JUL-2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Acceptance of State Grant MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: The General Assembly established the Two-for-Life program for the purpose of providing financial assistance to volunteer rescue squads and municipal EMS agencies to fund EMS programs and projects. As required by Virginia Code 46.2-694, the Two-for-Life program collects two additional dollars on each state automobile license purchased annually. Nearly 1/3 of these monies is allocated to the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF). Each year, the Virginia Beach Department of Emergency Medical Services applies for grants from RSAF. Many major projects and initiatives have been made possible solely through the assistance of this grant program. During the last grant cycle, the Department of Emergency Medical Services applied for and was awarded a 50% grant of $28,704.00 to purchase 4 monitor/defibrillators and to support recruiting efforts and a second 100% grant of $17,954.00 for training fees, supplies, and equipment to support rescue squad operations. Considerations: · The equipment & recruiting grant requires a 50% match ($28,704.00) by local funds. Emergency Medical Services currently has the matching funds budgeted in FY2002-03. · The advanced life support training grant provides 100% program funding ($17,954.00) and, hence, requires no local match. · RSAF guidelines require that the receiving agency must purchase the equipment and services in advance. Once the project is completed, the recipient can then file for reimbursement. · An advance appropriation of these grant monies in the amount of $46,658.00 ($28,704.00 and $17,954.00) to the Department of Emergency Medical Services budget is required to make the above purchases. Public Information: Grant awards are announced in the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services and Tidewater Emergency Medical Services, Inc. newsletters. Alternatives: · Decline RSAF funds and delay purchases. · Accept RSAF award. Recommendations: Accept RSAF award and appropriate to the Department of Emergency Medical Services $46,658.00 as an advance of funds to purchase equipment and services, to be reimbursed by the State after the transaction. Attachments: Correspondence dated July 1, 2002 from Gary R. Brown, Director, Virginia Office of EMS. Recommended Action: A royal of . commen ati Submitting Department/Agency: J City Manager:(~,Vvv..~ ~_..~. '~/'~-"'Depar~'ment°fEmergencyMedicalServices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A $46,658 GRANT FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES' FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING NEEDS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has been awarded a $46,658 grant from the Virginia Department of Emergency Medical Services to provide training and purchase equipment for rescue squad operations, and the required $28,704 City match is available within the EMS Department's FY 2002-03 operating budget to satisfy the grant requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That a $46,658 grant is hereby accepted and appropriated from the Virginia Department of Emergency Medical Services to the Department of Emergency Medical Services' FY 2002-03 Operating Budget to provide training and purchase equipment, with revenue increased accordingly. Adopted the__day of City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 2002, by the Council of the CA-8587 ordin/noncode/EMS RSAF Grant.ord.wpd August 8, 2002 R2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Departmen~ COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA Department of Health July 1, 2002 Edward Brazle City of VA Beach Dept of EMS 1917 Arctic Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Dear Grant ~ ..... or: The Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) is pleased to armounee that your agency has been awarded funding from the OEMS Consolidated Grants Program. The attached Award Page itemizes the actual dollar value and item(s) your agency has been awarded under this program. In order to provide the best possible customer service, please take time to read all grant award documentation. Please provide the grant number on all correspondence to OEMS and contact our office if you have any questions. · Award Acceptance Form (Agreement for Services): must be returned within 60 days of grant award. Original or faxed copies will be accepted. **Note: all fortns are available for downloading on our website: www. vdl~stat~ va. us/oems. Instructions for Grant Reimbursement. Reimbursement Checklist: All items must be submitted in order to process your reimbursement. Conditions: A condition has been placed on some grant awards. Any and all conditions must be met in order to receive reimbursement. It would be in your agency's best interest to purchase awarded item(s) by December 31, 2002 for the best price advantage, but no later than June 30, 2003. Contact Carol S. Morrow OEMS Grant Program Manager for grant information at (804) 371-3500 or 1-800-523- 6019. Enclosures HEALTH www.vdh.state.va.us Office of Emergency Medical Services Consolidated Grant Program AWARD PAGE July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 Grant Period Agency Name: CITY OF VA BEACH DEPT OF ~MS Grant Number: TI-C07/06-02 G G G G G G G G T T T T T T Code Items Requested 12142 Newspaper Advertisements Conditions: 12-Quote, 13-Acknowledgement 12143 Brochures Conditions: 12-Quote, 13-Acknowledgement 12144 12145 12146 -12147 12148 12149 12150 12151 12152 12153 12154 12155 AED--public access Broslo Tapes Miscellaneous ALS Equipment Disaster Task Force Equipment MRL Pic System Minitor III Pagers ALS Training - Para. Req. Topics Course: Beach EMS Training Center ALS Training - Intermediate Course: Virginia Beach ALS Training - Shock Trauma Course: Virginia Beach ALS Training - PALS Course: Virginia Beach ALS Training - ACLS Course: Virginia Beach ALS Training - Intermediate to Paramedic Course: Virginia Beach Quantity Funding C Amount Status Funded % Level T % Funded FUNDED 4 50 $4,000.00 FUNDED 1 50 $2,500.00 NOT FUNDED NOT FUNDED NOT FUNDED NOT FUNDED FUNDED 4 50 $22,204.00 NOT FUNDED FUNDED 1 100 C $4,224.00 FUNDED 1 100 T 18 $6,030.00 FUNDED I 100 T 20 $3,800.00 PTTNDED I 100 C $1,280.00 FUNDED I 100 C $1,280.00 FUNDED 1 100 T 4 $1,340.00 $46,658.00 G - Rescue Squad Assistance Fund R - Recruitment and Retention T - ALS Training Fund CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Transfer of $116,136 from Contractual Services to Add 3 FTE's for the Cleaning of Nine City Facilities Currently Under Custodial Service Contract MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: The cleaning of the City of Virginia Beach's facilities is accomplished through a combination of City Members and Contract Custodial Services. Currently, all buildings at the Municipal Center are serviced by City Members and all other City facilities are serviced by cleaning contractors. While this system has worked well in the past, the level of service at nine (9) City facilities has declined to an unacceptable level while the hourly cost for contractual services has escalated. The City can save money and improve service by cleaning these additional buildings using City staff instead of cleaning contractors. The buildings targeted are Automotive Services, Animal Control, Helicopter Shop, Mosquito Control, Pendleton Child Services, Police K-9, Police Training Gym, Pungo Police Sub- Station, and the Special Operations and SWAT Trailer. A five year cost analysis was conducted to compare the cost for private contractors with costs for City staff to provide the same services. The analysis projects that the City will save approximately $130,000 over five years by adding staff to provide the services in-house. Considerations: Funds are available in General Services' contractual services budget line item. $116,136 will be transferred to personnel services, supplies, and capital outlay. 3 additional FTE positions will be added to provide the required custodial services. The reduction in contractual services represents approximately 9% of the affected contractor's income from city contracts. The contract contains a clause which gives the City the right to add, delete, or change any item in the agreement with a 15-day notice to the contractor. Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda notification process. Alternatives: Address the unacceptable level of service quality by placing the current contractor in default of the contract with these buildings and find a new contractor to assume cleaning services. This option would replace the failing contractor but not guarantee an increase in service quality. It is unlikely that this would result in a decrease in cost for these facilities. Opt to remove these nine facilities from the contract in order to service them with City Members, requiring the addition of 3 FTEs. This option is clearly allowed in our contract and while still not giving an absolutely guarantee of a higher level of service, it would allow the City to directly control the persons providing the service. It would also provide the City of Virginia Beach with an approximate 20% cost savings over the next five years. Servicing these facilities with City Members provides the best means of solving the problem of service quality while offering the added benefit of cost savings. Recommendations: Accept the second alternative and approve the transfer of $116,136 and add three permanent full time positions as follows: 2 Custodial Worker II (Night) positions - salary & fringes I Custodial Worker I (Day) position - salary & fringes Temporary Labor Equipment & Supplies Capital Outlay - Ford Ranger Pickup w/Camper Shell Attachments: $49,590 $21,67O $ 8,934 $22,957 $12,985 A brief proposal outlining the major issues involved as well as the cost comparison over a 5-year period. Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: General Services City Manager: ~ ,~ ~._ ~e~~°f 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 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $116,136 FROM CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TO ADD THREE FTE'S FOR THE CLEANING OF NINE CITY FACILITIES CURRENTLY UNDER CUSTODIAL SERVICES CONTRACT WHEREAS, a cost analysis has determined that it is cost efficient for the City to perform custodial services at nine buildings outside the Municipal Center with City staff instead of contractual custodial services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That three full time Custodial Worker positions are hereby authorized to be added to the FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget of the Department of General Services for the purpose of providing custodial services to the following facilities: Automotive Services, Animal Control, Helicopter Shop, Mosquito Control, Pendleton Child Services, Police K-9, Police Training Gym, Pungo Police Sub-Station, and the Special Operations and SWAT Trailer. 2. That existing appropriations of $116,136 within the FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget of the Department of General Services are hereby transferred to fund the additional three positions and related costs of providing custodial services for the above referenced facilities. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 27th day of Auqust, 2002. CA-8596 ORDIN\NONCODE\Custodial Services FTE's.ord RI August 13, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~an~ge~en~ Service APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: C~rne~y~ ~~f f '1 c~e'~ ~ *mN (D *mi 0 0 ~ o 0 (D c~ ~ 0 ~ 0 · ~ d d ','-: d d '" d '- d --' o K. RESOLUTIONS Resolution requesting citizens to vote affirmatively for the November Referendum re issuance of General Obligation Bonds to fund educational improvements at the College of William and Mary, Old Dominion University, Norfolk State University, and Tidewater Community College as well as Parks and Recreational facilities. Resolution requesting citizens to vote affirmatively for the Hampton Roads Transportation Referendum re increasing the sales and use tax by one percent (1%) and this revenue to be used solely for transportation improvements in this area. o Resolution establishing the Virginia Beach Transition Area Technical Review Committee providing for its membership and responsibilities. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore A Resolution Requesting the Voters of Virginia Beach to Vote Affirmatively on the November Referendum Questions Concerning the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds of the Commonwealth of Virginia to Fund the Construction of Educational Facilities and Parks and Recreational Facilities MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: The General Assembly has approved legislation in the 2002 Session authorizing two referendum questions concerning the issuance of general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth to be submitted to the voters in the November election. One such question concems the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of approximately $900 million for educational facilities. The facilities to be improved in Hampton Roads would include the College of William and Mary, Old Dominion University, Norfolk State University, and Tidewater Community College. The other referendum question concerns the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of approximately $119 million for parks and recreational facilities. The facilities to be improved in Virginia Beach would be First Landing State park and False Cape State Park. An affirmative vote in both of the referenda would not increase tax rates for the Commonwealth citizens, nor would the sale of these bonds affect local debt ratings. The Commonwealth Debt Advisory Council has advised that the State would likely retain its Triple-A Bond rating even after the sale. Considerations: Due to the State's current financial situation, "Pay-as-you-go" funds are not available to provide for the facilities and improvements envisioned in the bond referenda questions. Furthermore, the State has historically used debt as a way to provide the for construction of capital projects, such as universities and parks. Passage of the referendum will allow these important projects to move forward and improve the quality of life for all Virginians as well as our competitiveness in the world economy. Public Information: The resolution be advertised through the usual process. Alternatives: Failure of the referendum would mean that these public facilities may likely not be constructed for many years. Recommendations. Approval of attached resolution urging voters to participate in the November 5th election and to vote "YES" for the two bond referendums. Attachment: Resolution Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Dej~rtm.ent/Ageoc~......... City Mana~er:~....~c~r~ ~, ( F:\Users\W Macali~'~RDRES\authoriz ebondsarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VOTERS OF VIRGINIA BEACH TO VOTE AFFIRMATIVELY ON THE NOVEMBER REFERENDUM QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHEREAS, the issuance of bonds has long been used by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as the City of Virginia Beach and other governments, to provide funding for the construction of capital facilities and for the purchase of land for open space; and WHEREAS, the 2002 General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing a referendum question concerning the issuance of general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the maximum amount of $900,488,645 for the financing of capital projects for educational facilities; and WHEREAS, the 2002 General Assembly also enacted legislation authorizing a referendum question concerning the issuance of general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the maximum amount of $119,040,000 for the financing of capital projects for parks-and recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the proposed bonds for educational facilities would provide a funding mechanism for improvements to many Hampton Roads institutions of higher education, such as Old Dominion University, Norfolk State University, the College of William and Mary and Tidewater Community College; and WHEREAS, the proposed bonds for parks and recreational facilities would provide a funding mechanism for improvements to First Landing State Park and False Cape State Park; and WHEREAS, the issuance of bonds resulting from an affirmative vote on the aforesaid referendum questions would 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 not require an increase in existing taxation rates throughout the Commonwealth, nor would the sale of such bonds impact local debt ratings; and WHEREAS, investing in the future for higher education, parks and recreation, and open space is important to our quality of life as Virginians and allows Virginia to be more competitive in the world marketplace; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the voters of Virginia Beach are urged to participate in our democratic process on November 5, 2002. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the voters are urged to vote "YES" on both of the November 5, 2002 referendum questions concerning the issuance of general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth of Virginia for educational facilities and parks and recreational facilities, respectively. 55 56 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this day of , 2002. CA-8593 wmm/ordres/authori zebonds res. wpd R-2 August 15, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: C~y ~an~s~fice APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Departmen 2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore A Resolution Requesting the Voters of Virginia Beach to Vote Affirmatively on the Hampton Roads Transportation Referendum Question Conceming Increasing the Sales and Use Tax by One Percent MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) underwent a multi-year process to develop a fiscally constrained/air quality conforming air plan. This process identified the amount of money that could reasonably be expected by the region from the State and Federal Government. When money had been allocated for various projects, there were six large projects that remained unfunded. Those projects include the Third Crossing of Hampton Roads, Interstate 64 improvements on the Peninsula, an additional Midtown Tunnel, the Southeastem Parkway and Greenbelt, U.S. Route 460 improvements, and money for transit improvements including light-rail and MAGLEV. The MPO recommended to the General Assembly that financing mechanisms be established to fund these projects. The 2002 General Assembly enacted legislation providing for a voter referendum on November 5th election on the question of whether there should be a I percent increase in the sales and use tax (excluding food and non- prescription drugs) imposed in Hampton Roads. The revenues from such increase would be used exclusively for the projects identified above. The total debt may not exceed $5.9 billion, and the increase would be repealed when the projects are paid in full Public Information: City Council has had several briefings on the projects and process, which were televised on Channel 48. There is also a public information campaign underway by an organization created by the Hampton Roads Planning Partnership to inform the public on the need for the passage of this tax referendum. Alternatives: Failure of the referendum would mean that no funding is available for any of the six projects. This would provide an unacceptable traffic congestion but more importantly, detrimental air quality impacts. The region will likely go into non-conformity with the air quality requirements from the Federal Government that will require motorists to have their vehicles inspected for emissions and pay as much as $450 for repairs. The quality of life, and the timely movement of people, goods, and services would suffer in the region. Military preparedness, hurricane evacuation, and other emergency evacuation efforts would also be hindered greatly. Recommendations: Recommend the attached resolution urging the voters to participate in the November 5, 2002, election and to vote "YES" on the sales tax referendum be adopted. Attachments: A Resolution and the draft wording for the ballot question. Recommended Action: Appz:oval Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager~z~[/y~.