The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOCTOBER 29, 2002 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYEIL4 E. OBEPuYDORF, At-Large VICE MAYOR ROBERT C. MANDIGO. JR., Kernpsville - District 2 MARG.4RET L. EURE. Centerville -District 1 LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -Dtstrtct 4 REBA S. McCL.4N/LV. Rose Hall. Dtstrtct 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - Dtstrict 6 Jib/REEVE, Princess Anne- D~strict 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT, At.Large RON A. I'?LLANUEVA, At-Large ROSEA~4RY 147L$ON, At-Large JAMES L. WOOD, £),nnhaven -Distrtct 5 JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L. LILLE]/, City Attorney RD'TH HODGES SMITH, MMC, C~ly Clerk City of Virginia Beach "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGL¥1A BEACH, VIRGINL4 23456-800'- PHONE: (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E MAIL:Ctycncl~vbgov. com October 29, 2002 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room- 1:00 PM Ao CONVENq'ION CENTER Steven Thompson, Chief Financial Offier RUDEE INLET INNER HARBOR DREDGING Dean Block, Director of Public Works REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS HI 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 V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Dr. T. E. Thieman, Retired C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS PUBLIC HEARING 1. October 8, 2002 CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS: §§ 2.01, 2.02, 3.03, 3.04, 3.09, 16.02, 16.04 and 16.06 AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution to EXTEND the charge of the Shore Drive Advisory Committee (SDAC) until June 30, 2005. Resolution EXPRESSING City Council's position on the use of unspent local appropriations re School Board employee salary increases to be effective November 15, 2002, rather than as scheduled in the operating budget for January 1, 2003. Ordinance to AMEND §18-72 of the City Code re business license taxes on coin-operated machines. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE an encroachment into portions of the City's right-of-way by DALE AND MARY ERICKSON for the existing fencing at rear of 4949 Athens Boulevard (Lake Bradford Park). (DISTRICT 4 - BAYS[DE) Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $267,113 fi.om the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY 2002 Assistance to Firefighters Grant to the Fire Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget. Ordinance to ESTABLISH the LONDON BRIDGE and S. GREAT NECK ROADS rights- of-way at Central Drive and Potters Road intersections as underground utility areas to obtain VDOT funding. PLANNING Application of RICHARD H. POWELL for the enlargement of a noncon_forming use, re a garage apartment on the north side of 53rd Street west of Atlantic Avenue (209 53rd Street), containing 7,650 square feet. (DISlRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND, Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, for a Conditional Use Permit re a school on Clearfield Avenue and Marian Lane containing 2.41 acres. (DISTRICT 2 - KEM?SVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION, Seventh Day Adventist, for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at Holland Road and Shipps Comer Road, containing 3.41 acres. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL o Application of THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC. re Change qfZoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District and I-2 Heavy Industrial District to Conditional [-2 Heavy Industrial District at London Bridge Road and Taylor Farm Road containing 218 acres. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC, at 1676 Kempsville Road for a Variance re certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.4(b), that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and reduce required street width. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Ordinances re CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH to AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance(CZO): a. Parking requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District b. Setback requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District Recommendation: APPROVAL APPOINTMENTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - September 2002 N. 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 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) AGENDA [ 0/29/02/st w'w'6'.vb ~ov. corn PUBLIC HEARING 1. CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS: §§ 2.01, 2.02, 3.03, 3.04, 3.09, 16.02, 16.04 and 16.06 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE. CNA~iI:H OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. V~RGINIA Take notice that. pursuant to § 15.2-202 of the Code of ;,5,-g~n~a. as amem:fed, the Virginia Bea~ City COUnOl mit con~luct a ~!,': hearing at 6 p.m. on Tuesday. Octolx~ 29. 2002. m t~he C~ Council ChamP)er, 8uildin;~ One, Mumcipel Center. Vir~ine Beech. Virg:nia. concerning, poposed afnefK:fmeflts to the City Charter. All persons w~shing to express their views are welcome to appea~ and be hea,d. A su~ry of the ~ cflartef ameflOm~'c~ is se[ forth 1, Amend Charter §§ 2.02 and 3.03. as vPell es the t,,t, le of Chapter 3, I0 replace outdate~l references to 'boroughS' web the term "d~$- t~3.s.' The Ofoposed ame~lments are not substantive ~n nature. 2, Repeal the portion of City Chaftof § 3.04 conce~m~ the salaries of ~ City Co~tci! and Ma~f. a,d ~ ~9e ~itfe of the sectm~ accord- ingly. The stJl:)~l: of City Court! salaries ,s controllod t~jr Virginia § .1.$.2.3414.$. The proposed amefldme~ts are not SUbStar, fve nature. The ~'na~ning ~x~tion of Ctty Chettef § 3.04 ~ould remain as vwitten. 3. NT,,en~ City ChaAef §§ 2.0~.. 3.09. and 16.0~, to up:late refef- codilte~. The i~roposed art~qdments are not substatrOve in nature. 4. Dele&e CAy C'hart~ § 16.02. and amend § 16.04, which refe~ to The pmpose~ ametldments are not sk,~,6~A~e in nature. adopti~ a ~ ,Klueati~ the General Asaem~ of V~Jne to enact iepslab~ to ame~l the CAT's Charl~ as descntx,:l above. need ass~a~,ce at this mee~. please carl 4274305 VO~Ce/l'DD. Ruth H(x3ge$ Smt'd'~. M~aC City C~erk RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution to EXTEND the charge of the Shore Drive Advisory Committee (SDAC) until June.30, 2005. Resolution EXPRESSING City Council's position on the use of unspent local appropriations re School Board employee salary increases to be effective November 15, 2002, rather than as scheduled in the operating budget for January' 1, 2003. o Ordinance to AMEND § 18-72 of the City Code re business license taxes on coin-operated machines. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE an encroachment into portions of the City's right-of-way by DALI~ AND MARY ERICKSON for the existing fencing at rear of 4949 Athens Boulevard (Lake Bradford Park). (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $267,113 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY 2002 Assistance to Firefighters Grant to the Fire Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget. Ordinance to ESTABLISH the LONDON BRIDGE and S. GREAT NECK ROADS rights- of-way at Central Drive and Potters Road intersections as underground utility areas to obtain VDOT funding. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager A Resolution Extending the Shore Drive Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: The Resolution creating the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, contained a provision that the Committee would expire on June 30, 2002. The Committee wishes to continue with its charge. Considerations: This Resolution will extend the Shore Drive Advisory Committee until June 30, 2005. Alternatives: Denial of the Resolution. Recommendations: Approve the proposed Resolution. Attachments: Proposed Resolution. Recommended Action: Approve Resolution. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: (~ {~ , ~)~4~z 1 2 3 ~ RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4 WHEREAS, by Resolution dated February I0, 1998, City 5 Council established the Shore Drive Advisory Committee with 6 specific duties and responsibilities; and 7 WHEREAS, the Shore Drive Advisory Committee continues 8 to perform its duties and responsibilities and performs a vital 9 function assisting the Council in determining the appropriate 10 course of action to take with respect to the Shore Drive 11 Corridor. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 13 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 14 15 That City Council hereby extends the Shore Drive Advisory Committee (the "SDAC") until June 30, 2005. 16 17 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2002. CA-8634 ordin/noncode/ShoreDrive. Res.wpd September 26, 2002 Ri APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Pl~nnin~e~rt~ent APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City A torney'~ Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: A Resolution Expressing the City Council's Position on the Use of Unspent Local Appropriations for School Board Employee Salary Increases MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: Currently, school board employees are to receive a salary increase beginning January 1, 2003. The resolution sets forth the City Council's position on using unspent local appropriations to advance the effective date of the salary increase to November 15, 2002. Considerations: The School Board ended FY '02 with $18.2 million in unspent local appropriations. The resolution recognizes the hard work of school employees, states that the use of a small portion of the unspent funds to move the date of the salary increase forward would be consistent with the City Council's policy on the use of the funds, and urges the School Board approve such an action. Public Information: The item will be publicized by advertisement of the City Council's agenda. Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: N/A Submitting Department/Agency: Councilmember Rosemary Wilson City Manager: F:\Users\LSpencer\W P\WORK~Teacherres.arf.~vp~l 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 Requested by Councilmember Rosemary Wilson A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION ON THE USE OF UNSPENT LOCAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCHOOL BOARD EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach has made education one of its highest priorities; WHEREAS, the City enjoys a high quality public education system, and the Virginia Beach City Council recognizes that this success is directly attributed to quality personnel, who should be well compensated; WHEREAS, teachers and school employees have made a herculean and successful effort in achieving superior SOL scores throughout our schools; WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach School Board's adopted FY '03 Operating Budget provides for an increase in employee salaries that is currently scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2003; WHEREAS, it now appears that the School Board will have $18.2 million in unexpended local appropriations ("reversion funds") from its FY '02 Operating Budget that will revert to the City; WHEREAS, using a small portion of these funds in this instance to advance the effective date of the employee salary increase to November 15, 2002, would be consistent with the City Council's existing policy of using school reversion funds for one time, non-recurring expanditures, as school reversion funds have been re-appropriated to the School Board's operating budget, as well as the CIP, in the past; and 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 WHEREAS, the use of these funds in this manner would also demonstrate the City Council's appreciation for the important role that the employees of the City's school system play in our children's lives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: That City Council hereby declares that the School Board's use of unspent local appropriations to advance the effective date of the pay increase for its employees from January 1, 2003, to November 15, 2002, would be consistent with its policy on the use of reversion funds, and the City Council would strongly request the School Board to approve such an action. 40 41 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2002. CA-8677 Noncode/Teacherres.wDd October 24, 2002 R2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~ty Attorne~ s d~fi~e CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance To Amend the City Code Pertaining to Business License Taxes on Coin-Operated Machines MEETING DATE: October 29~ 2002 Background: The City of Virginia Beach requires persons operating coin-operated machines to obtain a business license. The City Code, at § 18-72, outlines how operators of coin-operated machines are to be taxed, but its provisions are outdated and do not match the current state law on this subject. matter was deferred October 8, 2002. Considerations: Currently, every operator of three or more coin-operated machines must pay a license tax of two hundred dollars ($200) in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of gross receipts actually received by the operator. The proposed amendment to Section 18-72 (b) reduces the license tax that operators of between three (3) and ten (10) coin-operated machines shall pay to $150.00 (in addition to a license tax on gross receipts actually received by the operator). This amendment also makes clear that this tax is applicable only to coin-operated amusement machines. Recommendations: Approval Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Commissioner of the Revenue City Manager: .