~ !~._ ,~ ~2-~/.' F:\~\WMacali\WP\O RDl~S\transportationrefarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VOTERS OF VIRGINIA BEACH TO VOTE AFFIRMATIVELY ON THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM QUESTION CONCERNING INCREASING THE SALES AND USE TAX BY ONE PERCENT WHEREAS, our transportation system defines economic opportunities and affects the quality of life available to citizens throughout Hampton Roads, especially because our boundaries are largely defined by bodies of water, such that travel often requires the use of tunnels, bridges and Interstate 64 or Interstate 664 as the major traffic corridor between Virginia Beach and Williamsburg; and WHEREAS, increasing traffic congestion in the Hampton Roads metropolitan area adversely impacts our citizens, businesses and military facilities through loss of time and productivity, increased air pollution, increased traffic on residential streets, delays and cancellations affecting government, business, commercial and tourism activities, reduced access to and lack of alternatives for emergency services, hurricane evacuation capabilities; and WHEREAS, through an routes and military response open and collaborative process involving local elected officials and chief administrative officers from all Hampton Roads communities, public hearings, and actions of local governing bodies, there have been identified the six most important transportation projects for the future of this region, including mass transit, which address objectives of environmental quality, "smart growth," and existing infrastructure investment; and WHEREAS, funding from existing programs is inadequate for the construction of these priority projects, and no funding increases are likely in the foreseeable future because of a significant state budget shortfall, and; WHEREAS, the 2002 General Assembly enacted, and the Governor signed into law, legislation allowing a referendum to be held in Hampton Roads communities on November 5, 2002, on the question of whether an additional sales and use tax of one percent, except on food and non-prescription drugs, shall be imposed in the 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 communities of Hampton Roads, with the revenues from such increase to be used solely for regional transportation projects and programs; and WHEREAS, the proposed sales tax increase represents an opportunity for the communities of Hampton Roads to take immediate action toward the construction of all such transportation projects, with increased local involvemeht and accountability for project design and construction; and WHEREAS, the construction of such projects will improve mobility, hurricane and other emergency evacuations, military preparedness, economic development, and the overall quality of life for the citizens of the city and Hampton Roads; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the voters of Virginia Beach are urged to participate in our democratic process on November 5, 2002. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the voters are urged to vote "YES" on the November 5, 2002 referendum question of whether there shall be an increase in the communities of Hampton Roads of one per cent-in the sales and use tax, with the revenues from such increase to be used solely for regional transportation projects and programs. 59 60 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this day of , 2002. CA-8594 wmm/o rdre s / t ranspor t at i onre fre s .'wpd R-2 August 15, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: di~] ~Ma'n a g'e r¥ ~f i c e APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law' Department CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager A Resolution Establishing the Virginia Beach Transition Area Technical Review Committee MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: On August 20, 2002, the City Council held a workshop concerning the Transition Area. At that time, the Council decided to appoint a committee of citizens to study means of implementing Council's vision concerning the Transition Area, as expressed during the workshop. Considerations: The resolution estabiishes the Virginia Beach Transition Area Technical Review Committee, provides for its membership, and charges it with the responsibility of recommending to the Planning Commission technical means of clarifying the portion of the Comprehensive Plan concerning the Transition Area, consistently with the vision for the Transition Area expressed by the City Council during its August 20th workshop. The Committee would consist of fourteen members, to be appointed from among various groups stated in the Resolution, and two City Councilmember liaisons. Public Information: The workshop of August 20th was both advertised and open to the public, and the Resolution creating the Committee will be advertised as a normal City Council agenda item. All of the meetings of the Committee will be open to the public, and City Staffwill ensure that appropriate public notice of all Committee meeting will be given. Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager's Office City Manag~ [ [~. ~ (~ ~ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE VIRGINIA BEACH TRANSITION AREA TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, the concept of a Transition Area located immediately to the south of the Green Line has been in place in the Comprehensive Plan since 1991; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan states that the City "must properly manage the Transition Area;" and WHEREAS, it is the sense of the City Council that, in order to best accomplish this goal, there should be appointed a committee to study certain issues concerning the Transition Area, as set forth hereinbelow; and WHEREAS, it is likewise the sense of the City Council that, in order to foster the most open, candid and thorough discussion of such issues, and to provide the opportunity for divergent views to be presented and considered, such committee should be comprised of stakeholders in the Transition Area and other citizens having diverse interests and views regarding the management of the Transition Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that, in furtherance of the aforesaid objectives, the committee should consist of owners of property in the Transition Area, prospective developers of property in the Transition Area, professionals in fields such as planning and environmental engineering, representatives of environmental organizations, and representatives of City commissions responsible for advising the City Council on matters involving the Transition Area, such as the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission that the Transition Area must be properly managed; and WHEREAS, by including on the committee citizens having divergent interests and views regarding the Transition Area, the City Council intends and expects that the work of the committee will fairly reflect the diversity which characterizes the City; 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby constitutes and establishes the Virginia Beach Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (the "Committee"). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the Committee shall consist of fourteen (14) members, to be appointed by the City Council from among those persons described hereinabove; 2. There shall be two City Councilmember liaisons to the Committee, which liaisons shall be the Princess Anne District representative and one at-larg~ member of the City Council; 3. That the purpose of the Committee shall be to recommend to the Planning Commission technical means of clarifying the portion of the Comprehensive Plan concerning the Transition Area, consistent with the views of the City Council expressed in the City Council's workshop of August 20, 2002; 4. That the Committee shall be subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and the Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act; 5. That each member of the Committee shall file with the City Clerk a written disclosure of all interests in real property, including contractual interests, which he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has in the Transition Area and shall also disclose, in writing, the identity of all persons, firms or entities having such interests in real property he or she represents or to whom he or she provides services; 6. That the Committee shall complete its work and transmit to the Planning Commission its written recommendations, which shall set forth detailed measures for implementing the City Council's vision for the Transition Area, as soon as practicable, but by no later than November 30, 2002, at which time the Committee shall stand dissolved. 2 68 69 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8598 wmm/ordres/transitionareacommitteeres, wpd R-2 August 21, 2002 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: a~ De p a ~tm-e~'~ 3 L PLANNING Application of MARK and LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART N. DUFFEN, AIA) for an enlargement in a nonconforming use to add square footage to the rear unit of a duplex on the east side of Beech Street, Cape Story By The Sea and Cape Henry Shores, at Admiral Drive, containing 6,900 square feet. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of DAKOTA ASSOCIATES, LLC, for discontinuance, closure and abandonment re a portion of Joseph Place north of Mabel Lane to create a cul-de-sac, containing 3,604.68 square feet. (DISTRICT 6- BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of CHARLES T., FLOYD T. and IRVING N. DEARY for a Conditional Use Permit to add an automated car wash to the existing fuel sales at 1689 Laskin Road and First Colonial Road, containing 23,697 square feet. (DISTRICT 5 - LYN-NHAVEN3 Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex to Conditional B-2 Community Business re a 7-11 on property at the east side of Salem Road, north of Lyrmhaven Parkway, containing 28,677.72 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of DANNY MARTIN for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) at Pleasure House Road and North Greenwell Road, containing 1 acre. ( DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) DEFERRED: Recommendation: July 2, 2002 APPROVAL Map No% to Scale Stuart N. Du AIA Gpin 1590-40-8153 ZONING HISTORY 1. Enlargement of a nonconforming use Approved 9-28-93 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Mark and Leslie Rosenstock (Stuart Duffen, AIA), Change in a Non- Conforming Use MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: Application of Mark and Leslie Rosenstock for an enlargement in a nonconforming use on the east side of Beech Street, 369.33 feet south of Admiral Drive. Said parcel contains 6,900 square feet. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Considerations: The Cape Story by the Sea and Cape Henry Shores neighborhoods were rezoned on October 11, 1965 from R-D2 Residence Duplex District to R-S4 Residence Suburban District. That rezoning request was brought forward by some of the residents of these neighborhoods concerned with the construction of duplexes on the relatively small lots (6,900 square feet) typical in these areas. When this change of zoning was approved, the existing duplexes became nonconforming. The duplex on the subject site was constructed in 1950 before the City Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Therefore, the duplex is considered nonconforming. The applicant proposes to add 218 square feet to the back unit of an existing nonconforming duplex. The one-story building is currently 1,530 square feet or 765 square feet for each unit. The duplex is nonconforming because it is located in the R-7.5 Residential District, which does not allow duplexes. The applicant is requesting to enlarge only one of the units. The relatively small expansion will not overpower the site or have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. In addition to upgrading the interior and providing more living space for one of the units, the exterior will be improved with new landscaping. Recommendations: Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged only if the City Council finds that the proposed structure, as enlarged, will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." Staff concludes that this proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and will be as appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming use. The following conditions are recommended: Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Submitting De ~': Planning Department~41L~h~r City Mana¢ Mark and Leslie Rosenstock (Stuart Duffen, AIA) Page 2 The addition shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan and elevations entitled, "Remodel Rosenstock Duplex" dated August 1,2002 by Stuart N. Duffen, AIA, Inc. Said plans are on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The total width of the driveway shall not exceed 36 feet at the right-of-way. The width may be continuous or divided into two sections. 1 2 3 4 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2220 BEECH STREET, IN THE LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 WHEREAS, Mark and Leslie Rosenstock (hereinafter the "Applicants") have made application to the City Council for authorization to enlarge a nonconforming duplex dwelling situated on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 2220 Beech Street, in the R-7.5 Residential District; and WHEREAS, the said duplex dwelling is a nonconforming use, in that duplex dwellings are no longer permitted in the R-7.5 Residential District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the enlargement of a nonconforming structure is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed structure, as enlarged, will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district than is the existing structure; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed structure, as enlarged, will be equally appropriate to the district as is the existing structure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the proposed enlargement of the Applicant's duplex dwelling is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 1. The addition sh~ll be in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan and elevations entitled "Remodel Rosenstock Duplex" dated August 1, 2002, by Stuart N. Duffen, AIA, Inc. Said plans are on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 33 34 35 2. The total width of the driveway shall not exceed 36 feet at the right-of-way. The width may be continuous or divided into two sections. 36 37 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8589 bkw/wor k/nonconrosenstock, wpd R-1 August 9, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning ~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY~_/~.~..: /~.~J Department of Law 2 MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK ! August 27, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use 2220 Beech Street Mop Not 'co Scole Gpin 1590-40-8155 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: 1590-40-8153 5 - LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 6,900 square feet STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOS'ET~. The applicant proposes to add 218 square feet to the back unit of an existing nonconforming duplex. The one-story building is currently 1,530 square feet or 765 square feet for each unit. The duplex is nonconforming because it is located in the R-7.5 Residential District, which does not allow duplexes. Non-Conforming Use ~ MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 1 Major Issues: Ensuring that the proposed addition and alteration to the nonconforming duplex structure is no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and is as appropriate to the district as the existing structure. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoninq This property is developed with a one-story residential duplex structure. The site is zoned R-7.5 Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Cape Story by the Sea is a predominately single-family residential neighborhood with duplexes scattered throughout. The subject site and all surrounding properties are zoned R-7.5 Residential District with Shore Drive Overlay. Zonin,q History The Cape Story by the Sea and Cape Henry Shores neighborhoods were rezoned on October 11, 1965 from R-D2 Residence Duplex District to R-S4 Residence Suburban District. That rezoning request was brought forward by some of the residents of these neighborhoods concerned with the construction of duplexes on the relatively small lots (6,900 square feet) typical in these areas. When this change of zoning was approved, the existing duplexes became nonconforming. The duplex on the subject site was constructed in 1950 before the City Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Therefore, the duplex is considered nonconforming. Although all are not pictured on the attached Zoning History Map, at least three other similar requests to enlarge nonconforming duplexes have been approved in these neighborhoods. Just a few months ago on May 28, 2002, a duplex at 2254 Maple Street north of the subject site was approved for a second story addition to one of the units. The property at 2214 Bayberry Street, which is east of the subject site, was approved for an enlargement April 14, 1998. Lastly, the property at 2221 Oak Street, which is shown on the Zoning History map just east of the subject site, was approved for an enlargement in 1993. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristic.~ The property has an existing pine tree in the front and an existing live oak tree towards the back on the southern side. These trees will remain. The remaining landscaping on the property will be removed and replaced with new landscaping. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is a six-inch water main in Beech Street fronting the Non-Conforming Use ~ MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 2 Sewer: property. This duplex site has two existing 5/8-inch meters that may be used. There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Beech Street fronting the property. The site is already connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Shore Drive in the vicinity of this application is a major four lane urban arterial. The MTP designates this roadway as a 150 foot divided right-of-way with a bikeway. No improvements are scheduled for this portion of Shore Drive in the current adopted CIP. Beech Street is a two lane local street and is not designated on the MTP. Traffic Calculations: Strcct Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Shore Drive 10,808 17,300 ADT (Level of ADT; Service "C"/ Existing: 12 ADT Beech Street Not Proposed: no change available 6,200 ADT Averac~e Daily Tri~s Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No comments. Building permits must be obtained for all construction related to this project. All fire protection requirements will be ascertained during the building permit review process. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained prior to occupancy. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as Medium and High Density Suburban Residential, with residential uses above 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Plan recognize this corridor as a resort gateway community. Both plans also recognize the diversity of residential uses that exist in this area, most of which resulted from the diverse needs and desires of the community. The proposed improvements are consistent with the community design and aesthetic goals established in this area of the Shore Drive Overlay District. Summary of Proposal The existing duplex is a 1,530 square foot one story brick structure with a hip roof covered in asphalt shingles. The structure is divided so that equal sized 765 square foot units are located at the front and back of the building. The applicant proposes to add 218 square feet to the back unit of the duplex. The additional space will allow for an extensive interior remodel of the back unit. The remodel will accommodate the property owners' physically disabled Non-Conforming Use ~ MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 3 adult son who will live here as independently as possible. The front unit will remain unchanged. The proposed structure meets all setbacks for the R-7.5 Residential District. The existing parking area will be redefined with concrete or paver block to accommodate parking for four vehicles. The Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works notes that in accordance with Public Works standards for driveways of duplexes, the driveway apron for the parking area must not exceed 36 feet in width in the public right-of-way. The applicant has also submitted a detailed landscape plan for the entire property. The landscaping will upgrade the appearance of the site significantly. Evaluation of Request This request to enlarge an existing duplex dwelling is acceptable. Cape Story by the Sea is predominately a single-family residential neighborhood with duplexes scattered throughout. The duplex units add variety and do not appear to detract from the neighborhood. The applicant is requesting to enlarge only one of the units. The relatively small expansion will not overpower the site or have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. In addition to upgrading the interior and providing more living space for one of the units, the exterior will be improved with new landscaping. Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged only if the City Council finds that the proposed structure, as enlarged, will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." Staff concludes that this proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and will be as appropriate to the district as the existing non- conforming use. The request, therefore, is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions below. Conditions The addition shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan and elevations entitled, "Remodel Rosenstock Duplex" dated August 1,2002 by Stuart N. Duffen, ^IA, Inc. Said plans are on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. The total width of the driveway shall not exceed 36 feet at the right-of-way. The width may be continuous or divided into two sections. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the .. administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision .during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable Cit~, Codes. Non-Conforming Use MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 4 4?,'3 &0.00' M I $'O&'30".W 6GO0' '~£f..C;H 5TRE£T (.50' ~ MARK PH"/SlCAL $UR¥£¥ OF LOT 5Zl' CAPE. STORY .R~/TI-Ii $£A PL/~'I' ki O. 2. Z2?.O Bf.[CH STREET FoR ROSF..NSTO£K ~. L£SLIE t-I,RClSENTOi:K iSite Survey Non-Conforming Use ~}~ MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 5 ZONING; TOTAL LOT T~AL LOT PA~NG PLAIN NOR'TH Proposed Site Plan Non-Conforming Use ~ MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 6 ROSENSTOCK RESIDENCE 2220 BEECH STREET VIRGINLA .BEACH, VA 23451 Proposed Landscape Plan Non-Conforming Use MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 7 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAS'f ELE'VATI O N Proposed Building Elevations MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) August 27, 2002 Page 8 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Stuart ~. Duffen, AIA, INC. Leslie Ro___senstock PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE , If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) n/a If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list ifnece~v) n/a 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 propoay, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (A~tach list if necessary9 Stuart N. Duffe~, AIA If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or o~her UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (dttach list if necessary) ~ Check here if the applicam is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: ,ir certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate~ Stuart N. Duffen, AIA Print Name R~v. ~Vl5/98 Non-Conforming Use [~ MARK & LESLIE ROSENSTOCK ?-'~ '" (STUART DUFFEN, AIA) ~~ August 27, 2002 Page 9 Dakota Associates LLC ZONING HISTORY 1. R-10 Residential District to Conditional B-2 Business District - Granted 9/12/95 2. R-15 Residential District to 0-2 Office District- Denied 1/22/91 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Dakota Associates LLC, Street Closure MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: Application of Dakota Associates, LLC, for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Joseph Place beginning 100 feet more or less north of Mabei Lane, running a distance of 67.63 feet along the eastern property line and running a distance of 103.93 feet along the western property line. Said parcel is 50.06 feet in width and contains 3,604.68 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. Considerations: The applicant is requesting the closure of a portion of Joseph Place in order to create a cul-de- sac to serve five new single-family homes. Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9-1 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 purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a cul-de-sac in lieu of the existing through street. A revision to the approved construction plan (DSC File #J06- 519) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Deveiopmen[ Services Center (DSC). 3. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels and dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to construct the cul-de-sac. Any public utility or drainage easements Attachments: Ordinance Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Age[~c) Department . City Dakota Associates LLC Page 2 necessary for the new development shall also be dedicated. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant shall verify that'no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not recorded within one year of the City council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ORDINANCE NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN AS JOSEPH PLACE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED: "EXHIBIT "A" SHOWING RIGHT OF WAY TO BE CLOSED" A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A. 8 9 10 11 12 13 WHEREAS, on August 27, 2002, Dakota Associates, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (Name of Applicant) applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before August 26, 2003; NOW, THEREFORE, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..SECTION BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, that the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before August 26, 2003: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in .the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "AREA TO BE CLOSED 3,604.68 SQ. FT. (0.083 AC)" shown as the cross-hatched area on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT "A" SHOWING RIGHT OF WAY TO BE CLOSED" a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 SECTION The following conditions must be met on or before August 26, 2003: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a cul-de-sac in lieu of the existing through street. A revision to the approved construction plan (DSC File # J06-519) shall be submitted for review and approved by the Development Services Center (DSC). 3 3 GPIN: 2407-69-1789, 2407-69-3852 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 ~8 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels and dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to construct the cul-de-sac. Any public utility or drainage easements necessary for the new development shall also be dedicated. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 4. 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 all conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the roadway, this approval will be considered null and void. SECTION III 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before August 26, 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 August 26, 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 ~ day of ,2002. CA-8514 July 26, 2002 C:~Documents and Settings\bduke~Local Settings\Temp\ca8514.1 .wpd APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning I~ppartment APPROVED AS TO LEGA/~ICIENCY: City Atto~ey 2 TO BE CLOSED LOT 9 ~: LOT:,?H,, BLOCK "H" ~o~ o HILLTOP MANOR ~o ~ HILLTOP MANOR ~,o 75.00' 102.00' I ! . ,I0811PI..I P~ (so'~/~) 74.4~' 74.4~' ~ ~ - R~ TO BE CLOSED / 3,604.68 SQ.~. ~ / (o.o8~ AC) ~ / LOT 6 ~ ~ /~ ~ LOT 4 BLOCK "H" ~ BLOCK "H" HI'TOP ~OR HILLTOP MANOR SCALE: 1"=25' \PROJECTS\Subdivisions\Joseph P]ace\24-8-OOexhibits.d~g COPR. 2002 80UND4RY FIRST 5 m~ ........................ 3 ~ ' S85'48'30 [ I ,' I  C~ OF VIRGIN~ B~CH T~~ SHOWING ~ OF JOSEPH P~CE ~ TO BE CLOS~ zv~szom ,Joseph P]ace\Tax~4ap (street).dug COPR. 2002 BOUNBARY FIRST. DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC/# 6 July 10, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Street Closure Portion of Joseph Place, beginning 100' north of Mabel Lane Dakota Associates, LLC ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 6- BEACH 3,604.68 square feet Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC/# 6 Page I PURPOSE: STAFF PLANNER: The portion of Joseph Place requested for closure is an undeveloped paper street that was platted with lots fronting on it in Map Book 40, Page 4. Five of the original lots platted along Joseph Place are undeveloped. The applicant wants to develop five new single-family homes on the existing undeveloped platted lots. The street closure is being requested so that the applicant can create a cul-de-sac to serve these new homes instead of using the through street as originally platted. Barbara Duke Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The portion of Joseph Place requested for closure is currently an undeveloped paper street. The lots on this prtion of Joseph Place are zoned R-7.5 Residential District. All of the lots platted in Map Book 40, Page 4 exceed the minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The only lots that are developed along this street are the two comer lots that also front on Wolfsnare Road and the two comer lots that also front on Mabel Lane. The portion of the Joseph Place right-of-way ? .~-~ . ...... . intersecting with Mabel Lane has been "improved" as described below. The Portion intersecting with Wolfsnare Road is not improved and is being used as yard by the homes that front on Wolfsnare Road. The applicant owns and desires to develop the five remaining lots fronting on Joseph Place with single-family homes. To serve these new homes, a mad construction plan showing that Joseph Place will be constructed as a through street as originally platted was recently approved by the Development Services Center under DSC File #J06519. The approved construction plan shows that there are several exiSting structures, including a driveway and fence belonging to the resident at 1801 Wolfsnare Road, encroaching into the platted right-of-way for Joseph Place on the north side near the intersection of Wolfsnare Road. There are also several mature trees in this same area. Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 ~;~" "?~ DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC/# 6 '-~ ....... Page 2 On the south side of the platted right-of-way for Joseph Place, there appears to be what is a paved, shared driveway for the two residences at the southeast and southwest corners at the intersection with Mabel Lane. The applicant has met with the residents at the comers of both Wolfsnare Road and Mabel Lane to explain the impact of the read construction. Whether the road is built as a through street or a cul-de-sac, the existing mature trees on the north side near the intersection of Wolfsnare Road will be removed and the encroaching fence, driveway, etc. at 1801 Wolfsnare Road will also need to be removed from the right-of-way and relocated. The applicant understands that if this street closure is approved, a revision to the construction plan is necessary to build a cul- de-sac instead of the through street. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Single-Family Homes / R-7.5 and R-10 Residential · Single-Family Homes/R-7.5 Residential · Single-Family Homes / R-7.5 and R-10 Residential · Single-Family Homes/R-7.5 Residential Zoninq History The neighborhood of Hilltop Manor was developed in the late 1950s. The property to the west of Hilltop Manor was rezoned from residential to apartment in 1982 for a senior living facility. Other rezonings in the area have been noted on the attached Zoning History Map. Public Facilities and Services There are no public water and sewer facilities in the portion of Joseph Place proposed for closure. There are no public works drainage structures in the portion of Joseph Place proposed for closure. Private Utilities Preliminary comments from Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District indicate that there are no facilities in the area proposed for closure. At the time of this report, Virginia Power had not responded. Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC/# 6 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a stable residential neighborhood appropriate for residential uses at or below 3,5 dwelling units per acre. Evaluation of Request The Viewers Committee has determined that there will be no public inconvenience as a result of this request and recommends approval of this street closure. The applicant has met with the current residents on Wolfsnare Road and Mabel Lane at the corners of Joseph Place to explain the impacts of the planned development. The applicant understands that he will be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct the cul-de- sac meeting city standards in lieu of a through street. The street closure is recommended for approval with the following conditions. Conditions The City Attomey's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The pumhase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a cul-de-sac in lieu of the existing through street. A revision to the approved construction plan (DSC File # J06-519) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Center (DSC). The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate intemal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels and dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to construct the cul-de-sac. Any public utility or drainage easements necessary for the new development shall also be dedicated. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. Planning Commission Agenda ~'"'~ July 10, 2002 DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC! # 6 Page 4 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 recorded 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 applicable City Ordinances, Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002~.~~..~ DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC! # 6~~ ,.., Page 5 3 (o~oa~ 5 I $ 1 Planning Commission Agenda '~~~ July 10, 2002 DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC/# 6 Page 6 LOT 9 BLOCK 'l-I' I~J.TOP MANOR, 'SHOWING RIGHT OF ~:WAY HILL?O~r,~OI~ 75.00' 2,1.7.47' 'i ~(so 74,49' --AREA TO ~)E CLOSED 3,604.68 SO. FF. (0.083 AC) LOT 5 BLOCK "H" HILLTOP MANOR 74.49' LOT'4 : BLOCK "H" HILLTOP YANOR: .SCALE~ 1"=25' Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC! # 6 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 DAKOTA ASSOCIATES LLC/# 6 Page 8 Item #6 Dakota Associates, LLC Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Joseph Place District 6 Beach July 10, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: Next item is Item #6, Dakota Associates, LLC. Wendy Roenker: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. My name is Wendy Roenker. I'm with the law firm of West, Stuponvich and Fornier. We're here representing the applicant Dakota Associates on this street closure. We're here to answer any questions you may have. Ronald Ripley: Do the Commissioners have any questions of her at this point? If you want to present what you're proposing to do, it would be a good idea to do it at this point. Wendy Roenker: Sure. Ronald Ripley: Because we do have opposition, at least that's what we understand. Wendy Roenker: Okay. Dakota Associates proposes to close a portion of Joseph Street, which currently is listed as a through street on plats. And they proposed to close a portion of it and terminate it into a cul-de-sac on Joseph Street. They have acquired the consent of all the surrounding property owners of their five lots. When they close the street, they will keep the same number of lots that they currently have as five. Robert Vakos: Locked in. I'm sorry. Wendy Roenker: That's okay. Ronald Ripley: We apologize for this. Wendy Roenker: Okay. Did we all get it? We want to make the cul-de-sac. Joseph Street - Joseph Place is currently a through street. They want to terminate and close the diagonally drawn portions and make it a cul-de-sac so that there wilt be a court separating the two different neighborhoods there. Ronald Ripley: Okay. From what we understand that you have a site design, you have an approved plan right now to develop the whole street at this point. Wendy Roenker: Yes. Item #6 Dakota Associates, LLC Page 2 Ronald Ripley: Essentially, you'd like to do the cul-de-sac and shorten the street... Wendy Roenker: Yes. Ronald Ripley: And still have the same number of units. Wendy Roenker: Yes. Ronald Ripley: Not increasing the other units? Wendy Roenker: No. Not increasing the other units. Ronald Ripley: That's our understanding. Okay. Any questions? Could we hear from the opposition then? Could you please call? Robert Miller: Patrick Beck. Patrick Beck: I'm going to let Mr. Caton go first if you don't mind? Robert Miller: James Caton. James Caton: I'm James C. Caton. I have lived on the comer of Wolfsnare and Gloria Place for the last 35 years. I'm an original property owner in what we called the "New Hilltop Section". I'm not opposed to the development of the property. As a matter of fact, I was looking forward to it. But I was looking forward to Joseph Place being opened all the way through. And that's my concern. In the 35 years that I've lived there, I've seen a lot of changes in the Hilltop area. The number one being Hilltop itself is grid locked most of the day now. And people trying to avoid this gridlock come down Wolfsnare Road and cut through Hilltop Manor. They usually jump on Gloria Place, which I live on the comer. And it's a tremendous amount of traffic going through there. And when I saw this and that they were planning on closing Joseph Place, I was looking for some relief with that traffic. I think it would help in the neighborhood because it is a safety thing. And I asked the question - well one thing, I count six lots there that are undeveloped. I don't know where the five comes from. But who benefits from this by closing Joseph Place other than keeping the traffic from the old part of Hilltop Manor from using Joseph Place as an access to Wolfsnare, which would relieve some of the congestion on Gloria. I don't know if there been any traffic studies done in that area recently but I haven't seen it. It's very noticeable and if the only benefit is to cut off the traffic from the other neighbors using that cul-de-sac, then I am definitely opposed to it. I have no opposition to the homes going in there. It definitely increases my property value so I shouldn't complain. But I think it is a traffic issue and I think it should be addressed before we close this street. I think it needs to be opened. Thank you sir. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Item 4/6 Dakota Associates, LLC Page 3 Robert Miller: Mr. Caton? James Caton: Yes. Robert Miller: Can you show us, as you said you lived at the comer of Gloria. Can you show us which house it is please? James Caton: This one. Robert Miller: Okay. James Caton: This lot here is the sixth lot. It belongs to the people that live here. They use it for a yard now but it is an undeveloped lot. Robert Miller: Next speaker is Patrick Beck. Patrick Beck: I'm Patrick Beck. I'm a little nervous. Ronald Ripley: Don't be nervous. Patrick Beck: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Just relax. Patrick Beck: I go along wholeheartedly on what Mr. Caton said. I live on Gloria Place also, three houses down. I'm here. I'd back up to the new homes that are coming. I don't mind homes. Because it will probably increase my property value but I am curious on why they are closing that. And I'm wondering are they trying to block off the lesser- priced homes from where they are, if that's their main reason they are here. These are the homes that are already there. They are lesser priced and we would like to see it open so that more traffic can go through it. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Beck? Thank you Mr. Beck. Would you like to readdress us? Wendy Roenker: I have with me Mr. Gil Holt, a representative of Dakota Associates. Gil Holt: We come here also this afternoon on behalf of the applicant. The proposal in front of you to shorten Joseph Street or close that portion, we do have signed copies. Do you all have a copy of those by any chance in your packets? I'll pass those out if you don't. These are the signed letters by the four people on live the comer. Robert Miller: Just hand us the whole list. Item #6 Dakota Associates, LLC Page 4 Gil Holt: They're on the last page of the exhibit. We have so noted the ownership. And the gentleman is correct. There are six lots. It would be six lots on Joseph Place. But that sixth lot, which is, number five, is not buildable in its existing condition. The gentlemen on the comer, he owns a portion of that, and 15-feet of that is owned by Lot 7, which is Dakota Associates. Dakota Associates owns lots 7, 9, 3, 4 & 5. The attempt here - we have contacted and sPOke with and these are the signed copies. All four- property owners - these two people are pretty adamant that they would like to see the street closed. They use this portion. It's kind of their basket court, additional driveway and things in that nature. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Holt? Gil Holt: Yes. Ronald Ripley: You ought to stand near the microphone. Gil Holt: I'm sorry. We feel like that at the end of the day we have five homes on a court. It reduces the maintenance that would be required by the City by 40-45 percent. Instead of having 200 feet of street you'll have approximately 120 feet of street. And everyone that lives on Joseph Place in or owns property on Joseph Place supports the application. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of the applicant? Bob? Robert Vakos: I have a question for Mr. Scott if I could. Mr. Scott, you're one of the viewers on this. Robert Scott: Yes. Robert Vakos: Did you take into consideration the comments from the opposition on this? Robert Scott: Yes. When I first saw this application I had a lot of doubts about it. I've come around and change my mind after having to go out and look at it. I noticed that the area in question, if you look at it from Mabel Lane is somewhat heavily treed. I think this method of developing the property would minimize the amount of clearings that you would have to do in there. I'm aware of a fair degree of traffic on Wolfsnare Road. I have to admit I've probably been cutting through there once or twice myself. But Mabel Lane, as far as I know is largely local traffic that serves the needs of the residents in that particular neighborhood. And maybe I'm wrong about that but that's the impression I had. That's what Mabel Lane is. It's not possible to drive down Joseph Place today. There is no street there except for the little nub of a street off of Mabel Lane. The rest of it is unimproved. So, whatever situation exists today as regards to general circulation pattern is going to be the pattern in the future as well. There'll be no change. It just looked to us like so long as most of the residents along that street have no objection to it, Item #6 Dakota Associates, LLC Page 5 it will reduce the amount of clearance of cutting down trees. And it will not have an effect, positive or negative of the traffic pattern in the area. It will keep the traffic pattern basically the same as it is now except there will be five more houses on Joseph Place. So, it looked to us as if the negative effects really aren't there. If this were built - these five houses were built with Joseph Place going through, you would have to clear out the whole street all the way through and you would have another driveway or another road to connect Wolfsnare to Mabel Lane but it didn't appear to us like with all the other streets you had connecting already that there was a particular need to have yet one more. And that there is a significant amount of cut through traffic on Wolfsnare Road and that pretty much is going to stay the way it is. This application is going to have neither a positive nor negative effect on that factor, so all those things considered, our recommendation would be to approve it. And the biggest piece of weight I guess, would be the fact that most of the property owners along that street seem to be in accord with that idea. John Baum: Well, I guess the other thing is that there is only a remote chance that the City has any plans whatever to open that street anyhow. · Robert Scott: Right. We have what we call an "unimproved street policy" and we would actually call on these property owners to participate in the cost of making that street connection which I doubt they'd be willing to do. So, it's probably never going to get connected. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you all very much. Mr. Caton, do you have new information? Mr. Miller sponsored you. James Caton: I agree with Mr. Scott. Wolfsnare Road is real bad. But my concern is Gloria Place. That's the first street to the left when you come off First Colonial. And people take that to Mabel and Dog Leg out to Laskin Road right beside the Saturn Dealer. And during peak hours there's a tremendous amount of traffic through there. It's not local traffic and that' s why I questioned whether there has been a traffic study done. I don't know. But it's approaching a dangerous situation. And the addresses of the people who live on the four comers are Wolfsnare Road and Mabel Lane. No one lives on Joseph Place at the time. Ronald Ripley: I think we have a couple of questions. Dorothy Wood: My parents used to live at First Colonial Inn and I thought I was the only one who knew that Gloria Road short cut. So, I do know that people do use it. I use to come up Wolfsnare, down. Ronald Ripley: Was that a question? Dorothy Wood: I agree with him. People do use that. Ronald Ripley: Betsy? Item//6 Dakota Associates, LLC Page 6 Betsy Atkinson: Mr. Scott, is there a way that the City police could post signs along there that says this is no cut thru, no thru way. And then have the police out there periodically to stop people that are... Robert Scott: It may be troublesome but it's not illegal to drive down a City street. There's no breaking of the law. Betsy Atkinson: I've seen those signs before, you know, it says there's no cut thru here. James Caton: I use it all the time and I'll do anything to avoid that traffic made at Hilltop. Betsy Atkinson: I'm trying to help you. James Caton: It's true. It's a bad situation. Any relief would help. I mean, if it would benefit somebody other than just the five people that are going to live on that street, I wouldn't have a word to say but there's hundred of people that live in Hilltop Manor that would probably use that street if it was open. I've been looking forward to it being open for over 35 years. That's the only wood lot left in that section of Virginia Beach and you're right, there are some beautiful pine -- beautiful Oak trees. I've been living in the shade for a long time and I hate to see them go but it is private property and I think that the developer has the right to build on them what he wants. I don't see wl~ere it would hurt him to build those houses on a through street rather than a cul-de-sac. And if he's going to open a cul-de-sac you got to add the feet of that radius to that short section of that street they're closing. I don't see any benefit from anybody. And as far as City services, we haven't had a street cleaner in Hilltop Manor in 10 years. I don't know what the City does that would save them money by closing this street off. Thank you for listening to me. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Caton. Is there any further discussion that you all would like to have on this? Robert Miller: I think I understand Mr. Caton's point of view and Mr. Beck's point of view. But if Joseph Place were to open there's no guarantee that people would cut through there. I think that the bottom line is that Maze Street is there. Benjamin Street is there. Perhaps, there's some other street further to the west would provide other people ways to cut through there. It's a cow pass system. They're going to find a way through there just as you do and you would like to think that people would take the corridors that we've set up to be major thoroughfares, I would acknowledge to you that on my very rare occasions, I never cut through your Gloria Place. But, First Colonial does set you on the spin and hopefully the improvements for Laskin Road and First Colonial which will be done, I'm sure real soon, and it will have some positive effect on that intersection and help a little bit. I don't know having Joseph Place open with all do respect will guarantee that people will just start finding a new way through there and I think the request is not an unreasonable one as the viewers have said. Item 4/6 Dakota Associates, LLC Page 7 Donald Horsley: The only comment that I make is based on what Mr. Scott said. It's not likely that's going to occur anyway. Ronald Ripley: Does anyone wish to make a motion on this? Robert Miller: Ronald Ripley: I'll make a motion that we approve the application. A motion to approve. Do we have a second? Donald Horsley: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Don Horlsey seconded the motion. Any further discussion? We're ready to vote? AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER ' AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE NAY ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-1, the motion carries. o Se 6. 7. 8. Gpin 2407-88-0681 ZONING HISTORY Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use (reconstruction of loading ramps) - Denied 12-7-99 Change of Zoning (R-10 Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 2-23-99 Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 10-24-95 Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 12-14-81 Reconsideration of Conditions - Granted 3-12-90 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 8-22-88 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 10-12-87 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted9-15-86 Conditional Use Permit (fuel sales) - Granted 6-19-78 Conditional Use Permit (miniature golf) - Granted 2-27-78 9. Conditional Use Permit (veterinary hospital) - Granted 6-28-71 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Chades T., Floyd T., Irving N. Deary, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Chades T. Deary, Floyd T. Deary and Irving N. Deary for a Conditional Use Permit for an automated carwash addition to existing fuel sales at the southeast corner of Laskin Road and First Colonial Road (GPIN #2407-88-0621). Said parcel is located at 1689 Laskin Road and contains 23,697 square feet. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an automated car wash in conjunction with an existing gasoline service station. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal will improve the aesthetics and increase the safety of ingress and egress to the property, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The carwash shall substantially adhere to the site plan entitled "Layout & Landscape Plan -CarWash Addition to Existing BP/Amoco, 1689 Laskin Road," dated March 29, 2002, and prepared by Land Design and Development Inc. A copy of this plan is on file in the Planning Department. The plan depicts, but is not limited to, the addition of streetscape landscaping along Laskin and First Colonial Roads, interior landscaping in conjunction with the proposed carwash, and the closure of the two (2) existing ingress/egress points closest to the intersection of Laskin Road and First Colonial Road. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval...~ ,/.~,. · ~ Submitting DepartmentJA~lenc,: Planning Departmen~?/-~)/~ I,.J//~ CityManage~ ~_.., '~~'z, Charles T. Deary, Floyd T. Deary, Irving N. Deary Page 2 The car wash building shall substantially adhere to the two (2) submitted renderings entitled "BP Car Wash Addition at 1689 Laskin Road" prepared by Land Design and Development, Inc., dated March 27, 2002. Copies of these renderings are on file in the Planning Department. o In accordance with Section 245(e)(2) of the city of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance, no vending machines shall be visible from the public rights-of-way, including the existing vending machines on the property. 4. The exterior of the proposed carwash building shall be painted to match the color of the existing beige kiosk located under the canopy. The existing non-conforming freestanding sign shall be removed and relocated outside areas necessary for future improvements to Laskin Road and First Colonial Road. All new signage shall adhere to the requirements set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance for signage. No signage of any kind shall be installed on the windows or on the facade of the proposed carwash structure. No signage of any kind shall be installed on the poles supporting the canopy or on the lighting poles located on the site. 7. Any proposed trash dumpster shall be screened by an enclosureto be constructed of split face or embossed block in the same color as the car wash building. A zoning vadance shall be obtained from the Board of Zoning appeals to allow for a reduced setback of approximately 27 feet between the carwash building and the nearest gas pump instead of 55 feet as required bythe City Zoning Ordinance. If the vadance is not granted, this Conditional use Permit shall be null and void. General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: July 10, 2002 A Conditional Use Permit to construct an automated car wash 1689 Laskin Road Ma~ K-6 ~ ~o~ ~o s~o~. a~d Irvin~r Dea~ GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 2407-88-0681 #5 - LYNNHAVEN 23,697 square feet Gpin 2407-88-0681 Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY / # 7 Page1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: APPLICATION HISTORY: Carolyn A.K. Smith To operate an automated car wash in conjunction with the existing gasoline service station This request was deferred at the June 12 hearing to provide time for the staff and the applicant to discuss issues related to the relocation of the sign and the timing of improvements. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposed on-site improvements are compatible with the imminent improvements along Laskin Road, i.e. maneuverability of vehicles, etc. · Quality of site improvements in terms of both structures and landscaping. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq There is an existing gas station on the property. The site is currently zoned B-2 Community Business District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: South: · Laskin Road, gas station, mixed retail / B-2 Community Business District · Vacant parcel, restaurant, mixed retail / B-2 Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY / # 7 Page 2 East: · West: · Community Business District Drug store / B-2 Community Business District Laskin Road, mixed retail/B-2 Community Business District Zonin.q History The original Conditional Use Permit for fuel sales on this parcel was granted by City Council on June 19, 1978. There have been other auto related use permits granted in the vicinity of the Laskin Road and First Colonial Road intersection all of which were approved in the late 1980s. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are no significant environmental features on this site as it is currently developed and is almost entirely impervious. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: A six (6) inch water main is located in First Colonial Road and an eight (8) inch water line is located in Laskin Road fronting the property. This site has an existing meter that may be utilized. If a larger meter is required, a site plan must be submitted for review. An eight (8) inch sewer line is located in First Colonial Road fronting the property and a ten (10) inch sewer main in Laskin Road fronting the northwest portion of the property. There is a thirty (30) inch force main in Laskin Road fronting the property. This site is connected to City sewer. Transportation Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY/# 7 Page 3 Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): First Colonial Road in the vicinity of this site is a four (4) lane major urban arterial roadway. Laskin Road in the vicinity of this site is also a four (4) lane major urban arterial roadway. These roadways are currently under design review for expansion to an eight (8) lane divided facility in conjunction with the Laskin Road Phase I project. Construction is scheduled to begin in July of 2004. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity First Colonial Road 40,000 ADT ~ 31,700 ADT ~ Existing Land Use z_ 1,300 ADT Laskin Road 34,000 ADT ~ 31,700 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 1,400 ADT Average Daily Trips as defined by gas station as defined by gas station with car wash Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as planned for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant is proposing to construct and operate a self-service, automated car wash on the site. Planning Commission Agenda Page 4 The site plan depicts the existing 86 feet by 33 feet fuel canopy with five (5) fuel dispensers on the property as well as the existing kiosk. These will remain on the site. The plan also shows the proposed car wash facility on the southeast comer of the property. A small mechanical room (10 feet by 12 feet) is depicted on the west side of the car wash. The access to the car wash will be along the southern property line while exiting vehicles will be directed to the eastem property line. Both the entrance and the exit will be well away from the traffic maneuvering to and from the gas pumps. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals must be obtained to allow for a reduced setback of approximately 27 feet between the car wash building and the nearest gas pump instead of 55 feet as required. .Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The distance from the edge of the curb nearest the car wash to the edge of the fueling canopy is approximately 14 feet. Two-way traffic will be impossible at this location when a car is parked under the canopy for fueling. Both pedestrian and vehicular access is adequate, other than what is noted above. One (1) of the two (2) existing ingress/egress points off of First Colonial Road is slated for removal. One (1) of the two (2) existing ingress/egress points off of Laskin Road will also be removed. With the elimination of these access points, the safety of both pedestrians and those attempting to enter and exit the site in a vehicle is greatly improved. Architectural Desi,qn · The proposed car wash structure will be constructed of masonry block units painted beige to match the existing kiosk on the Site. Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY / # 7 Page 5 Landscape and Open Space Desiqn Currently, the site is devoid of any streetscape or interior landscaping. The submitted plan depicts eight (8) crape myrtles to be installed along First Colonial Road and four (4) Ioblolly pines and understory shrubs to be planted along Laskin Road. Additional landscaping is proposed at both the southeast and southwest comers of the property and adjacent to the queue for the car wash, south of the parking spaces. Category I landscaping is depicted along the east side of the proposed car wash building to aid in screening the structure. Evaluation of Request Staff is supportive of the application to construct a car wash facility and a small mechanical room on the southeast comer of the property subject to the conditions listed below. There are several aspects of the proposal that will markedly improve the aesthetics and increase the safety of ingress and egress to the property. Currently, the site is devoid of any streetscape or interior landscaping. The submitted plan depicts eight (8) crape myrtles to be installed along First Colonial Road and four (4) Ioblolly pines and understory shrubs to be planted along Laskin Road. Additional landscaping is proposed at both the southeast and southwest comers of the property and adjacent to the queue for the car wash, south of the parking spaces and along the eastem fagade of the proposed structure. In addition, consistent with all applications that are heard that involve existing nonconforming signage, staff is recommending that the nonconforming sign be removed. Any new signage must comply with current standards set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) must be obtained to allow for a reduced setback of approximately 27 feet between the car wash building and the nearest gas pump instead of 55 feet as required. The distance from the edge of the curb nearest the car wash to the edge of the fueling canopy is approximately 14 feet. A parked car under the canopy will prohibit two-way traffic at this location. If the BZA variance is not granted, this use permit will become void as the proposed arrangement of structures as shown on the site plan will not be possible. Ultimately, when the Virginia Department of Transportation constructs the proposed improvements along the rights-of-way, vehicular maneuverability within the site will Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY / # 7 Page 6 become even more constrained, likely forcing the owner to make-modifications to the site, particularly in regard to the orientation of the canopy over the gas pumps. Other than the circulation issue identified above, vehicular safety should be enhanced for vehicles entedng and exiting the site due to the removal of the two (2) existing ingress and egress points closest to the Laskin Road and First Colonial Road intersection. This modification will reduce the possible points of conflict as one travels east on the Laskin Road feeder road and north on First Colonial Road. Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use Permit for a car wash facility subject to the conditions below. Conditions o The car wash shall substantially adhere to the site plan entitled "Layout & Landscape Plan - Car Wash Addition to Existing BP/Amoco, 1689 Laskin Road," dated March 29, 2002, and prepared by Land Design and Development Inc. A copy of this plan is on file in the Planning Department. The plan depicts, but is not limited to, the addition of streetscape landscaping along Laskin and First Colonial Roads, interior landscaping in conjunction with the proposed car wash, and the closure of the two (2) existing ingress/egress points closest to the intersection of Laskin Road and First Colonial Road. The car wash building shall substantially adhere to the two (2) submitted renderings entitled "BP Car Wash Addition at 1689 Laskin Road" prepared by Land Design and Development, Inc., dated march 27, 2002. Copies of these renderings are on file in the Planning Department. In accordance with Section 245 (e) (2) of the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance, no vending machines shall be visible from the public rightS-of-way, including the existing vending machines on the property. The exterior of the proposed car wash building shall be painted to match the color of the existing beige kiosk located under the canopy. The existing non-conforming freestanding sign shall be removed and relocated outside areas necessary for future improvements to Laskin Road and First Colonial Road. All new signage shall adhere to the requirements set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance for signage. Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY/# 7 Page 7 o No signage of any kind shall be installed on the windows or on the fagade of the proposed car wash structure. No signage of any kind shall be installed on the poles supporting the canopy or on the lighting poles located on the site. Any proposed trash dumpster shall be screened by an enclosure to be constructed of split face or embossed block in the same color as the car wash building. A zoning variance shall be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for a reduced setback of approximately 27 feet between the car wash building and the nearest gas pump instead of 55 feet as required by the City Zoning Ordinance. If the variance is not granted, this Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 ~~~..-~ CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY / # 7 Page 8 LASKIN ROAD (RT. # 58)- ~,,cu~,t., pine bu~ord hol~ /~~~ Planning Commission Agenda ~u,~ ~o, 2oo~ CHARLES T. OEARY, FLOYD T. OEARY, IRVING N. DEARY / # 7 Page 9 ........ ~' ~'~'~"""~'~' Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY I # 7 Page10 Planning Commission Agenda July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY ! # 7 Page11 Planning Commission Agenda ~?~ ~ .. '~ July 10, 2002 CHARLES T. DEARY, FLOYD T. DEARY, IRVING N. DEARY / # 7 Page12 Item #7 Charles T. Deary, Floyd T. Deary and Irving lq. Deary Conditional Use Permit for an automated car wash addition to existing fuel sales at the southeast comer of Laskin Road and First Colonial Road 1689 Laskin Road District 5 Lynnhaven July 10, 2002 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #7 with eight conditions. It's Charles T. Deary, Floyd T. Deary and Irving N. Deary. Roger Pope: My name is Roger Pope and I represent the applicant. The eight conditions are acceptable and we will comply with them. Dorothy Wood: This is a Conditional Use Permit, again for an automotive car wash addition to existing fuel sales at the southeast comer of Laskin Road and First Colonial Road. It is located at 1689 Laskin Road. It is District 5, Lynnhaven. Is there any opposition to this Consent agenda item? If not. Ronald Ripley: The comment that we would make is that this - we were ready to pass this matter last month but then we ran into a logistical problem as to when the site improvements would be put in and we deferred it. And Mr. Scott's department worked out with the applicant the logical matter of when that could be installed, so we find the item in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan very acceptable. Dorothy Wood: I would move to approve Item #7, Charles T. Deary, Floyd Deary and Irving Deary for a car wash addition at 1689 Laskin Road with eight conditions. Dreary? Deary. Okay. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion to approve these three items. Do I have a second? Seconded from Will Din. So, we're ready for the question unless there's any discussion. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0- ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. z~4,',p F-10 ~o Not ~o so~ RPA Salem LLC R-7.5 R-5D Gpin 1475-85-4909 ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning from R-5D Residential District and I-1 Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Business District- Granted 7/11/95 Modification of Proffers - Granted 2/29/96 2. Rezoning from R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Business District - Denied 4/9/96 Rezoning from R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Business District- Granted 2/23/99 3. Rezoning from R-10 Residential District to B-2 Business District - Denied 6/2/86 Rezoning from R-10 Residential District to B-2 Business District - Withdrawn 8/28/90 Rezoning from R-10 Residential District to Conditional B-2 Business District - G ranted 7/1/97 4. Rezoning from R-10 Residential District to A-12 Apartment District with PDH2 Overlay- Granted 9/22/98 5. Rezoning from R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Business District- Granted 7/14/98 6. Modification of Proffers - Granted 9/25/01 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC - Change of Zoning MEETING DATE: August 27, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC, for a Chan.qe of Zonina District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District on the east side of Salem Road, 200 feet more or less north of Lynnhaven Parkway (GPIN #1475-85-4909). The proposed zoning classification change to Conditional B- 2 is for commercial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contains 28,677.72 square feet. DISTRICT 1 CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The subject property will be combined with the property to the south, at the comer of Salem Road and Lynnhaven Parkway. The corner parcel was previously rezoned for the development of a 7-11 convenience store with gas pumps. During the, subsequent detailed site plan review for the 7-11 convenience store, the developer of the site requested permission to install a stormwater management facility and access road on what was then a City-owned parcel. Discussions ensued, and it was determined that it would be in the best interest of the developer to purchase the City-owned parcel from the City and combine it with the comer lot to allow multiple uses on the combined parcel consistent _with the proffered rezoning. The developer purchased the property from the City in the spring of 2002. The developer is now requesting that the property be rezoned to Conditional B-2 so that it can be combined with the corner parcel and developed as part of the 7-11 convenience store site. The property now being requested for rezoning will be used for an access drive and a stormwater management facility for the 7-11 site. Recommendations: Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~7~;~ RPA Salem Lynnhaven LLC Page 2 The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-1 to approve this request subject to the submitted proffers as part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement. RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC / # 3 ! August 14, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change of Zonin.q District Classification from R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District. Property located on the east side of Salem Road, 200 feet north of Lynnhaven Parkway. Map .F-lo ~op ~o~ ~o s~ RPA Salem LI, C R-7.5 ~, <1> R-5D GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: G.ein 1475-85..4909 14758549090000 1 - CENTERVILLE 28,677.72 square feet Barbara Duke The subject property will be combined with the property to the south, at the corner of Salem Road and Lynnhaven Parkway. The corner parcel was previously rezoned for the development of a 7- 11 convenience store with gas pumps. The property now being requested for rezoning will be used for an access drive and a stormwater management facility for the 7-11 site. Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC / # 3 Page I Major Issues: · Degree to which the rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The property is currently zoned R-5D Residential District and is vacant. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Salem Crossing shopping center / Conditional B-2 Community Business District · Proposed 7-11 convenience store and gas pumps / Conditional B-2 Community Business District · Salem Crossing shopping center/Conditional B-2 Community Business District · Across Salem Road from the site there is a condominium development / A-12 Apartment District with PDH-2 Planned Development Overlay Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: With Proposed Zoning: This property contains sufficient lot area to be subdivided into two duplex sites, a total of four residential units. The property will be combined with property to the south to create one lot that will be developed as a 7-11 convenience store with gas pumps. The subject site will contain the access ddve and thestormwater management facility. Zoninq History In July 1998, the property to the south of the subject site was rezoned from R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District for the development of a Walgreens drug store at the corner of Salem Road and Lynnhaven Parkway and the development of Salem Shops on the remainder of the parcel to the east, fronting on Lynnhaven Parkway. In September 2001, the proffers associated with that rezoning were modified to allow a 7-11 convenience store with gas pumps to be developed on the corner parcel in lieu of the Walgreens drug store. A conditional use permit for the gas pumps was simultaneously approved in September 2001. At the time of the original rezoning in 1998 and the modification of proffers in 2001, the property to the north, the subject property under consideration with this request, was owned by the City of Virginia Beach. In both the 1998 proffers and the 2001 proffers, the Walgreens and the 7-11 were restricted from direct access to Salem Road due to traffic concerns, and the access was shown farther north, through the subject parcel Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC ! # 3 Page 2 then owned by the City of Virginia Beach. At that time, the discussion regarding use of the City property for access assumed the applicant's use of the property would occur under an encroachment agreement with the City. During the subsequent detailed site plan review for the 7-11 convenience store, the developer of the site requested permission to allow a stormwater management facility to be installed on the City-owned parcel in addition to the access road. It was then determined that it would be in the best interest of the developer to purchase the City- owned parcel from the City and combine it with the corner lot to allow multiple uses on the combined parcel consistent with the proffered rezoning. The developer purchased the property from the City in the spring of 2002. The developer is now requesting that the property be rezoned to Conditional B-2 so that it can be combined with the comer parcel and developed as part of the 7-11 convenience store site. The only modification to the originally approved site plan under the conditional use permit for the gas pumps of September 2001 is the relocation of the stormwater management facility to the northern (subject) parcel instead of along the Lynnhaven Parkway frontage. This change is not considered to be substantial enough to require a modification to the conditions of the original use permit; therefore, no request to modify the conditions of the use permit has been applied for. The new location of the stormwater management facility is an improvement over the original design in terms of water quality benefits as well as aesthetics. Additional landscaping around the pond's edge as well as along Salem Road, in front of the pond, is provided on the site plan. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is a grassy level area with some scattered trees. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer ,~ This site will be combined with the corner parcel. A water meter and a sewer connection have been provided for the comer parcel by the developer of the adjacent Salem Shops center. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Lynnhaven Parkway in the vicinity of this application is considered a four (4) lane divided major suburban arterial. There is currently no project to upgrade this facility in the CIP. Salem Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a six (6) lane major suburban arterial. There is currently no project to upgrade this portion of Salem Road in the CIP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Lynnhaven Parkway 30,000 Under the existing zoning (R- ADT 32,500 ADT 5D), the site could generate at least 40 ADT. Under this Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC / # 3 Page 3 rezoning proposal, the potential for those trips will be eliminated. Proposed Land Use 2.6,500 ADT Salem Road 27,000 ADT 49,300 ADT Average Daily Trips as defined by the subject pamel combined with the parcel to the south, previously granted a conditional use permit for a convenience store with gas pumps Schools There will be a limited impact on schools as a result of this rezoning request due to the loss of the 4 potential dwelling units. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No comment. There is no negative impact on fire and rescue services. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends that for those areas of the Kempsville Planning Area yet to be developed, we must establish and adhere to high standards of appearance and function. The combination of this pamel with the one to the south, which is regulated in respect to appearance and function through the granted conditional use permit and the proffers provided with the rezoning, assures that this recommendation is met. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The subject property will be combined with the property to the south, at the corner of Salem Road and Lynnhaven Parkway. The comer parcel is being developed as a 7- 11 convenience store with gas pumps. The subject property will be used as for an access drive and will contain the stormwater management facility for the 7-11 site. Site Desiqn ° The proposed site plan shows an access drive crossing the site. A dry detention pond is proposed between the access drive and Salem Road. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · There will be a right turn lane provided on Salem Road at the entrance to the access road. The site plan shows a right-of-way dedication for the area of the right turn lane. The access road will serve a 7-11 convenience store with gas pumps as an entrance and exit. The access road is 35 feet wide. The access road will be one of two entrance/exit points for the 7-11 convenience store and gas pumps. The other access point is on Lynnhaven Parkway. Planning Commission Agenda ~~ August 14, 2002~.~ RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC / # 3 Page 4 · The access roadway is also connected to the adjoining shops, providing a Salem Road access for those shops should this request be approved. i Landscape and Open Space · A landscape plan has been submitted showing deciduous trees along Salem Road as well as a mixture of Iow growing evergreen shrubs and flowering shrubs in groupings around the edge of the dry pond. · The landscape plan also shows six large trees to be planted along the access road. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plan, displayed to City Council and on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, entitled "7-ELEVEN CONDITIONAL REZONING SITE PLAN", prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., dated July 1,2002, as amended, as well as all applicable City codes and ordinances (hereinafter "Site Plan"). This proffer is acceptable. No structure shall be constructed on the Property other than in connection with the proposed entrance, landscaping, access road and stormwater management facility, all as shown on the Site Plan. This proffer is acceptable. It is the intent of the applicant to combine this parcel with the corner parcel to the south and develop the combined site with a 7-11 convenience store with gas pumps. This proffer ensures that no additional commercial structures will be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC / # 3 Page 5 property. PROFFER # 3 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 agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. Staff Evaluation: This is a standard proffer and is acceptable. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 11,2002 and has found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request for a rezoning from R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District is acceptable. The subject parcel will be combined with the larger corner parcel to the south and will be developed as part of a 7-11 convenience store with gas pumps. The access road, stormwater management facility and the landscaping provided on the site will enhance the attractiveness and functioning of the business. This request meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining high standards of appearance and function. It is recommended that the request be approved subject to the submitted proffers. 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 August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC / # 3 Page 6 t I/ Stephen R. Romine 7-11 at Salem & Lynnhaven (proposed site plan) Planning Commission Agenda ~~ August 8, 2001 STEPHEN R. ROMINE/# 3 & fi4 Page 20 Previously Approved Plan Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC ! # 3 Page J7 i Proffered Plan for Subject Parcel Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC ! # 3 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2002 RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC / # 3 Page 9 Item #3 RPA Sale~m Lynnhaven, LLC Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District East side of Salem Road District 1 Centerville August 14, 2002 CONSENT Robert Miller: Item #3 is RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC, change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Condition B-2 Community Business District on the east side of Salem Road. Steve Romine: Steve Romine, attorney, representing RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC in this matter. Robert Miller: This is a Conditional Rezoning with proffers and no additional conditions. Steve Romine: Right. Robert Miller: Is there opposition to Item #3? Steve Romine: Thank you. Robert Miller: You had wanted an explanation. And I think I ran through these too fast to give you an explanation. Do you want me to back and do that? Ronald Ripley: Yes I would. I would, if you don't mind. What the planning Commission's reasons are for consenting this. Robert Miller: I also think I was supposed to do number 3, which was RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC. This is a Zoning District Classification change from R-5D to B-2. This property is a piece of property that is adjacent to the 7-Eleven that is being built at the comer of Salem and Lynnhaven Parkway. And the plan for the 7-Eleven there was an access drive and a BMP that was put in or shown to be in the area of Salem Road on property that was owned by the City. Since that time, the City has sold the property to the developer and it requires a rezoning, which is what we're doing today to bring it into conformance. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much for the explanation. And I would like a motion to approve Item # 3. Could I have a motion Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: So moved. Item #3 RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC Page 2 Ronald Ripley: Motion by Betsy Atldnson, seconded by Don Horsley. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 1 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10o0, that item passes. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: RPA Salem Lgnnhaven, LLC List All Current Property Owners: same as above - RPA Salem Lynnhaven, IJ~C, PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Rickard E. Bumell - Mana~ng Member and Sole Member [-] Check .here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) !f the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. RPA Salem Lynnh~, '~ted 1 '~ company ~ . Signature - By: R±ckard E. Burnell, Manag±ng Member Rickard E. Burnell, Managing Member PdntName Rev. 9/15/98 ~O~M NO. P.S. lB City o£ Virginia Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5599 DATE: August 15, 2002 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilso~n~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 27, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated July 11, 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 PROFFERRED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, TO CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia. THIS AGREEMENT, is made this 11t~ day of July, 2002, by and between RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN~ LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, GRANTOR; and CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, GRANTEE. WITNESSETH: The GRANTOR is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Kempsville Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 0.65835 of an acre and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, such property hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and The GRANTOR has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, bY petition addressed to the GRANTEE so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-5D Residential Duplex District to B-2 Community Business District so that it matches the Zoning Classification of the GRANTOR's adjacent parcel; and 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 The GRANTOR acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the proposed modification of conditions to the zoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the application gives rise; and The GRANTOR has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the GRANTEE, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical GPIN 1475-85-4909-0000 Prepared by.' Stephen R. Romine LeClair Ryan, A Professional Corporation 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 515 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 development, operation, and use of the Property, to be adopted as a part of such amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the GRANTOR, 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 governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the GRANTOR, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, Grantees, and other successors in interest or rifle: 1. The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plan, displayed to City Council and on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, entitled "7oELEVEN CONDITIONAL REZONING SITE PLAN", prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., dated July 1, 2002, as amended, as well as all applicable City codes and ordinances (hereinafter "Site Plan"). 2. No structure shall be constructed on the Property other than in connection with the proposed entrance, landscaping, access road and stormwater management facility, all as shown on the Site Plan. 3. 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. The GRANTOR further covenants and agrees that: All references hereinabove to R-5D and B-2 Dislxicts and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the 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 if the subsequent amendment is part of a 2 comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the GRANTEE in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the GRANTEE, after a public hearing before the GRANTEE which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Such ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with such instrument as conclusive evidence of consent, and if not so recorded, such instrument shall be void. (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the GRANTOR may petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the GRANTOR and the GRANTEE. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: RPA SALEM LYNNHAVEN, LLC, Rickard E. Bumell, Managing Member STATE O,F,VIRGINIA CITY 0;~.,~.~ ~, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi~.'~CT~day of July, 2002, by Rickard E. Burnell, as Managing Member of RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, on behalf of the Company. aryPublic My Commission Expires: 4 EXHIBIT "A" All those certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and designated and described as "PAR 011 SHIRLEY A/ BUCKNER t/a WADSWORTH ENTERPRISES .... ACQUISITION AR~A = 28,678 SQ. Fr. 0.65835 ACRE" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FROM SHIRLEY A. BUCKNER t/a WADSWORTH ENTERPRISES FOR SALEM ROAD CIP 2-930 KEMPSVILE BOROUGH - VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" dated May 30, 1997, Scale: 1" = 25', which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 259, at page 53. It being the same property conveyed to RPA Salem Lynnhaven, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, by Deed from the City of Virginia Beach, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated May 16, 2002, recorded May 17, 2002, in Deed Book 4694, page 290, in the aforesaid Clerk's Office. July 2, 2002 Because once we pass this, then, this will go into effect tonight. The next items are Planning: Planning Item 2 is recommended for an indefinite deferral. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Excuse me. We have someone listed under Item 2 of Planning. Mr. Bourdon. CITY CLERK: Your Honor, he doesn't want to speak on anything but the last one. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. That will be deferred indefinitely. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: Application of Danny Martin for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-12(SD and A-18(SD)Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay(Shore Drive Overlay District)Pleasure House Road and North Greenwell Road, containing one acre. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: Mr. Mandigo abstaining. By a vote of 11 to 0, except on Item Number 8 for Planning and 10 to 0 with You have approved the Consent Agenda of Planning Items and Ordinances. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: July 2, 2002 INFORMAL SESSION Ail right. Bayside. Now, Planning. Mr. Jones, COIIRCILMAN JONES: The first one is okay as far as I am concerned. Item 2, I believe we are going to defer that indefinitely because of the closing of that right-of-way that's in there. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Defer indefinitely. COUNCILMAN JONES: Put it on Consent for defer indefinitely. FORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: The Agenda for the Formal Session was received by the Council on Friday and they have had a chance to look through it. The Council, in the Informal Session, tentatively looks at the items that they will put on the Consent Agenda and I don't have -- oh, here it is. Yes, I do. If there are no people in'the public who want to speak on a particular item, we'll leave it on Consent. If there is an issue that people have signed up for -- no. Okay. CITY CT.~.RK: Your Honor, only for the last Planning Item. Mr. Bourdon has signed up to speak. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Mandigo. Please. VICE MAYOR MANDIGO: Thank you, Madam Mayor. On the Consent Agenda, if your item is on this and was passed, then, it's passed. You won't have any further business. If you hear an item on this that you wanted to speak on, this would be a good time to let the Clerk know immediately. 3 Virginia Beach City Council July 2, 2002 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Robert C. Mandigo, Vice Mayor Margaret L. Eure Louis R. Jones Reba S. McClanan Richard A. Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron A. Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large District 2 - Kempsville District 1 - Centerville District 4 - Bayside District 3 - Rose Hall District 6 - Beach District 7 - Princess Anne At-Large At-Large At-Large District 5 - Lynnhaven CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Danny Martin Item V-J.2. PLANNING ITEM # 49891 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Mandig°' seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of DANNY MARTIN for a Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF DANNY MARTIN FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM A-12 (SD) AND A-18 (SD) APARTMENT DISTRICTS TO A-18 WITH A PD-H2 OVERLAY (SHORE DRIVE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT) Ordinance upon Application of Danny Martin for a Change of Zonim, District Classification/rom A- 12 (SD) and A- 18 (SD) Apartment Distric/s to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) on the east side of Pleasure House Road, 150feet south of N. Greenwell Road (GPIN #1479-48-6524; #1479-48-7476; #1479-48-7522). The proposed zoning classification change to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay and a Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is for multifamily land use at a density no greater than 18 units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at medium and high densities that are compatible with single family, townhouse and multifamily use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contains 1 acre. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Margaret L. Eure, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Vice Mayor Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf dim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 2, 2002 Map Martin Gpin See Application 7ONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning from R-8 Residential to A-1Apartment- Granted 2-9-76; Rezoning from R-8 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 10-8-79 2. Rezoning from A-12 Apartment to A-18 Apartment- Granted 1-8-90 Reconsidered and Denied 2-12-90 3. Rezoning from A-1 Apartment to A-2 Apartment - Granted 3-17-75 4. Rezoning fi;~n R-8 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 2-27-84 5. Rezoning from R-5 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 5-9-83 6. Rezoning from R-6 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 7-5-83 7. Rezoning from A-18 Apartment to A-24 Apartment - Withdrawn 5-9-88 8. Rezoning from A-2 Apartment to A-3 Apartment - Granted 12-13-83 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Danny Martin, Change of Zoning Distdct Classification MEETING DATE: ,~u~iust: 27. 