~ ~ ~/~.. UFtData~,TY~Ord(n\NONCODE\18-072arf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES ON COIN-OPERATED MACHINES SECTION AMENDED: ~ 18-72 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 18-72 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 18-72. Coin-operated amusement machines--Operators. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term "amusement operator" shall mean any person ~ leasing, renting or otherwise furnishing or providing a coin-operated amusement machine or device operated on the coin-in-the-slot principle, w~hic~h machine or device is located within i__n the city, whether or not such operator has a fixed place of business within the city; provided, however, that the term "operator" shall not include a person owning less than three (3) coin machines and operating such machines on property owned or leased by such person. (b) (i) ~ Amusement operator~ with ten (10) or more machines shall pay ~ an annual license tax of two hundred dollars {$200.00), a~, in additionT to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of gross receipts actually received by the operator from such business for the preceding calendar year. {ii) Amusement operators with at least three {3} but less than ten (10) machines shall pay an annual license tax o£ one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00), in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent on the share of qross receipts actually received by the operator from such business for the preceding calendar year. (c) The operator's license tax of~=~O0.00 shall not be applicable to operators of weighing machines, automatic baggage or parcel checking machines or receptacles, nor to operators of 35 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 vending machines which are so constructed as to do nothing but vend goods, wares and merchandise or postage stamps or provide service only, nor to operators of viewing machines or photomat machines, nor to operators of devices or machines affording rides to children or for the delivery of newspapers. (d) Upon making application for a license as an operator, the applicant shall file wi~h the commissioner of the revenue, in duplicate, a list of the locations of all machines and devices sold, leased, rented or oZherwise furnished to or olaced with others and, during the current license year, every operator shall notify the commissioner of the revenue, in writing in duplicate, of all changes in locations of such machines and devices, within five (5) days after such changes are made. (e) Every operator, before commencing doing business in the city, shall register with the commissioner of the revenue and deposit with him a bond in the amount of one thousand dollars 151,000.00~, payable to the city, to insure the keeping of adequate records, the filing of reports in such form and at such times as may be prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue and the proper payment to the city of the tax imposed by this section. The form and surety of such bond shall be determined by the commissioner of t. he revenue. (f) Every coin machine covered by this section shall be plainly marked by the owner thereof with the name and address of such owner. (g) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00~ nor more than five hundred dollars 15500.00~ for each offense and the machine or other device shall become forfeited to the city. COMMENT 67 68 69 7O 71 72 This ordinance provides for a reduced flat license tax of $150 for operators of less than ten coin-operated amusement machines (in addition to a license tax of 0.36 percent of the operator's share of gross receipts from machines operated in the City.). This makes the City ordinance consistent with Virginia State Code § 58.1-3720, which requires that the fiat license tax for operators of less than ten coin-operated amusement machines be less than $200. This ordinance also makes clear that this section only applies to coin-operated amusement machines. 73 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 74 Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8577 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/18-072ord.wpd R5 September 23, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: ~venue APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: o~aw=~ ' Department CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: MEETING DATE The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Encroachment Request - Maintain an existing fence in the City's right-of-way at the rear of 4949 Athens Boulevard on Lake Bradford. Applicant - Dale and Mary Edckson, husband/wife Octobe~ 29,2002 Background: Dale and Mary Edckson have requested permission to keep an existing encroachment of fencing at the rear of 4949 Athens Boulevard on Lake Bradford. The fence was constructed approximately one year ago for privacy purposes. Due to a citizen complaint, Mr. and Mrs. Edckson are making application to allow this encroachment to remain. There is opposition to this encroachment by the adjacent property owner. Considerations: Prior to submitting an encroachment application, Public Works/Real Estate, had attempted to mediate between the Edckson's and the adjacent property owner on several occasions without success. When the encroachment application was received, Public Works/Real Estate, again tded to negotiate a settlement with the neighbor who submitted the complaint and was unsuccessful. City staff has reviewed the request for the existing encroachment and has recommended approval of same. The fence conforms to the existing City requirements. There are approved and unapproved encroachments of same/similar nature throughout the Lake Bradford Park subdivision, which is where the Edckson's property is located. Public Information: There is opposition to this encroachment by the adjacent property owner. The Office of Real Estate will notify counsel for the opposition, as to the date and time of the City Council headng. This opposition appears to stem from a difference in viewpoint between the two neighbors on a number of issues, most of which are unrelated to this request. Advertisement of City Council. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Power of Attorney, Plat, and Pictures 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 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE REAR OF 4949 ATHENS BOULEVARD BY DALE JON ERICKSON AND MARY ERICKSON, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Dale Jon Erickson and Mary Erickson, desire to maintain a fence in the City's right-of-way located at the rear of 4949 Athens Boulevard. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to ~ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachment upon the City's right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in ~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended Dale Jon Erickson and Mary Erickson their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to maintain a temporary encroachment for a fence in the City's right-of-way as shown on the map entitled: "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOTS 12, 13 & 14 LAKE BRADFORD PARK PROPERTY OF NORFOLK LOT CORP. SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 36, SECTION M CHESAPEAKE PARK VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR DALE ERICKSON & MARY ERICKSON," a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Dale Jon Erickson and Mary Erickson, (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement' BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as Dale Jon Erickson and Mary Erickson and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 42 43 44 45 CA-# gsalmons/erickson/ord. R-1 PREPARED: 09.13.02 ,~cROV~D AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT Sb~I~ICIENCX ~ CIT~ ATTORN~ 2 LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" -- 1,600' ,' ! ', k I I,: ',/ f , ~ ~ ; ~, L ~ ~"'~'" ' ', ./ ~, /~.~ ': ,. ; i. ',-,,...-',-~---,, .~, ~ x. ...,~,?,._.-- ~" .. .----~~ ~ '. ,"'~.'--.? : ~, :'~ L '; ~/~. BRADFORD LOCATION MAP SHOWING ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED BY ~-'~,~: DALE AND MARYERICKSON ~ INTO CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ 4949 ATHENS BOULEVARD ~, '[ I~'~ SCALE:'~" = '~oo' _P I ' ,!' '. ~ ~', ' ~ ' SALMONS.DGN /Md.S. PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADD DEFT. SEFT. 2002 PREPARED BY VIRGh-NIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMJqED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 (a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 27th day of August , 2002, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and Dale Jon ERICKSON and Mary ERICKSON, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNE S SETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as 12, 13 and 14 as shown on "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOTS 12, 13, & 14, LAKE BRADFORD PARK, PROPERTY OF NORFOLK LOT CORP., SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 36, SECTION M, CHESAPEAKE PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, FOR DALE & MARY ERICKSON, SCALE: 1 "=30', "on file with the Office of Real Estate, Departmem of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach and being further designated and described as 4949 Athens Boulevard, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455; and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain awooden privacy fence, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and mairttaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessar>' that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right-of-way on Lake Bradford in the rear of 4949 Athens Boulevard, "The Temporary Encroachment Area"; and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachmem within The Encroachment Area. GPIN 1570-31-9154-0000 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is n~ore particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOTS 12, 13, & 14, LAKE BRADFORD PARK, PROPERTY OF NORFOLK LOT CORP., SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 36, SECTION M, CHESAPEAKE PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR DALE ERICKSON & MARY ERICKSON, SCALE: 1 "=30', "a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed fi.om The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, t~om and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or constructi°n of' any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintaia the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Ci~ prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day 3 that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Dale Jon Erickson, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by his signature and seal duly affixed. Further, that the City of Virgin/a Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (SEAL) ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City. Clerk Dale Jon "Erickson Mary Erickson ~;' 4 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,2002, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. day of , CITY MANAGER/AUTHOR/ZED Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-~4t: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this VIRGINIA BEACH. day of ,2002, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, CMC, City Clerk for the CITY OF Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CiTY/~XTXOF VIRGINI. A ..BEACH , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this September ,2002 by Dale Jon Erickson. 4th day of Notary Public I "'1 //? My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/(ROIJ~XXt[ OF VIRGINIA ., to-wit: August The foregoinginstrumemwas acknowledged beforeme this ,2002, by MaryEfickson. 27th day of My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002 Notary Public APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY ATTO~--Y AP~ PROVED AS TO CONTENT ~[TY P~AL ESTATE AGENT 6 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I, ON APRIL 30r 2_002 SURVEYED THE PROPE:RTY ON THIs PLAT, AND THE TITLE LINES AND THE WALLS OF THE BUILDING ARE AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE IMPROVEMENTS STAND STRICTLY WITHIN THE TITLE LINES AND THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE: EASEMENTS EXCF'PT AS SHOWN, THIS SURVEY PERFORMED W1THOUT BENEFIT OF TITLE REPORT AND CONSEQUENTLY MAY NOT DEPICT ALL MA'FFERS AFFECTING THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY .c D,cl,ration is made to original 'purch.er S)GNED: of the survey. It is not tronsferable to ~ , odditional institutions or subsequent owners without written approval of the surveyor. Exhibit "A" LAKE BRADFORD / ¢) ~iO0' STRIP ' 11 12 6ol ~494g 40.0' 18.0' "C/ROLE (so'~/w) · POPLAR ST.) . 90.00' S88'25'00"E ATHENS BLVD (30'R/W) L K£ BLVD.) THiS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY REFERS TO THE SAME LOT AS SET FORTH BY PLAT ;DATED NOV. EMBER~ 19.28 AND RECORDED IN THE CLERKS OFFICE OF' THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YI.RGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA IN MAP .BOOK 9 PAGE 91 W.O. 40-10-01 E:\PROJECTS\Phys!ca]s\40_10_O~.dwg COPR. 2002 BOUNDARY FIRST No. 2424 FENCE TO BE REMOVED FENCE @77.97' FENCE g fence area 15 SCALE: 1"= 301 PIN (F) PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOTS 12, 13 & 14 LAKE BRADFORD PARK PROPERTY OF NORFOLK LOT CORP. SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 36, SECTION M CHESAPEAKE PARK VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR DALE ERICKSON &' MARY ERICKSON Surveyors, Engineers & Planners 236 Mustang TraU, Suite 104 Virg)nla Beach, Vtrglnia, 23452 (757}498--3602 tel. (~57)498-3559 fax. DALE AND MARY ERICKSON 4949 ATHENS BOULEVARD The arrow indicates approximately where the encroachment begins and extends to the left where the fence ends. DALE AND MARY ERICKSON 4949 ATHENS BOULEVARD Back of property looking north. The fence is on the west side of the property. West side of lot looking south into the backyard. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: The City of Virginia Beach has been awarded a $267,113 grant through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 2002 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program ("FireAct"). This year's grant was awarded in the area of firefighter safety and will be used to purchase an extensive array of health and wellness equipment and services. The grant will facilitate the implementation of the IAFC/IAFF Fire Service Joint Labor Management Wellness-Fitness Initiative, which was formally adopted by the department on July 1,2000. This grant allows the department to advance this initiative 5-10 years. This initiative includes health screenings, fitness and injury prevention programs, peer counseling, and recommendations for fitness equipment to achieve program goals. Grant expenditures will include fitness equipment for every fire facility, extensive medical screenings that focus on cardiac-related issues, and training of peer counselors to assist in developing individualized exercise programs and enhancing fitness education. The overall goal of this initiative is to create and maintain a workforce that is healthy emotionally and physically, thereby reducing costs to the City and protecting the City's investment in human resources. Considerations: The grant requires a 30% match of $114,477 in non-federal funding. The match will come from FY 2002-03 Fire Programs Funds. The use of these funds for the match is in alignment with Fire Program's intent and does not supplant or replace City funding. Total amount of local and federal funding is $381,590. Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. Alternatives: There are no other non-general funds available for this purchase at this time. Funding of this wellness and fitness initiative would have to be addressed through multi-year general operating budget expenditures. Recommendations: Accept the 2002 Assistance to Firefighters Grant and appropriate $267,113 for this wellness and fitness initiative. Attachments: Grant Award Letter Ordinance Recommended Action: Approve ordinance Submitting Depa~'tm~ent/AgenF~..Departmept City Manager:~_~~ ~', 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A $267,113 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S 2002 ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Fire Department has been awarded a $267,113 Assisuance to Firefighters Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")to implement a health and wellness initiative. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That $267,113 from a 2002 Assistance to Firefighters Grant awarded by FEMA is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Fire Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget to implement a health and wellness initiative, with federal revenue increased accordingly. 2. That a required match of $114,477 is available in the Fire Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget that will satisfy the grant requirements and further the health and wellness initiative. Adopted the__day of City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. , 2002, by the Council of the CA8638 noncode/Fire Act Grant 2002.ord October 24, 2002 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Great Neck Road - Phase IV / London Bridge Road - Phase III(CIP 2-137) VDOT U000-134-129, C-501 MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: Great Neck Road - Phase IV / London Bridge Road - Phase III (CIP 2-137) is a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) project. This project first appeared in the 1990-91 ClP. On July 8, 1997, City Council adopted a resolution approving the project location and design features. The project design by VDOT and acquisition by City are essentially complete with construction advertisement scheduled for March 2003. This project is for construction of a four-lane divided highway and a multi-purpose path from International Parkway to Potters Road and a six-lane divided highway and multi-purpose path from Potters Road to Virginia Beach Boulevard, a total distance of approximately 2.5 miles. This request is to provide underground utilities at the London Bridge Road / Central Drive intersection and at the London Bridge Road / S. Great Neck Road intersections with Potters Road. Considerations: Current VDOT policy provides forVDOT participation in 50% of the cost difference between relocating utilities underground versus overhead, (up to a maximum of $3,000,000 per project) subject to City Council enacting an ordinance establishing an underground utility area. The attached utility area ordinance will ensure that all current and future services are placed underground in the area of those intersections in accordance with the City Site Plan and Subdivision Ordinances, and will meet VDOT requirements. The preliminary estimate to relocate the facilities underground at these intersections is $300,814.00. Therefore, the City share is $150,407.00. The 2002-08 CIP (2-137) has budgeted and appropriated the City share (50%) to relocate the aerial utilities underground at these intersections. Recommendations: Staff recommends adopting the attached ordinance to establish the London Bridge Road right-of-way at the Central Drive intersection and the London Bridge Road / S. Great Neck Road rights-of-way at Potters Road intersections as underground utility areas so the City can obtain VDOT funding. Alternatives: If this ordinance is not adopted, an opportunity will be lost to achieve multiple outcomes to enhance the City's quality physical environment. Safety, operational efficiency, maintenance, aesthetic, and economic advantages will be derived by placing existing overhead facilities underground at the referenced project intersections. Attachment: Location Map Underground Utility Area Ordinance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE LONDON BRIDGE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE CENTRAL DRIVE INTERSECTION AND THE S. GREAT NECK ROAD/LONDON BRIDGE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE POTTERS ROAD INTERSECTION AS UNDERGROUND UTILITY AREAS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WHEREAS, the Great Neck Road-Phase IV/London Bridge Road- Phase III Project, CIP 92-137, has been approved by City Council to widen the current section of London Bridge Road between the intersections of international Parkway and Potters Road and the current section of S. Great Neck Road between the intersections of Potters Road and Virginia Beach Boulevard; WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach wishes to improve the aesthetics and safety of London Bridge Road / Central Drive and the London Bridge Road / S. Great Neck Road / Potters Road intersections through this project; WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has adopted a policy to pay 50% of the additional costs to relocate existing overhead private utility lines underground, which requires the City to adopt an ordinance to establish the limits of underground utility districts, corridors or areas; WHEREAS, the City Council has already enacted requirements through the site plan and subdivision ordinances that require new development to place new utility lines underground; and WHEREAS, the City has appropriated sufficient funding to pay its share of the estimated cost to relocate existing overhead utility lines underground through the City of Virginia Beach Capital Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the. London Bridge Road right-of-way at the Central Drive intersection and the London Bridge Road/S. Great Neck Road/ Potters Road intersections are hereby designated as underground utility areas and that all new utility facilities 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 installed within the London Bridge / Central Drive and London Bridge Road / S. Great Neck Road / Potters Road intersection rights-of-way shall be placed underground. 2. That the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute an agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, with 5he Virginia Department of Transportation and the utility owners within the London Bridge Road and S. Great Neck Road rights-of-way for the necessary utility relocations. 44 45 Adopted by the Council of tke City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8617 ORDIN\Noncode\London Bridge. ord.wpd September 12, 2002 R-2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Public~W rks ~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: l~epa r tment-- o f~L~w 2 PREPARED BY P/W ENO. CADD 9/17/02 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Richard H. Powell, Change in a Non-Conforming Use MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: Application of Richard H. Powell for the enlargement of a nonconforming use on the north side of 53rd Street, beginning at a point 235 feet west of Atlantic Avenue. Parcel is located at 209 53rd Street and contains 7,650 square feet. (GPIN # 2418-89-0614). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Considerations: The applicant received a building permit in July 2002 to begin a renovation on the existing garage apartment to improve the appearance and structural condition of the building. According to the applicant, the initial plan was only to remove and replace water-damaged wood. When construction began, however, severe damage was discovered at the entrance, and the applicant decided to shift the apartment's entrance slightly to the west, replacing one of the garage doors. The proposed new entrance increases the size of the building footprint by 36 s~quare feet. A 60 square foot deck is also proposed for the second story of the building. These two size increases are the reason for the need for the requested expansion of c non-conforming use. The applicant has also requested to enclose half of the garage on the bottom floor to increase the living area. However, the definition of a garage apartment in the City Zoning Ordinance restricts living area to the upper floor only. The City Zoning Ordinance defines a garage apartment as "a structure above a private garage in which provision is made for one (1) dwelling unit, requiring an interior stairway to the second floor, provided that the living area does not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area and the height does not exceed twenty- eight (28) feet." The addition of living area on the bottom floor would redefine the structure from a garage apartment to a second single-family dwelling on the property. However, as this would be creating an illegal use on this lot, City Council cannot grant the applicant approval of creating a second single-family dwelling on the lot and this request cannot be considered. Condition 2, recommended below, emphasizes to the applicant that the first floor cannot be used as living space. Recommendations: Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming structure may be Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval as conditioned - not as submitted by applicant, r,/J~_ Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager:(~ )/.._, ~_ ~_ Richard H. Powell Page 2 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: The additions to the structure shall be in substantial conformance with the plan submitted with the application and shall not exceed 36 square feet in floor area and 60 square feet in deck area. The additions shall not encroach any closer to the rear or side property lines as the existing structure, which is 10 feet from the rear (north) property line and 2.5 feet from the side (west) property line. 2. The bottom floor of the garage apartment structure shall be used as a garage and shall not be re-constructed for or used as living area. 3. The deck shall not be enclosed. 4. An improved parking area for at least two vehicles shall be provided off of the rear alley. The total width of this area shall not exceed 36 feet at the alley right-of-way. RICHARD H. POWELL October 29, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Alteration and Enlargement of a Non-Conforming Use (Garage Apartment) 209 53rd Street H~ ~ct ~ Scsi~- G~ 2418-89-0di4 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 24188906140000 6 - BEACH 7,650 square feet Ashby Moss To renovate and make minor improvements to an existing garage apartment on the property. As of August 1985, garage apartments were no longer permitted in the R-5R Residential Resort District or any zoning district in the City. The applicant's garage apartment was constructed prior to this time when these units were allowed by right in this area. Therefore, it is now considered nonconforming. Approval from City Council is required for any changes to the structure. Major Issues: Change to a Non-Conforming Use RICHARD H. POWELL Page I ..... Ensuring that the renovations to the nonconforming garage apartment are no more detrimental to the neighborhood and are as appropriate to the district as the existing nonconforming garage apartment. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and a garage apartment. The property is zoned R-5R Residential Resort District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning This surrounding area is developed with single-family and duplex dwellings zoned R-5R Residential Resort District. Zoninq History Several changes to nonconforming structures have been approved in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. All of these that are shown on the Zoning History map occurred on the ocean side of Atlantic Avenue on 53rd or 54th Street. In Apdl of 2002, the Atkinson Realty office was approved for an enlargement. In February of 2002, City Council approved the addition of a front porch onto a single family structure located on the same lot as a garage apartment, making it nonconforming. Two separate applications were approved in August of 2001: one for an expansion to a'garage apartment and another for expansions to two nonconforming single family dwellings. The applicant's garage apartment was built prior to 1974 when the applicant purchased the property. Garage apartments were permitted in this area until August 1985 when the use was removed from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone {AICUZ} The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a four-inch water main in the 15-foot alley behind the property. This site has an existing 5/8-inch water meter which may be utilized. There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in 53rd Street fronting Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~.-,~:~'~ RICHARD H. POWELL Page 2 the south side of the property. This site is already connected to City sewer. Transportation Since the number of living units on this property will not change, no additional trips are anticipated with the proposed addition. Public Safety Police: No comments. Fire and Rescue: No comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area for medium and high density suburban residential land use above 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Summary of Proposal · The garage apartment currently has a building footprint and floor area of approximately 550 square feet. All living area is currently on the second floor. The applicant received a building permit in July 2002 to begin a renovation on the garage apartment to improve the appearance and structural condition of the building. According to the applicant, the initial plan was only to remove and replace water-damaged wood. When construction began, however, severe damage was discovered at the entrance, and the applicant decided to shift the apartment's entrance slightly to the west, replacing one of the garage doors. The proposed new entrance increases the size of the building footprint by 36 square feet. A 60 square foot deck is also proposed for the second story of the building. These two size increases are the reason for the need for the requested expansion of a non-conforming use. The applicant has also requested to enclose half of the garage on the bottom floor to increase the living area. However, the definition of a garage apartment in the Zoning Ordinance restricts living area to the upper floor only. The City Zoning Ordinance defines a garage apartment as "a structure above a private garage in which provision is made for one (1) dwelling unit, requiring an interior stairway to the second floor, provided that the living area does not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area and the height does not exceed twenty- eight (28) feet." The addition of living area on the bottom floor would redefine the structure from a garage apartment to a second single-family dwelling on the property. Evaluation of Request Without the additional floor area proposed for the ground floor, the proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as appropriate to the district as the existing nonconforming use. Several factors to consider with the scaled down proposal are as follows: Change to a Non-Conforming Use RICHARD H. POWELL Page The structure will still be classified as a garage apartment. · The additions will not encroach any closer to the rear or side property lines as the existing structure, which is 10 feet from the rear (north) property line and 2.5 feet from the side (west) property line. · The combined floor area of the main house and the enlarged garage apartment will not exceed the allowed floor area for this site in the zoning district. · The combined lot coverage of the main house and the enlarged garage apartment will not exceed the allowed lot coverage for this site in the zoning district. · The proposed renovation will improve the appearance and condition of the building. However, the proposal to re-construct half of the garage area on the ground floor into living area is not acceptable and should not be approved. Creating living area on the ground floor would increase the floor area from 550 square feet to approximately 850 square feet. Since the structure could no longer be classified as a garage apartment, it would be considered a second single-family dwelling on the lot. This change would not be as appropriate to the district as the existing nonconforming use. Therefore, staff recommends approval of only the applicant's request to add 36 square feet for a new entrance and to add a second floor deck. The request to create living area on the bottom floor, however, is not recommended for approval. The conditions listed below reflect staff's recommendation. Condition #4 below has been recommended to mitigate parking problems on the street. Due to the narrowness of 53rd Street, which is only a 35 to 40-foot wide right-of-way, on-site parking should be provided to limit the need for on-street parking. Conditions The additions to the structure shall be in substantial conformance with the plan submitted with the application and shall not exceed 36 square feet in floor area and 60 square feet in deck area. The additions shall not encroach any closer to the rear or side property lines as the existing structure, which is 10 feet from the rear (north) property line and 2.5 feet from the side (west) property line. The bottom floor of the garage apartment shall be used as a garage and shall not be re-constructed to or used as living area. The deck shall not be enclosed. An improved parking area for at least two vehicles shall be provided off of the rear alley. The total width of this area shall not exceed 36 feet at the right-of- way. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Change to a Non-C on for ming Use *~~~ RICHARD H. POWELL ~.~~'"' Page 4 ~ 60,00' 6'5' .,~n~ STRE'E'T (40' R/If) Change to a Non-Conforming Use RICHARD H. POWELL Page 5 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ffthe property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecea~ry) If the properly owner is a PARTNERSHrP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list ~fnecessaryJ ~//~Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, ftrm, or other unincorporated organization. If the aplMicant is not the current owner of the prope.ny, complete the Applicant Disclosure zec~ion be. low: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of~he Corporation below: (Attach list ~nece. ssary) 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. Signature Print Name R~ P/I ~P8 [ Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~ RICHARD H. POWELL Page 6 M~ L-4 H. Powell Gpin 2418-89-0614 ZONING HISTORY 1. Enlargement of a nonconforming use Approved 4-23-02 2. Alteration of a nonconforming use Approved 2-12-02 3. Enlargement of a nonconforming use (garage apartment) Approved 8-14- 01 4. Enlargement of a nonconforming use (single family dwelling) Approved 8- 14-01 5. Enlargement of a nonconforming use Withdrawn 1-26-93 6. Street Closure Approved 7-10-01 7. Conditional Use Permit (family care home) Approved 3-12-84 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING GARAGE APARTMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 53a~ STREET, IN THE DISTRICT OF LYNNHAVEN 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 WHEREAS, Richard H. Powel!, (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for authorization to enlarge a nonconforming garage apartment situated on a sertain lot or parcel of land having the address of 209 53r~ Street in the R-5R Residential Resort District; and WHEREAS, the said garage apartment is a nonconforming use, in that garage apartments are no longer allowed in the R-5R Residential Resort 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 5he 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 garage apartment is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 1. The additions to the structure shall be in substantial conformance with the plan submitted with the application and shall not exceed 36 square feet in floor area and 60 square feet in deck area. The additions shall not encroach any closer to the rear or side property lines as does the existing structure, which is 10 feet from the rear (north) property line and 2.5 feet from the side (west) property line. 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 2. The bottom floor of the garage apartment struc%ure shall be used as a garage and shall not be reconstructed for or used as living area. 3. The deck shall not be enclosed. 4. An improved parking area for at least two vehicles shall be provided off of the rear alley. The total width of this area shall not exceed 36 feet at the alley right-of-way. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 the Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on day of , 2002. CA-8644 bkw/wor k/nonconpowell, wpd R-1 October 14, 2002 APPROVE,D A~ TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Departm~~~f~ L~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Bishop Walter F. Sullivan - Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, for a Conditional Use Permit for a school on the west side of Clearfield Avenue, north of Marian Lane (GPIN #1467-66-0696 and a portion of #1467-56-7211). Said parcel contains 2.41 acres. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE. The applicant is proposing to add a wing onto the existing school building for preschool classrooms. The applicant is also proposing a circular drive in front of the preschool building and a 58 space parking area. Considerations: The proposed improvements on the site involve two different areas, the northern expansion area and the southern expansion area. The northern expansion area is a lot measuring 75 feet wide by 291 feet long, approximately 21,800 square feet in size. This area is proposed for a central drive aisle with parking on either side. The total number of spaces proposed for this new parking area is 58. A new entrance is proposed off Clearfield Avenue and the drive aisle will be connected to the rear parking lot on the main church property to the west. The southern expansion area is an area measuring 290 feet wide by 291 feet long, approximately 84,300 square feet. This area is proposed for a one story building addition of 9,600 square feet and a circular drive for drop off and pick up in front of the building addition. The circular drive will be thirty feet in width and will have two entrances onto Clearfield Avenue. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the church is an established use in the area and there should be no negative impact on the surrounding USES. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manag~ l/- Planning Commission Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 2 of 2 Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: A minimum 8 foot wide planting bed shall be provided on the southern side of the new 58 space parking area, adjacent to Lot 10. Evergreen planting to shield car lights shall be provided within the planting bed, with the specific type and number of plants to be approved by the Planning Director or his designee during detailed site plan review. Evergreen shrubs should have a natural growth height of a maximum 21/2 feet. 2. The island in the middle of the circular drive shall be landscaped with a mixture of trees, shrubs, annuals and perennials. The Planning Director or his designee shall approve the specific type and numbers of plants during detailed site plan review. Parking lot landscaping in the 58 space lot and foundation landscaping for the new preschool addition shall be provided on the detailed site plan in accordance with the site plan ordinance requirements. A separate lighting plan shall be submitted as part of the detailed site plan for review by Police Department for safety and crime prevention. Light poles shall not be more than 14 feet in height. The building shall be constructed as depicted on the elevations exhibited to the City Council. The building addition shall match the existing middle school building in design and material. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 September 11, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a church school expansion West side of Clearfield Avenue, north of Marian Lane ~f~.. Catholic Diocese GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 14676606960000 and a potion of 14675672110000 2-KEMPSVILLE 2.4 acres Barbara Duke The applicant is proposing to add a wing onto the existing school building for preschool classrooms, The applicant is also proposing a circular drive in front of the preschool building and a 58 space parking area. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses Planning Commission Agenda '~~ September 11, 2002 CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 ~~' Page1 Land Use, Zoning, and Site CharacteriStics: Existinq Land Use and Zoninq The subject site is comprised of two separate areas. The southern area is zoned R-7.5 and is part of a larger 17 acre parcel housing the existing church sanctuary and school. The southern area currently contains three single-family homes. The northern area is zoned R-7.5 and contains one single family home. The church owns all of the property zoned R-7.5 on the west side of Clearfield Avenue with the exception of two single-family home sites. These two sites are located immediately south of the northern area proposed for expansion. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: Northern Expansion Area-commercial building/B-2 Community Business District · Southern Expansion Area- church offices/R- 7.5 Residential District · Northern Expansion Area - two single family homes privately owned · Southern Expansion Area- church offices and playground area/R-7.5 Residential District · Northern Expansion Area- across Clearfield Avenue, commercial auto sales operation/B-2 Community Business District · Southern Expansion Area- across Clearfield Avenue, several single family homes privately owned/R-7.5 Residential District · Northern and Southern Expansion Areas- church sanctuary, school and parking areas/R- 7.5 Residential District Zonin,q History St. Gregory the Great Catholic Church is an established use on this site. Several additions and expansions to the church have been approved between 1986 and the present. The most recent expansion was for a new primary school building. The current proposal is to add a preschool wing to the primary school building. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics Both the northern and southern expansion areas contain single-family homes with some mature trees surrounding the homes. The applicant intends to demolish the existing Planning Commission Agenda ~~ September11,2002~'~"~-"~~.~~' CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 ~ Page 2 homes to construct the proposed improvements. The site plan does not show any of' the existing trees on these home sites to be preserved. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: This site has two existing 5/8 inch meters and a 2 inch meter which may be utilized. This site is already connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Clearfield Avenue in the vicinity of this application is considered a two lane undivided local street. It is not designated on the Master Transportation Plan and there are currently no CIP projects to upgrade this roadway.- Traffic Calculations: Street Name Clearfield Avenue Present Volume No counts available Present Capacity 6,200 ADT ~ Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 4 single family homes 3 as defined by 9,600 square foot preschool Public Safety Generated Traffic Existing Land Use z_ 49 Proposed Land Use 3 _ 161 Police: Fire and Rescue: The property owner is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office and the 1st Precinct Command within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies. A lighting plan will be requested by the Police Department during detailed site plan review. The landscape plan will be reviewed by the Police Department also. This facility is an educational use that will require additional fire and life safety features. Effective January 1,2003, an annual fire code permit will be required for educational uses. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use policies and map designation in this vicinity of the Virginia Beach Boulevard corridor recognize the steady transition of land use from residential to nonresidential. The proposed church school addition is an institutional land use that is consistent with the Plan's policy that nonresidential uses adjacent to residential uses are acceptable when they address a greater diversity of needs and desires of the community and are compatible to the community. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 ..... Page 3 Summary of Proposal Proposal The proposal consists of a building addition to the existing primary school on the site to accommodate preschool classrooms and offices. In addition to the building addition, a circular drive will be added in front of the preschool and a new 58-space parking lot will be added. Site Desiqn · The improvements on the site involve two different areas, the northern expansion area and the southern expansion area. The northern expansion area is a lot measuring 75 feet wide by 291 feet long, approximately 21,800 square feet in size. This area is proposed for a central drive aisle with parking on either side. The total number of spaces proposed for this new parking area is 58. A new entrance is proposed off Clearfield Avenue and the drive aisle will be connected to the rear parking lot on the main church property to the west. The southern expansion area is an area measuring 290 feet wide by 291 feet long, approximately 84,300 square feet. This area is proposed for a one story building addition of 9,600 square feet and a circular drive for drop off and pick up in front of the building addition. The circular drive will be thirty feet in width and will have two entrances onto Clearfield Avenue. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Currently, there are no entrances to the main church or school from Clearfield Avenue. There are some converted single-family homes used for church activities that have individual driveways on Clearfield Avenue. The drive aisle and parking area proposed on the northern expansion area will allow for entrance and exit onto Clearfield Avenue from the main church site as well as from the proposed parking area. The circular drive proposed on the southern expansion area will allow for a safe drop off/pick up area for the children attending the new preschool. The circular drive will be used exclusively for the preschool building, as this drive does not connect to the main church site. There is no sidewalk on Clearfield Avenue. The safest route for the patrons who park in the new 58 space parking area is to traverse the rear drive aisle located behind the main church building to get to the preschool building. There does also exist parking closer to the preschool building that can be utilized. Architectural Design · The proposed preschool building addition will match the existing primary school building in color and design. The primary building material is brick. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 Page 4 Landscape and Open Space Desiqn The preliminary plan submitted with this use permit shows very little new landscaping. There are four trees shown in the 58 space parking lot proposed on the northern expansion area. The site plan ordinance requires 11 trees to be planted. There is no new landscaping proposed for the southern expansion area. · Staff has recommended some conditions addressing additional landscaping at the end of this report. Evaluation of Request The conditional use permit for a church school addition is acceptable. The church is an established use in this area. With the recommended conditions listed below, there should be no negative impact on the surrounding uses. The conditional use permit for a church school addition is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions A minimum 8 foot wide planting bed shall be provided on the southern side of the new 58 space parking area, adjacent to Lot 10. Evergreen planting to shield car lights shall be provided within the planting bed, with the specific type and number of plants to be approved by the Planning Director or his designee during detailed site plan review. Evergreen shrubs should have a natural growth height of a maximum 21/2 feet. The island in the middle of the circular ddve shall be landscaped with a mixture of trees, shrubs, annuals and perennials. The Planning Director or his designee shall approve the specific type and numbers of plants during detailed site plan review. Parking lot landscaping in the 58 space lot and foundation landscaping for the new preschool addition shall be provided on the detailed site plan in accordance with the site plan ordinance requirements. A separate lighting plan shall be submitted as part of the detailed site plan for review by Police Department for safety and crime prevention. Light poles shall not be more than 14 feet in height. The building shall be constructed as depicted on the elevations exhibited to the City Council. The building addition shall match the existing middle school building in design and material. 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 September 11, 2002 CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 Page 5 t I 1 , L i ; : Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHmOnD/# 8 ~'~ Page 6 l'; !.: ....* .' Planning Commission Agenda ~~, September 11, 2002 ~.'-..~-~'~ CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 ~~ Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND/# 8 Page 8 Item #8 Catholic Diocese of Richmond Conditional Use Permit for a school West side of Clearfield Avenue, north of Marian Lane District 2 Kempsville September 11, 2002 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: After I finish reading the item, Mr. Vakos will comment on that item for us. The next item is Item 4/8, which is the Catholic Diocese of Richmond. It's an application for the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Bishop Walter F. Sullivan for a Conditional Use Permit for a school on the west side of Clearfield Avenue, north of Marian Lane. This is in the Kempsville District. Mr. Ash? Mike Ash: Yes. My name is Mike Ash. Dorothy Wood: It has five conditions Mr. Ash. Mike Ash: Yes. I represent my client the Diocese of Richmond. I'm with CMSS Architects. And we have read all the conditions and they are acceptable. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Ash. Is there any opposition to Item #8, the Catholic Diocese of Richmond on Marian Lane with five conditions? Being none. Mr. Vakos, would you comment on Item #8? Robert Vakos: On Item #8, we reviewed the conditions. We actually added a condition in the informal session stating that the building elevations as exhibited by council would be part of the application. We were in agreement with it and again, resolved that it should be on the Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Vakos. Since there is no opposition to the Consent agenda Mr. Ripley, I would like to move that item on the Consent agenda be approved, number 8 with five conditions. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do we have a second to the motion? Betsy Atkinson: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Betsy Atkinson. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Yes? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item #8. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: So noted. Planning Commission's ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0 with the abstention noted, the motion passes. . ... :i .::.~:t...;i: !:.~.'.i.'.:..'~..: '.:.. .. APPLICATIO*° PAGE 4 -'-' '"" ....... USE PERMIT .. '.:.. ::"? .:':i?b .' · ! ..::."..:..'}i.': ".ii'{;. :}f,.:".'}.'...'.~'.." ...'::!....... CITY.OF VIRGINIA BEACH d '.DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's N ame:c.n~'~ ~_/. / List Ali Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if~,',' If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIO? 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, co~nplete the Applicant Disclosure section bet APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list (fnecessar If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. list 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 organiz CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Print Name '~ Catholic Diocese 2 G~i. - See Application ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (church addition)- Granted 11/10/86, 5/14/91, 8/11/92, 3/14/95 2. Conditional Use Permit (church/school expansion) - Granted 2/22/94 3. Conditional Use Permit (church/school expansion) - Granted 8/26/97 4. Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) -Granted 9/24/96 5. Conditional Use Permit (auto rentals) - Granted 22/24/98 6. Conditional Use Permit (auto sales) - Granted 5/28/91 7. R-7.5 to B-2 and Conditional Use Permit (auto sales) - Granted 10/23/01 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Potomac Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventist - church MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Potomac Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventist for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the east side of Holland Road, 540 feet south of Shipps Corner Road (GPIN 1495166099). Said parcel contains 3.41 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. Considerations: The applicant proposes to construct a building and facilities to be used for a church. The project is divided into two phases. Phase I includes the 210-seat sanctuary, classrooms, offices, and parking lot. Phase II includes an 1,800 square foot youth/social hall, additional classrooms, and an expanded parking lot. Proposed hours of operation are Wednesday evenings from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm and Saturday mornings from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this highly visible site has been designed to incorporate the natural features of the site into the site design; a large wooded area is to be preserved providing buffering and screening to the south and east; landscaping has been provided well above ordinance requirements; the staff recommended approval; and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request, subject to the following conditions: Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location 'Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department (~'0~_~_ City Ma nage~~ J~_,~~2-~L Potomac Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventist Page 2 The site shall be developed as depicted on the site plan entitled, "Conceptual Site Plan on Property Owned by Potomac Conference Corporation Seventh-Day Adventist Church," dated June 5, 2002 by Courtney & Associates, P.C. The plan may be revised to meet requirements determined during the detailed plan review process. The building shall be constructed as depicted on the elevations entitled, "Proposed Elevations Virginia Beach Church of Seventh-Day Adventist." The design, materials, and colors of the Phase II addition shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or his Designee prior to building plan approval. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained as depicted on the landscape plan by Gall Dickinson submitted with the application and on file with the Planning Department. However, additional foundation landscaping shall be provided along the full length of the northern and southern ends of the building with the exception of entrance areas. The landscape plan may be revised to meet requirements determined during the detailed plan review process. The freestanding sign shall be monument style no more than eight feet in height with a brick base matching the brick on the building. POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST ! # 5 September 11, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit (church) East side of Holland Road, 540 feet south of Shipps Corner Road Ma~, ~-? Potomac Conference Corp. ~oo ~ ....... ~ Adventist Gpin 1495-16-6099 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 14951660990000 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 3.41 acres Ashby Moss The applicant proposes to construct a building and facilities to be used for a church. The project is divided into two phases. Phase I includes the 210-seat sanctua~/, classrooms, offices, and parking lot. Phase II includes a 1,800 square foot youth/social hall, additional classrooms, and an expanded parking lot. Proposed hours of operation are Wednesday evenings from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm and Saturday mornings from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI Page 1 Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with neighboring properties. · Site and landscape design sensitive to the existing natural and constructed features on the site. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoninq The property is vacant and partially wooded. The horse farm east of the property owns and utilizes an ingress/egress easement on the north side of the property from Holland Road. The property is zoned AG-2 Agricultural District. Most of the surrounding property is encumbered by restrictive easements purchased by the Navy. The subject property, however, is not encumbered by this type of restriction. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Garden center and plant nursery / AG-2 Agricultural District · Vacant property, partially wooded / I-1 Light Industrial District · Horse farm and single family dwelling / R-7.5 Residential District · Across Holland Road, office warehouse complexes, one under construction / conditional I- 1 Light Industrial District · Vacant property / R-5D Residential District · Golf driving range, mini-golf, and batting cages / R-5D Residential District Zoninq History The property immediately east of the subject property was approved for horse boarding in 1978. In 1979, a use permit for a garden shop and plant nursery was approved on the property just north of the subject site. The horse farm and garden center still exist on these properties today. The property south and east of the subject site was rezoned from agricultural to single family residential in 1974 and 1978. The property was later rezoned to light industrial in 1984. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI Page 2 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 70-75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. As a result, the' building will be required to have sound attenuation as required for this noise zone. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics Much of this property is heavily wooded, particularly the southern end. A large drainage ditch runs north to south across the eastern end of the property. A 15 foot private drainage easement is proposed over this ditch. Two other smaller ditches run west to east on either end of the property. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an eight-inch water line in Holland Road fronting the property. The proposed site must connect to City water. There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer main and a 16-inch sanitary sewer force main in Holland Road fronting the property. The proposed site must connect to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Holland Road in the vicinity of this application is a four lane divided major urban arterial. The MTP designates this roadway as a 100-foot right-of-way with divided travel lanes. The FY 2002-2003 CIP includes a project (Holland Road Phase VII, CIP 2-008) to improve this roadway to a six-lane divided facility. Currently, plans for the roadway call for a 147-foot right-of-way. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing L~nd Use z- 10 ADT Holland Road 29,000 ADT ~ 31,700 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ Level of Service E 44 ADT weekday 176 ADT Sunday Average Daily Trips as defined by one single family dwelling as defined by 4,800 square foot church Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends a variety of employment uses including business parks, offices, appropriately located industrial and employment support uses. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI Page 3 Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a building and facilities to be used for a church. The project is divided into two phases. Phase I includes a 210-seat sanctuary, classrooms, offices, and parking lot. Phase II includes an 1,800 square foot youth/social hall, additional classrooms, and an expanded parking lot. · Proposed hours of operation are Wednesday evenings from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm and Saturday mornings from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. Site Desiqn The site plan shows a 4,800 square foot rectangular building located in the center of the lot. Another 4,800 square foot building expansion is shown south of the building as Phase II. For Phase I, the building's entrance is proposed on the southern side. A drive aisle leads around the building connecting the parking area on the north side of the building to the entrance on the south. The first phase of parking includes 48 spaces. Phase II extends the parking lot to the north by another 35 spaces, providing an ultimate total of 83 parking spaces. The southern portion of the lot is an existing wooded area in which mature trees are to be preserved. Existing mature trees are also to be preserved along the entire eastern side of the property. The plan shows a 28.5-foot reservation area along the frontage of Holland Road. This corresponds with Public Works' plans to widen Holland Road to 147 feet. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · The plan shows one proposed access at the center of the property's frontage on Holland Road. Another access point already exists at the northern end of the property. This partially paved and gravel drive serves the horee farm located east of the subject property. An ingress/egress easement exists over this driveway. The horse farm also has another vehicular access point off of Wind Willow Court, a dead end road off of Dam Neck Road. Sidewalks already exist along the frontage of Holland Road. The plans for improving Holland Road may include an eight-foot multi-purpose path in place of the sidewalk. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI~ Page 4 Architectural Desiqn, The applicant has submitted elevations depicting all four sides of the building. The proposed building is a standard A-frame design with a portico on the eastern side. Building materials include red brick veneer on all four sides, a synthetic stucco material inside the gable on the east and west sides, and a green standing seam metal roof. Some architectural details have been included to provide architectural relief for the large building. A series of windows are shown along the east and west sides. A decorative brick pattern is shown below each of the windows. Brick soldiering is shown at the foundation and along the roofline. Finally, a stained glass arched window is shown on the north side facing the parking lot. The portico on the southern side covers the entrance with a smaller scale matching gable roof supported by columns. The gable incorporates a triangular cut-out design. The gable and columns are comprised of synthetic stucco material. Although a building expansion is shown on the site plan, the applicant has not decided on the design for the addition. Condition #2 at the end of the report requires the design, colors, and materials of the addition to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to building plan approval. Landscape and Open Space Design The applicant has provided a landscape plan for the subject property depicting landscaping above minimum requirements. Note the proposed landscaping was overlaid on a previous draft of the site plan. However, the landscaping shown on the plan can still be applied. The landscape plan depicts a meandering 10 to 15 foot wide street frontage landscape bed that extends the full length of the property. (Street frontage landscaping is only required to be 10 feet wide and located only in front of the parking areas). The bed is located within the proposed reservation area for Holland Road. This is acceptable as there is adequate room between the multi-purpose path and the edge of right-of-way in the standard street cross- section preliminarily proposed by Public Works for the Holland Road improvements. Interior parking lot landscaping includes trees and shrubs. (Shrubs are not required within these landscape beds). Some of the interior beds have been grouped together in the center of the parking lot to minimize the amount of pavement within a sanitary force main easement that runs across the property. Foundation landscaping is shown along the west side of the building only. Although this is above requirements (only 50 percent of the side of the building facing the right-ofiway is required to be landscaped), additional foundation landscaping is warranted on the north and south sides of the building. The proposed building is very large with little architectural relief, Planning Commission Agenda ~.~,.,~'~~',~ ?~ September 11, 2002 ~j;] POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI ~~ Page 5 especially on the north and south sides. Foundation landscaping in these 'areas will dramatically improve the appearance of the building from Holland Road. The site plan indicates that the majority of the southern end of the property will be a tree preservation area. While much of the scrub vegetation will be cleared out, mature trees will be preserved. The applicant has reserved a circular area approximately (6,000 square feet) for a "Meditation Garden." While mature trees will likely be preserved in this area as well, the applicant intends to create a heavily landscaped garden in this area and may need to partially clear this densely wooded area. Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for a church is acceptable. This highly visible site has been designed to incorporate the natural features of the site into the site design. A large wooded area is to be preserved providing buffering and screening for the site on the southern end and along the eastern edge, which abuts the neighboring horse farm. Landscaping has been provided well above requirements. While the architectural design of the proposed building is sufficient, significant architectural detail is lacking. However, the red brick veneer and additional foundation landscaping recommended in condition #3 below will significantly enhance the appearance of the building. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions The site shall be developed as depicted on the site plan entitled, "Conceptual Site Plan on Property Owned by Potomac Conference CorporatiOn Seventh-Day Adventist Church," dated June 5, 2002 by Courtney & Associates, P.C. The plan may be revised to meet requirements determined during the detailed plan review process. The building shall be constructed as depicted on the elevations entitled, "Proposed Elevations Virginia Beach Church of Seventh-Day Adventist." The design, materials, and colors of the Phase II addition shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or his Designee prior to building plan approval. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained as depicted on the landscape plan by Gall Dickinson submitted with the application and on file with the Planning Department. However, additional foundation landscaping shall be provided along the full length of the northern and southern ends of the building with the exception of entrance areas. The landscape plan may be revised to meet requirements determined during the detailed plan review process. The freestanding sign shall be monument style no more than eight feet in height with a brick base matching the brick on the building. 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 a~=iicable Citv Codes. Conditional use permits must be Page 6 activated within 12 months of City Council approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 ~.~.._...~// POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENT! ~'~' Page 7 Proposed Site Plan Planning Commission Agenda~~~~ September 11, 2002 ~-~~ POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI ~~ Page 8 Proposed Landscape Plan Plann,ng Commission Agenda ~'~' September 11, 2002 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI Page 9 '1 SOUTH ELEVATION Planning Commission Agenda~.~..<~'':~%~ September 11, 2002 ~.~ POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI Page 10 EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTI Page12 Item//5 Seventh Day Adventist Conditional Use Permit for a church East side of Holland Road District 7 Princess Anne District September 11,2002 CONSENT Ronald Ripley: Okay, the next section of this agenda is Consent. Items to be consented. And these items, as you heard are items that we feel that should be consented for reasons that we'll state to you in a minute. We believe they have no opposition and they've been addressed by staff. We reviewed them and we find them to be acceptable. And we're recommending approval. Dot, would you please take over this part of the agenda? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon we have four items on the Consent agenda. As I call the item, would you please step to the podium, state your name and if you have read the conditions and agree with them. The first item is Item//5, the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The application for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the east side of Holland Road, 540 feet south of Shipps Comer Road in the Princess Anne Borough and it has four conditions. Ken Phelps: Hi. Good Afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ken Phelps with Courtney & Associates out of Suffolk, Virginia. We're representing the Potomac Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventist. I met with members of the church. We've read the conditions and we agree with the conditions the Planning staff has made. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #5? After I finish reading the item Mr. Vakos will comment on the item for us. Mr. Vakos, would you comment on Item #5 ? Robert Vakos: Yes ma'am. I certainly will. Item #5 Potomac Conference Corporation Seventh Day Adventist. The Planning Commission reviewed the comments and the conditions as presented by staff. And with some discussion, minor discussion on the landscaping issues on the adjacent northern/southern ends of the property and we agreed with the staff that this is an item that should be consented. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Vakos. Since there no opposition to the Consent agenda Mr. Ripley, I would like to move that the item on the Consent agenda be approved, number 5 with four conditions. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do we have a second to the motion? Betsy Atkinson: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Betsy Atkinson. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Planning Commission's ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Item #5 Seventh Day Adventist Page 2 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. APPLICATION · PAGE 4 Ok' 4 I ! CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Potomac Conference Corporation of Seve_n._t.h_-~_.ay Adventist~ List All Current " Property Ownera: Potomac Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists PROPERTY OV~NER DISCLOSURE ff the property, owner is a CORPORATION. list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessa,3,) Jim Jensen, Corporation Treasurer _?_9_r_r.Y1_ ~ev_en~r.,. _~s_s. ig~99t. Thomas Knolls, Legal Officer Kurt A___llen____/_, Assistant Legal Officer, Abbey Reyes, Pastor ff the property owner is a PARTNERSltiP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. all members or partners in thc organization below: (Attach list ifnecessa~.) ~] Check here if the property own~ is NOT a corporation, parmcrship, firm, or other unincorporated organization. l/the applicant is not the current owner o/the prol~rty, complete the Applicant Divcio.vure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE ff the applicant is a CORPORATION, list ali officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessa~.) If the applicant is a PARTNERSIIIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach IL~t if necessary) ~] Check here if*he applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, fLrm, or oth~ion. / / CERTIFICATION: l certify that th e~~u e and a~ccu~_~ ._ .......... ~ ...... I~.x O l Map H-lO Potomac Con I-1 I-I Gpin 1495-16-6099 ZONING HISTORY Corp. Adventist 1-] 1. Conditional Use Permit (outdoor recreation - golf driving range, mini-golf & batting cages) Approved 1-22-99 Conditional Use Permit (driving range) Approved 2-25-92 2. Rezoning (R-SD Residential to conditional I-1 Light Industrial) Approved 7- 3-01 Modification of Conditions Denied 10-27-98 Conditional Use Permit (processing & storage of woody vegetation) Approved 9-22-98 Rezoning (R-5D Residential to conditional I-1 Industrial) Approved 9-22-98 3. Rezoning (R-5D Residential to conditional I-1 Industrial) Approved 5-9-00 4. Modification of Conditions Approved 10-9-01 Rezoning (R-5D Residential to conditional I-1 Industrial) Approved 9-14-99 5. Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) Approved 4-9-02 6. Rezoning (R-6 Residential to I-1 Industrial) Approved 6-25-84 Subdivision Variance Approved 10-11-77 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to R-6 Residential) Approved 12-16-74 7. Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to R-8 Residential) Approved 6-19-78 8. Conditional Use Permit (board horses) Approved 3-20-78 9. Conditional Use Permit (garden shop & nursery) Approved 8-13-79 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc. - Conditional Change of Zoning MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District and I-2 Heavy Industrial District to Conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial District on the north side of London Bridge Road at its intersection with Taylor Farm Road. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel with a variety of employment uses, such as business parks, offices, appropriately located industrial and employment support uses (GPIN # 1495-87-4771; # 1495-67-7298; # 1495-86-0064; # 1495-76-6055; # 1495-76-2161; # 1495-76-4404; # 1495-77-2031; # 1495-86-1301; # 1495-76-7397; # 1495-76-8053; #1495-58-6352; # 1495-76-1395). Said parcels contain 218 acres more or less. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. Considerations: There are two purposes for this rezoning. First, the applicant is requesting that 1.55 acres of property fronting on London Bridge Road that is currently zoned I-1 Light Industrial District be rezoned to Conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial District to accommodate a wider base of potential industrial uses. Second, the applicant wants to create uniform standards for all properties within Oceana South Industrial Park with the proposed proffer agreement. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal will accommodate a wider base of potential industrial uses and create uniform standards for all properties within Oceana South Industrial Park; the staff recommended approval; and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the proposed proffer agreement. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. iSubmitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Managel~~,)~.` ~_,~_ , THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA/# 4 October 9, 2002 General Information: APPLICATION 110-210-CRZ-2002 NUMBER: REQUEST: Chan,qe of Zoning District Classification from I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts to Conditional I-2 Industrial District. ADDRESS: Property located on the north side of London Bridge Road at its intersection with Taylor Farm Road. ,~4ap L-P, 10 I-2 The Taylor I-2 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 1495874771; 1495677298; 1495772031; 1495860064; 1495766055; 1495762161; 1495764404; 1495861301; 1495767397; 1495768053; 1495761395; 1495586352 6 - BEACH 218 acres Barbara Duke Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page I PURPOSE: There are two purposes for this rezoning. First, the applicant is requesting that 1.55 acres of property fronting on London Bridge Road that is currently zoned I-1 Light Industrial District be rezoned to Conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial District to accommodate a wider base of potential industrial uses. Second, the applicant wants to create uniform standards for all properties within Oceana South Industrial Park with the proposed proffer agreement. Major Issues: · Degree to which the property location is suitable for heavy industrial land use · · Degree to which the proposed proffers meet or exceed the intent of the 1986 rezoning conditions and 1995 rezoning conditions. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently being developed and marketed as Oceana South Industrial Park. Taylor Farm Road serves the property. Performance Court has been constructed as the first of three planned cul- de-sacs. There is one property on the north side of Performance Court that has been developed with a warehouse building with outside storage. All other properties are undeveloped at this time. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Oceana Naval Air Station / I-2 Heavy Industrial District · Undeveloped properties / Conditional I-1 Light Industrial, AG-2 Agriculture and R-20 Residential District · Oceana Naval Air Station / I-2 Heavy Industrial District · Oceana West Industrial Park / I-2 Heavy Industrial District Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: With Proposed Zoning: A variety of Industrial uses in accordance with zoning ordinance requirements for the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts and in accordance with 1986 rezoning conditions and 1995 rezoning conditions. A variety of industrial uses in accordance with zoning ordinance requirements for the I-2 Industrial District and in accordance with recorded proffer agreement Planning Commission Agenda~~, - ~ October 9, 2002 ~..?.~~/~ THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 2 Zoninq History The subject site was rezoned from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to I-1 and I-2 Industrial District in 1986 with the conditions listed below. o First 250 feet of the property shall be MODIFIED to I-1 Industrial. Submission to the Planning staff for approval of an infrastructure development plan (including road, utility, and drainage features), which is in accord with principles and concepts recommended by the AICUZ consultant. Subsequent development should conform to this approved plan. On-site storm water detention. The detention system should meet the standards recommended in the AICUZ consultant's report. A 50 foot buffer along the entire frontage on London Bridge Road with a 4- foot berm in accordance with City standards and landscaping. Adherence to aesthetic guidelines A through K, established as part of the City's AICUZ industrial policy. A. Minimum yard setbacks for any lot adjacent to an existing or proposed street should be 50 feet with 30-foot side and rear property setbacks. B. There must be an open space of at least 60 feet between adjacent buildings and structures and 30 contiguous feet of which shall be designated as "Landscape space". C. Driveways will be permitted no less than 15 feet from property lines. D. Within the landscaped area, Category I plants must be used as buffers and screens and plant selection must be approved by the City prior to site plan approval. E. A 50-foot buffer will be required between industrial areas and adjacent to residential areas. A wider buffer may be required between industrial areas and adjacent to residential areas. F. Parking will not be allowed along the front of this development. G. Aesthetics also include sign regulations and should an area be developed as an industrial park, it will be necessary to establish an overall sign pattern in order to create continuity within the park itself. H. All lighting shall be directed toward the interior of the development. I. A 4-foot high landscaped berm with 3:1 slope and 2 foot wide top will be required between industrial areas and all adjacent arterial roadways. J. Entranceways to industrial areas will be landscaped as appropriate to the site. K. A site plan shall be submitted for review. Sign will be limited to one per lot or building site for each street frontage and may be located on exterior building walls. The content of the sign shall be limited to the identification of the product or services sold or produced and the name of the establishment. It will conform with the City of Virginia Beach sign ordinance regulations as well as the sign standards pertinent to Oceana West Industrial Park. Flashing or intermittent signs are prohibited. A five foot dedication of right-of-way along the frontage of London Bridge Road, 45 feet from the centerline of the existing 80-foot right of way to provide for an ultimate 90-foot right of way as required by the Master Street and Highway Plan. Dedication of two feet of right-of-way along the frontage of London Bridge Road for the proposed bicycle path as indicated on the Virginia Beach Bikeway Plan. Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / Cf 4 Page 3 In 1995, a modification of conditions for condition number five (5) was requested and granted by City Council. In 1995, the conditions were modified as listed below.' 3. 4. 5. Established aesthetic guidelines in the City's AICUZ Industrial policy: A through K.'(Guideline F shall be deleted). Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc. will construct a four to six foot undulating berm with 50' landscape easement along London Bddge Road. The berm will be constructed with a 4:1 slope for ease of maintenance. The berm will be landscaped in a manner comparable to the berm in front of Lillian Vernon and complying with the Corporate Landing standards. General Foam Plastics Corporation and all future site owners in Oceana South Industrial Park will be required to adhere to the "Signage Criteda for Oceana South Industrial Park, Virginia Beach, Virginia"; prepared by Owen Advertising and Design, dated June 27, 1995. Copies are on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The entire property is in an AICUZ of greater than 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The western portion of the property (from Taylor Farm Road west to London Bridge Road) is within Accident Potential Zone 1 and is directly under the runway approach. The Navy owns restrictive easements over this property. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The majority of the site is flat grassy field. There are some wooded areas on the eastern portions of the site near Hornet Drive. There is a large stormwater pond in the southwest corner of the property that serves as a regional facility for the entire industrial park. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 12 inch sanitary sewer main in Taylor Farm Road that has recently been constructed. There is a 10 inch water main in Performance Court that has recently been constructed. There is a 12 inch water main in Taylor Farm Road that has recently been constructed. There is an 8 inch sanitary sewer main in Performance Court that has recently been constructed, All properties within Oceana South Industrial Park must connect to City water and sewer. Transportation The proposed rezoning will not have any greater or less impact on transportation systems beyond what the existing zoning will generate. Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as it Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA ! # 4 Page 4 Fire and Rescue: pertains to this site. Fire protection requirements will be reviewed at the time of detailed site plan and building permit review on individual lots within this subdivision. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map recommends this area for suburban employment, which is an area planned for a variety of employment uses including business parks, offices, and appropriately located industrial and employment support uses. The Comprehensive Plan further states that within AICUZ accident potential and high noise zones south of Oceana NAS, industrial uses that are capital intensive rather than employee intensive are appropriate. Summary of Proposal Oceana South Industrial Park is 218 acres in size. Taylor Farm Road, which was recently constructed by the applicant, who is also the developer, serves as the main arterial for the park. Currently, there are twelve platted lots in the park. Seven of the twelve lots, or 206 acres, are owned the applicant, Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc. The other five lots have been sold to industrial users. Only one of the five lots sold is developed with a warehouse building and outside storage yard at this time. All current property owners within the park are in agreement with the applicant's proposal and are, in fact, parties to the proposed proffer agreement submitted with this application. There is a preliminary subdivision plan under review in the Planning Department that shows further subdivision of the park into three planned cul-de-sacs along Taylor Farm Road containing lots that are between one and two acres in size. Other areas along Taylor Farm Road will be subdivided into larger lots of between four and eight acres. The eastern half of the property will be a residual lot containing 130 acres more or less. The properties were originally rezoned in 1986, prior to the adoption of enabling legislation for Conditional Rezoning requiring that a proffer agreement be recorded with the Clerk of Circuit Court. The conditions of the 1986 rezoning were not recorded because it was not required at that time. In 1995, the conditions were modified by City Council action, but were again not recorded. In August 2001, a set of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions was recorded by the applicant/developer in conjunction with subdivision plats to create the twelve existing lots. This deed restriction exceeded the zoning ordinance requirements for I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts but, unfortunately, did not match all of the conditions stipulated in the 1986 and 1995 rezonings. Specifically, the deed restriction did not include items (A) through (D) of the AICUZ Industrial Policy listed as Condition 5 in the 1986 rezoning action. The discrepancies that exist between the recorded deed restriction and the 1986/1995 rezoning conditions must be corrected in order to continue development within the park. The applicant is requesting to record a proffer agreement that matches the deed restriction recorded in August 2001. This proffer agreement will supersede all conditions placed on the property in the Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 '-. ........ Page 5 1986 and 1995 rezoning actions. The applicant is also asking to rezone the property designated as I-1 Light Industrial under Condition 1 of the 1986 rezoning. The applicant wants to designate this property as I-2 Heavy Industrial, allowing a wider range of industrial uses. When the property was originally rezoned in 1986, London Bridge Road along the southern edge of this property was designated as a major arterial roadway on the Master Street and Highway Plan. This was the pdmary rationale for placing the less intensive industrial zoning along London Bridge Road. With the construction of Dam Neck Road to the south and London Bridge Road Extended to the west, London Bridge Road is no longer considered a major arterial roadway and this designation has since been removed from the Master Transportation Plan. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: When the Property is developed, each lot shall be subject to the following mandatory site development guidelines: a) A fifty foot (50') Landscape setback from London Bridge Road, including an earthern berm four feet (4') in height shall be maintained on those lots adjacent to London Bridge Road and no structure shall be located within the Landscape setback. b) A minimum fifty foot (50') building setback shall be required from London Bridge Road c) A minimum thirty foot (30') front yard setback, side yard setback when adjacent to a street and rear yard setback on a through lot shall be required. d) A minimum ten foot (10') landscaped side yard setback shall be required. e) Driveways shall be located no less than ten feet (10') from side and rear property lines. f) All lighting shall be directed downward and toward the interior of the site. g) The number of signs shall be limited to one (1) freestanding sign and one (1) building mounted sign per lot. The content of the signage shall be limited to identification of the product or services sold or produced, the name of the business and street address. Signage will conform with all City of Virginia Beach sign ordinance regulations. No freestanding signage shall be permitted adjacent to London Bridge Road. This proffer is intended to replace Condition 5 of the original 1986 rezoning as guidelines for development of the sites within the industrial park. it should be noted that the berm required along London Bridge Road has already been established; however, the landscaping on the berm has not been completely installed. The landscaping for the berm has been approved and bonded by the Development Services Center and it is anticipated that the landscaping will be fully installed within the next year. Proffers l (a) through 1(c) establish the setbacks for ali Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 .... THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 6 PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: buildings and structures on the lots. The proffered setbacks are not as large as the setbacks outlined in 1986 Condition 5(A) through 5(C); however, the proffered side yard setback of ten feet is larger than the zero foot setback contained in the zoning ordinance for both I- 1 and I-2 Industrial Districts. In Proffer l(d), landscaping is required within the lO-foot side yard setback, which is similar to 1986 Condition 5(D), and will result in 20 feet of contiguous landscape space. Proffer l (e) guarantees the driveways will not interfere with the landscaped area. Proffer l (g) restricts signage similar to 1986 Condition 5(K) with one additional restriction that is a benefit. The new proffer restricts free-standing signage along London Bridge Road. Overall, Proffers l (a) through l (g) set standards that are above the minimum required by the zoning ordinance for industrial districts. The landscape berm and restricted signage proffered along London Bridge Road will enhance the image of the industrial park. The ten foot side yard setbacks proffered will allow for additional landscaping to be planted on the perimeter of all sites and this will also enhance the image within the park. The ten foot side yard setback proffered is a minimum and because the lots within the industrial park will vary in size from one acre to more than six acres, wider side yard setbacks will likely be provided during the development of the larger lots. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. This is a standard proffer and is acceptable. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 20, 2002, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The applicant's request to rezone the 250 foot wide strip of property (1.55 acres) along London Bridge Road from I-1 Light Industrial to 1-2 Heavy Industrial is acceptable given the fact that this roadway is no longer designated as a major arterial. The property is well screened from London Bridge Road by existing vegetation and the newly established berm that will be landscaped with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. The applicant's request to rezone the entire 218 acre site to Conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial by providing a comprehensive proffer agreement is also acceptable. The proffers submitted maintain the spirit of the original 1986 rezoning and will enhance the atmosphere of the park by adding increased setbacks, signage restrictions and perimeter landscaping to all sites within the park. This property is heavily impacted by Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA/# 4 Page 7 AICUZ restrictions and is surrounded by other properties zoned for industrial uses. Industrial land use is compatible with NAS Oceana operations and is suitable at this location. It is recommended that the request be approved subject to the proposed proffer agreement. 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 a[~F~licable City Codes. , Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA ! # 4 Page 9 CONDITIONAL RE.ZONING ·-;.'. - ; ' .... .CITY,OF ¥IRGINIA BEACH Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Taylor Group of Virginia. Inc,. a Virginia corporation The Tayor. Group of Virginia, Inc, PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff ~e property owner is a CORPORATION, list all offiee~ of the Corporation below: (Attach l~t ~necessary) Linfla ~ay~pr ChappelI, President/Secret. arq/Treasurer Barbara '[%ylor Creech, Vice President If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM. or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization b~low: (Attach list ifn~cessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated org~ization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ff the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM. or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: 1 certtfy that the information contained herein is true and accurate. The Ta r o of ~.r ' ' , Inc t Signature Linda Taylor Chappell, President Barbara Taylor Creech, Vice President Print Name Rev. Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 10 CONDITIONAL REZONING · "C'.IT¥?.OF.VIRGINIA BEACH Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation David Littleton Fowell PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Lt' 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 alt members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. lf the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessar'y) Linda Taylor Chappell, President/Secretary/Treasurer Barbara Taylor Creech, VSce President f :he applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all ,octobers or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Cheek here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ZERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. ~ aSi~nature Linde Taylor Chapped, PresSden~ Barbara Taylor Creech, Vice President Print Name Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 11 AppHcant:s Name: C'O:NDt IONAL REZONING .... :;;.,. :..' ...:::.?:'.. , ':Ct Y!OF:'V LZkGINIA...".' BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation List All Ctzrrent Property Owners: Woodma$~ers. L,L,C., a Virginia limited liability company PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Lt- ',he property owner is a CORPORATION, list all off{cers of the Corporation below'. (Attach fist ifnecesscryj Janlce Kev, Manager Ra.'.,,mond '.<,eg~ Manager If the prcperty owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or o(her UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list a.ll members or partners in the organization below: ~Attach !i$t if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporamd organizatton. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE the applicant is