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Danny Martin for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H20veday (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) on the east side of Pleasure House Road, 150 feet south of N. Greenwell Road (GPIN #1479-48-6524; #1479-48-7476; #1479-48-7522). The proposed zoning classification change to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay and a Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is for multifamily land use at a density no greater than 18 units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at medium and high densities that are compatible with single family, townhouse and multifamilY use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contains 1 acre. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts with SD Shore Drive Overlay to A-18 Apartment District with a PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay and SD Shore Drive Overlay for the purpose of allowing the development of single- family condominium units. The A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts do not permit single-family dwellings. However, the use of the PD-H2 District as an overlay to the A-18 Apartment District allows the applicant to specify the types of dwelling units for the development. In this case, the dwelling types will be single-family dwellings in a condominium form of ownership. Use of the PD-H2 District also allows for the applicant to specify setbacks, height, and other requirements that supplements and supercedes in some cases the underlying A-18 zoning. The result is a development type that is better-suited to the surrounding area and more consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Shore Drive and Pleasure House Road areas. Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9-1 to approve this request subject to the submitted PD-H2 Land Use Plan outlined below with the addition of conditions regarding siding material and column size as recommended by staff: Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ubmittingDe pa__~m e.nt/Age n cy: ity Manager: ~L__,P~ n i--ng(~ ~-~. Department ~"~J/~i~:l, Danny Martin Page 2 The property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the site plan entitled "Rezoning Exhibit of Martinique Cove", dated February 6, 2002 and prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Engineering Inc. This site plan has been presented to City council and is on file in the Department of Planning. In accordance with Section 1124 of the city Zoning Ordinance, the plan "shall serve as a supplement to and, where they conflict, as a replacement for, the zoning regulations of the" A-18 Apartment District. The condominium units shall be developed substantially in conformance with the elevation sketches and materials list dated May 29, 2002. These elevation sketches and materials list have been presented to City Council and are on file in the Department of Planning. The elevations and materials shall be revised as follows: Doorways shall be angled at 45 degrees as provided on the site plan. Vinyl Shake Siding shall be used on the front facade and the second story of the sides and rear of the first three (3) units closest to Pleasure House Road on both the north and south side of the development. Vinyl Siding may be used on the first floor around the sides and rear of those units. A Frieze Board of a complementary neutral color must be provided at the horizontal line of the change of material. · Entryway columns shall be at least 10 inches square. DANNY MARTIN / # 3 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change of Zoning from A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts with SD Shore Drive Overlay to A-18 Apartment District with PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay and SD Shore Drive Overlay East side of Pleasure House Road, 150 feet south of North Greenwell Road Dann Martin Gpin See Application GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: #1479-48-6524; 1479-48-7476; 1479-48-7522 4 - BAYSIDE 1 acre Barbara Duke To rezone the property to allow the development of single-family condominium units. The A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts do not permit single-family dwellings. However, the use of the PD-H2 District as an overlay to the A-18 Apartment District allows the applicant to specify the types of dwelling units for the development. In this case, the dwelling types will be single-family dwellings in a condominium form of ownership. Use of the PD-H2 District also allows for the applicant to specify setbacks, height, and other requirements that supplements and supercedes in some cases the underlying A-18 zoning. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN / # 3 Page1 Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood · Degree to which the proposal meets the objectives of the draft Shore Drive Design Guidelines Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is comprised of three small lots. There is an existing single-family home on the largest of the three lots, fronting on Pleasure House Road. The front lot is zoned A-12 Apartment District and the two smaller flag lots are zoned A-18 Apartment District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: · South: · East: · West: · Single Family and Duplex Units / R-5R Residential District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Apartment Complex / A-12 Apartment District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Single Family and Duplex Units / R-5R Residential District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Single Family Homes / R-10 Residential District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing The existing zoning would allow the development of 16 Zoning: multi-family units With Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning allows the development of 13 single-family condominium units in accordance with an approved land use plan. Zoning History The front portion of the subject property was rezoned from R-8 Residential District to A- 1 (now A-12) Apartment District in 1976. The back portion of the subject property was rezoned from R-8 Residential District to A-2 Apartment District (now A-18) Apartment District in 1979. There were numerous other rezonings from Residential to Apartment District on surrounding sites during the 1980s. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN I # 3 Page 2 Air Inst~llation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is not within an AICUZ area. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site has a mixture of mature evergreen and deciduous trees. This property is within the Resource Management Area (RMA) of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 10 inch water main in Pleasure House Road fronting this property. This site must connect to City water. There is a 12 inch gravity sewer main in Pleasure House Road fronting this property. This site must connect to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Pleasure House Road in the vicinity of this application is a two lane undivided residential collector. There are currently no plans to upgrade this roadway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 147 Pleasure House Road 5,600 ADT ~ 7,200 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 156 Average Daily Trips as defined by 12 units/acre as defined by 13 single-family condominiums Schools The proposed rezoning will result in a reduction in site density of three units; therefore, there will not be any significant impact on schools as a result of this rezoning. Public Safety Police: Adequate. No further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate. No further comments. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN I # 3 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan The Bayfront Planning Area land use policies support well-planned and designed residential development proposals that promote economic vitality, community aesthetics and enhanced quality of life. The subject site is located in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District and development of the site should meet the objectives of the draft Shore Drive Design Guidelines. These guidelines do not attempt to dictate a particular architectural style, but are provided in order to: Encourage development consistent with the community's goals that will achieve the physical characteristics necessary to enhance the economic vitality and visual aesthetics of the Shore Drive corridor; Ensure that the scale and context of new buildings are compatible with the desired character of the community, while encouraging existing buildings to upgrade to meet the higher standards of design; and · Ensure that development relates to the pedestrian as well as to the automobile, and that non-residential uses are compatible with adjacent residential areas. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant is proposing to develop a 13 unit single family condominium complex on this one acre site. This represents a decrease in the overall site density of three units. The subject site is encumbered with a 25 foot wide City easement. This easement is not in use by the City and the applicant has petitioned the City for the sale of easement as excess property. City Council must approve the sale of the easement in order for this project to be developed. The request for the sale of excess property will be heard and acted on by City Council prior to the rezoning request. Site Desi.qn · The site layout plan shows that there will be a central 20 foot wide drive aisle that will be used to access the units on either side. There are six units on the north side of the drive aisle and seven units on the south side of the drive aisle. A fifteen foot right of way dedication is shown along the frontage of this site to bring Pleasure House Road up to the minimum 60 foot width for a residential collector. There is a twenty foot setback from the right of way dedication line for the two units adjacent to Pleasure House Road. Effectively, this creates a 35 foot setback from the edge of pavement to the first two units. · The spacing between the buildings on site will vary; the minimum space will be 7 foot in width. · A 10 foot setback from the northern, eastern and southern property lines is shown on the site layout plan. · Underground infiltration is proposed for on-site stormwater management. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN / # 3 ......... Page 4 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · The applicant has provided a 15 foot dedication of right of way along Pleasure House Road. Although there are no current plans for upgrade of this roadway, the dedicated area can be used for the future multi-purpose path envisioned by the Virginia Beach ----. Outdoors Plan. A 20 foot wide central ,i , access aisle with a turn around at the eastem terminus is provided. · Each unit will be provided a garage in addition to two parking spaces in the driveway. Architectural Design · The units will be two story. The doorways to the units are angled at 45 degrees to create a distinctive entrance that adds interest to the front and side facades of the building. A small covered entry space supported by columns is provided at each doorway. The buildings have been designed so that the doorways on adjacent buildings alternate sides. The doorways will face each other across a green space between buildings. All units will have a front-loading garage and a room that projects in front of the garage. Using this projection will help to soften the prominence of the garage on the front facade of the building. Beige vinyl shake siding will be used for the front facade. The exterior material for the sides and rear of the building will be beige vinyl siding. It should be noted that the applicant has worked with staff on the design of the units using some of the Shore Drive Guidelines for the buildings, making revisions to the original design to develop the design presented with this report. However, there is one specific design recommendation that the applicant has not incorporated that staff feels is critical to this project meeting the objectives of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines as stated in the Comprehensive Plan section of this report. This recommendation is suggested as a condition of the PD-H Land Use Plan at the end of this report and states: Beige Vinyl Shake Siding shall be used on the front facade and the second stony of the sides and rear of each unit. Beige Vinyl Siding may be used on the first floor around the sides and rear of each unit. A Freize Board of a complementary neutral co/or shall be provided at the horizontal line of the change of material. The sides of units #1 and #2 will be facing Pleasure House Road. A side elevation has been provided that shows that there will be two windows on the upper story and two windows on the first story along the side wall. All four Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN / # 3 Page 5 windows are the same size and the placement of the windows is proportional. The roof variation and the angled doorway add interest to the side fa(;ade facing Pleasure House Road. The roofs of the units will be pitched and the roofline is varied. The roofing material is specified as asphalt shingles. Landscape and Open Space · The applicant is required to provide 15% open space for this development. The site layout plan shows 8,174 square feet, or 18%, open space is being provided in front of the units. Another 13,719 square feet, or 32%, open space is being provided between buildings and within perimeter setbacks. The total open space in the development is 50%. · The open spaces in front of the units will be planted with a mixture of shrubs. Crape Myrtle trees are also specified for these areas. · There is no landscaping proposed along the northern and southem property lines, in back of the units. · A 6 foot high privacy fence is shown surrounding the property on the north, east and south sides. · There is an area at the rear of the site, along the eastern property line, that will be planted with Wax Myrtle shrubs and Live Oak trees. Along the west side, adjacent to Pleasure House Road, the applicant is proposing a 3 foot high white vinyl post and rail fence with Wax Myrtle shrubs and Live Oak trees planted as a landscape buffer/entrance feature. Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the subject property from A-12 and A-18 Apartment District with SD Shore Drive Overlay District to A-18 PD-H2 Planned Development with SD Shore Drive Overlay District is acceptable. The subject property is encumbered by a 25 foot wide City easement that is not in use by the City. The applicant has petitioned the City for the sale of this excess property. City Council must approve the sale of the easement in order for this project to be developed. The request for the sale of excess property will be heard and acted on by City Council prior to the rezoning request. The single family condominium unit proposed by the applicant fits well into the surrounding neighborhood, which is an eclectic mix of duplexes, single family homes, traditional apartment complexes and single family condominiums. The proposed land use plan makes good use of open space in front of and between the units and provides ample parking for the units. The proposed development represents a decrease of three units in density from the existing zoning. The decrease in density and the good design of the land use plan make this proposal more beneficial to the neighborhood than the traditional apartment complex allowed by the existing zoning. The applicant has incorporated some of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines to improve the project. The requested rezoning is recommended for approval subject to the submitted PD-H2 Land Use Plan outlined below with the addition of conditions regarding siding material and column size as recommended by staff: Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN / # 3 Page 6 LAND USE PLAN The property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the site plan titled "Rezoning Exhibit of Martinique Cove", dated February 6, 2002 and prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Engineering Inc. This site plan has been presented to City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. In accordance with Section 1124 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the plan "shall serve as a supplement to and, where they conflict, as a replacement for, the zoning regulations of the" A-18 Apartment District. The condominium units shall be developed substantially in conformance with the elevation sketches and materials list dated May 29, 2002. These elevation sketches and materials list have been presented to City Council and are on file in the Department of Planning. The elevations and materials shall be revised as follows: · Doorways must be angled at 45 degrees as provided on the site plan. Vinyl Shake Siding must be used on the front fa(;ade and the second story of the sides and rear of the first three (3) units closest to Pleasure House Road on both the north and the south sides of the development. Vinyl Siding may be used on the first floor around the sides and rear of each unit. A Frieze Board of a complementary neutral color must be provided at the horizontal line of the change of material. · Entryway columns must be at least 10 inches square. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ~'~ DANNY MARTIN / # 3 Page 7 ! =1 ~ t I PROPOSED SITE PLAN Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN I # 3 Page 8 iii PROPOSED SITE PLAN DETAILS Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN I # 3 Page 9 PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN I # 3 Page 10 PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN / # 3 Page 11 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLEASUREHOUSE RD. PROPERTY 13 Units Each unit approximately 1,800 sq. fi. Exterior Materials: Vinyl Shake front siding Vinyl siding on sides and back Vinyl insulated tilt windows - wh/te Metal insulated exterior doors 1.5 cat garages. 8 panel door with window lights - pre-finished garage door White vinyl uSm on windows, overhang and comers Asphalt architectural shingles Interior: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths Open flow-through floor plan with ~. ceilings on first floor Glazed ceramic tile in 1 ~ floor foyer and bath Upgraded vinyl in kiteheo Pre-finished oabinets with preformed Formica co,.mter tops in kitchen and baths Ceiling fans in greal room and master bedroom Optional Jacuzzi tub in master bath Largo great room open to kitchen Kitchen: range ovexi with self cleaning oven, microwave, dishwasher, disposal Spacious dining area 2 zone cenlral air/gas heat, gas water heater, gas fireplace Plastex walls and ceilings Upgraded Vinyl flooring in upstairs laundry room and baths Carpet in great room, dirdng area, bedroorns, hall arid staLrs Pre-wired for telephone and cable in alt rooms Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 DANNY MARTIN / # 3 Page 12 Planning Commission Agenda June t2, 2002 DANNY MARTIN I # 3 Page 13 Item #3 Danny Martin Change of Zoning District Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Overlay District) on the east side of Pleasure House Road, 150 feet south of N. Greenwell Road District 4 Bayside June 12, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Ronald Ripley: Okay. We're going to go into the regular remaining items on the regular agenda. And the first item that I believe Mr. Miller is going to call is Item #3. Robert Miller: Danny Martin. Eddie Bourdon: That was it? You're not going to read the... Robert Miller: I'm not reading all of that. Eddie Bourdon: For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm representing Mr. Martin on this application. Late this morning you were given copies - excuse me, the samples of the building materials for these proposed units. I would note that the vinyl siding that was provided was just a sample of the type of material not the colors, however, the cedar shake vinyl was in fact, the specific type of vinyl and the three specific types of colors for that. I have some pictures - 18 pictures of residential units. Some multi-family, some that require rezoning. Some that did not, in and around Shore Drive that I'm going to pass around. The one that's on top is the Three Ships Landing right on Shore Drive where the sides and the rear do not have vinyl shake but do have the frieze board that separates the two top and bottom floors if you will. That's all vinyl. ~ I'll pass these around. As Barbara explained to you all in the informal this morning, the rezoning here is necessitated by the fact that my client desires to do single family condominiums rather than apartments or multi-family dwelling condos. Since we're not asking for any increase in density or up zoning. We're actually eliminating three units that could be built on the subject property based on the current zonings of those properties. But because the zoning ordinance doesn't allow, in essence a free standing unit in multi-family zoning, we would ask for the PDH overlay, with our own land use plan. Frankly all of- we worked - Dan's worked very diligently with the staff on the plan and the plan as you know, has the recommendation for approval from staff. The only problem we have is the conditions with regard - first of all, there's a misunderstanding with regard to the color. The conditions indicate beige vinyl shake siding and beige was never - I know the color you have may look beige, it's actually called Antique Gray but so that is an aspect of the conditions. It needs to be revised under any circumstances. The second issue we have and the only other issue we have is the request or recommendation from the staff that the vinyl shake siding be placed not Item #3 Danny Martin Page 2 only on the front of each unit, which we have no objection to whatsoever. But also that it be added on the second floor of the sides and the rears of all the buildings. We don't have any objection. My client has no objection to putting the vinyl shake on the side and the rear - sides and rear of the first unit. I if you can put --yeah. You see, the property fronts on Pleasure House Road as you are all aware. And we got apartments that adjoin us over here. You know, this is Pleasure House Road - it's not visible from Shore Drive. We have no problem putting the vinyl shake here and actually we go ahead make it here, but it will silly not do it on the whole building. But on these two buildings that have visibility from Pleasure House Road. The remainder of the buildings, you know, the sides - top half of the sides, top half of the rear, you really have no visibility, and you still have a high quality material. It's material without doing the shake that, you know, throughout this area of the City. And the cost is triple the cost of doing the high quality vinyl that has been proposed. And the objection isn't to the quality of the vinyl, it's the desire to have more shake on the buildings. And I would just suggest that, you know, in situations where there is high visibility that's one thing, but, I give you again that the Three Ships Landing situation where there is high visibility and you know, frankly, I don't think those units are unattractive. And this doesn't have anyway near that type of visibility and to require this additional cost where, again, in our opinion, there isn't a - there's very little to be gained in term of benefit other than cost. This is somewhat a cost sensitive area given the surrounding land uses and we think this is an upgrade to most of those land uses. There are some single families in the area and certainly, they have nice homes. In terms of multi-family land uses, I should be more specific. We think this is, you know, a benefit. And I think and obviously staff would not disagree with that since they're recommending approval of it. That is the only issue that we have with the recommendation. Is that we do the extensive additional cost of putting the vinyl shake siding on the sides and rear, second floor of buildings that really don't have significant visibility. We'd like to see that condition in condition number two changed. Ronald Ripley: Bob, do you have a question? Robert Vakos: Yeah. Eddie, I feel like I need to salute you with that. Every'time I looked up feel like I should stand up and put my hand over my heart but... Eddie Bourdon: Good, I will be here for you then. Robert Vakos: There you go. Do you have a dollar amount on it? I mean I know it's three times per square foot but do you have an estimate as to what... Eddie Bourdon: I'm not sure. Dan, do you have (inaudible) Robert Vakos: Just a ballpark. Danny Martin: 2,500-3,500. Eddie Bourdon: Yeah, that's per square. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 3 Danny Martin: Per square. Eddie Bourdon: Have you done the overall numbers? Danny Martin: Yeah, about 2,700 squares per building. Eddie Bourdon: Alright. Robert Vakos: Just about $9,000? $9,000-$10,000 a building? Eddie Bourdon: That's about... Robert Vakos: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: That sounds about right. Robert Vakos: And, I just want to make a point for the record. I think the reason why the Planning staff and I'm not going to speak for them, but I think from my standpoint on the Commission is that, you know, just last night the Council passed these guidelines for Shore Drive and I think anything before that is really not at rebuttal in my view as to how we look at future applications, but I just wanted to get that for the record. The next question I got is for staff. I guess who worked it, Barbara Duke? Barbara worked on this? They had proposed the two units facing the street frontage as doing the entire upgraded vinyl siding. Is that an acceptable? I mean, maybe Mr. Scott I will ask you that question. I don't know. Is that an acceptable compromise? Robert Scott: I don't think I understand the question. Robert Vakos: Well, Eddie has proposed that the two units that face Pleasure House Road that they would use the upgraded vinyl. If the issue is visibility from the public right-of-way, is that, and I do think that the materials are comparable. I know a little bit about this stuff and I do think the upgraded one will last probably a little bit longer. But, I think they comparable. If the issue is visibility and aesthetics for the Shore Drive Corridor, is that an acceptable compromise, I guess? Robert Miller: I think - didn't you say cedar shakes though? - Robert Vakos: No, Cedar shake vinyl. Robert Miller: Right, but I meant... Robert Vakos: It's the difference in the material that we looked at. Robert Miller: Right. Eddie Bourdon: There's a significant difference in cost. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 4 Robert Miller: Right. Eddie Bourdon: It does look nicer but... Robert Vakos: But anyway. Eddie Bourdon: I'm going to be quiet. Robert Vakos: I'm still waiting for my response. Robert Scott: We're at... Robert Vakos: Okay, that's fine. You can go on if you want, I'm just... Betsy Atkinson: Can I ask a question? Ronald Ripley: Yes, Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: Oh, I'm sorry. John Baum: If your so much as varied, but they couldn't rent for fill. Is that recovered in the market place? The fact that you, because on all of the back units. You use the best materials possible. Does that pay? It looks like to me that would be very costly. And nobody's going to see anything but the front. Eddie Bourdon: That is precisely Mr. Baum, precisely what the concem is. This is a price sensitive area. There's lots of areas in the City where that's not the case. Okay, and you can recover those costs. But this is an area that if you look at the multi-family development on Pleasure House Road and it varies in terms of the time frame when it was built. It is, and we're not - we think this is clearly an definite upgrade over a lot that's out there. But this is an infill of an area that is very much developed. And it would be, you know, standing alone in terms of those of higher cost materials when we are limited in terms of the marketability of the units as far as the upper ranges and the prices in large measure by what is already out there that is comparable in terms of multi-family, that's not on the water. Obviously, waterfront gives you a different, y(~u know, dollar sign. But there's the price sensitivity, and Mr. Baum you hit the nail right on the head. That is the burden that we're dealing with. Betsy Atkinson: Ron? Ronald Ripley: Yes Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: Eddie, the architectural rendering here shows a protrusion out to kind of break the front of it. On either side of that protrusion out in the front, are you going to put vinyl shakes or is that going to be the regular vinyl siding. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: Betsy Atkinson: sides... i ii No. In the front it's vinyl. It's a shake. I'm sorry. But it's flat and it comes out and goes back. I'm talking about the two Eddie Bourdon: It's all shake in the front. Everywhere. Betsy Atkinson: Okay. On the whole... Eddie Bourdon: The entire front is shake. The entire front is shake. There's no - the separation that's recommended by staff, you know, the recommendation between top and bottom and the sides are identified. All shake on the front. All sides in the front so to speak. Betsy Atkinson: Okay. Robert Scott: Well. Robert Vakos: Well. Robert Scott: We had a chance to consider this. First of all, the guidelines aren't 24 hours old yet. We do have some allegiance to them. We worked very hard. We got not just the concurrence but, the enthusiastic concurrence of the community out there, all aspects of it. We do want to be reasonable. And we're concerned about the price just like everybody else. I think that you can say almost the same thing about all of Shore Drive. It's almost all built up. We're not - the reason that these design guidelines exist is because we want to go above what's already built out there not comply with what's built out there. And having that been said from a visibility point of view, I think it's important that we adhere to these guidelines in the closer to the road that we do it, the more important that it is that we do it. But I don't think doing in onthe first two buildings are enough. There are 13 buildings there as I count them. And I think that if we could get the first three on each side, the first six buildings to comply with these, I think we could live the remaining seven in the back, not having them on the building material. It won't be as visible. I agree with that. But visibility, I think probably pertains to the first six units. Robert Vakos: Let's make a deal time right? Ronald Ripley: Well. Wait for Mr. Bourdon. Eddie? Robert Vakos: We gave Bob 10 minutes you got to give him 10 minutes. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Bob? In your consideration, you look like you have an area that opens up a little bit back there. Would that be a little more sensitive? You would see that visually? More so than the one's that are closer together? Item #3 Danny Martin Page 6 Eddie Bourdon: If you look at the aerial. I'm sorry for interrupting. Robert Scott: Well, I just - I guess my point is that I'm sensitive to the visibility thing. I am here saying that I suspect there are some units where it's more important than on other units and that we would be willing to suggest foregoing these on certain of the units that are the less visible. Just having given this to us, our first thought looking at it is the one's in the back are the ones we would think to be the least visible. The one's in the front more visible. Then someone else's eye could see it differently. Ronald Ripley: But it looked like to me, I don't think staff was asking - they're asking for the second floor not the entire side and he is going to put siding on anyway and all we're talking about is the differential between vinyl and the shakes, because you're going to have to put something on the siding anyway. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: Yes, that's absolutely correct. Ronald Ripley: So, it's not $300 a square times how many squares you got, it's the differential on the areas that they're talking about. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah, that's correct, I'm sorry. I was concentrating on what buildings - I wasn't -- I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: I don't think the staff is unreasonable. Maybe the backs of it may be okay to leave it off, but I don't think what they have requested is unreasonable. I think you'll recover it, without a question. Eddie Bourdon: We beg to differ on that. Let me, if I could, skip back to the original question. Here you have an apartment building that if you think back to the site plan and this what was suggesting, you know, I think that does make - is a reasonable compromise. Because you have these units here, there is really, essentially no visibility. I would tend to agree among you. You may have some visibility of the first three units on this side. The other side, again, I don't think because of the vegetation and the existing dwellings over here, you will have any visibility beyond the first couple of buildings, maybe three, but, the rear of the site is going, again, not have any visibility from any member of the public other than someone coming here to visit someone who lives in this condominium complex. I think that is a reasonable compromise when, again, factoring all the conditions that are there now and the type of development, type of siding that's been used throughout Pleasure House Road and Shore Drive area. We would go along with that. Ronald Ripley: So, Mr. Scott are you okay with the first three buildings? Robert Miller: On each side. Ronald Ripley: On each side? And it also includes - Eddie, because I look at this side profile and it calls for vinyl siding. It doesn't call for the shake. Is the shake is what? Item #3 Danny Martin Page 7 Robert Vakos: The shake is the vinyl. Eddie Bourdon: Right Robert Vakos: I mean, it's a vinyl imitation shake and ... Ronald Ripley: Well, it says the difference, on the front it says vinyl shakes. On the side it says vinyl siding. Robert Vakos: Right Betsy Atkinson: Right. Ronald Ripley: It means two different things to me. Eddie Bourdon: But the condition says that it will be vinyl shake on the top half with the frieze boarding in between. That's the top half of the side and rear of each unit would be the typical vinyl on the bottom half and a vinyl-shake on the top half. Ronald Ripley: I understand. Eddie Bourdon: I do think that's a reasonable compromise. We did that on the first three units on either side as you come in off of Pleasure House Road as well as, on the first units. Ronald Ripley: Betsy? You want to ask a question? Betsy Atkinson: As a realtor, I think if I was marketing these, I would strongly suggest buying the ones with the vinyl shakes. Unfortunately, I don't know if you're going to charge more money for those or whatever, but I mean, I'm okay with your compromise. It is just kind of prettier to have them all the same if they all were shake at top and bottom. Eddie Bourdon: There's not really. If you look at a lot of pictures, there's a much greater differential in cost then there is in differential in appearance at least, but that's subjective. Everybody's idea of what looks good is their idea-on what looks good. But, you know, those in the back will usually be a little more expensive because they're off the main road. So, I think all you're going to do is have a moderation that they're all going to be of a similar price as opposed to having a significant difference from the Pleasure House Road side then from the ones that are in the back. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I'd like to make a motion for approval of the modified conditions as we just agreed to them. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 8 Ronald Ripley: You know, we didn't ask for any opposition. Robert Miller: I'm sorry. I apologize. Ronald Ripley: I'm sorry. We got ahead of ourselves. Is there any opposition to this application? Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Now I can make a motion? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Robert Miller: I would still like to make a motion for approval of the application with the modified conditions as we just agreed to them on the first three units on each side. John Baum: Would you repeat the modified conditions? Robert Miller: That they be in conformance to the conditions that are stated in our report for the first three units on each side from Pleasure House Road. Eddie Bourdon: And were clear that it won't be beige, it'll be the color that was presented. Ronald Ripley: I'm going to - any discussion? I'm just going to let you know I'm going to vote against it. I have no problem with the project. I just think you're splitting hairs when you're changing siding like that for three units in. But I do support the application to that extent but I will be voting against it and that's the reasom John Baum: Do you want to call away? Ronald Ripley: Yeah, I think I'll do what the staff said. John Baum: My wife is going to be surprised that I should judge quality. I'm not allowed to do this at home you understand. Ronald Ripley: Okay, we'll call for the question. John Baum: A much higher authority. Ed Weeden: Who seconded it? Ronald Ripley: Dot Wood. I'm sorry. AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE Item #3 Danny Martin Page 9 BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE NAY ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-1, the motion carries. APPLICATION REZONING CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH' PAGE 4 OF 4 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: . DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) {~Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~~Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. /:/~.., _ /8~gnaiur~ - '-~/~//'JPr~int Name~Ac~TA) Rev. 9/13/91~ Mo APPOINTMENTS CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERSONNEL BOARD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE - COIG TOWING ADVISORY BOARD VIRGINIA BEACH/JAMESTOWN 2007 STEERING COMMISSION WETLANDS BOARD N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT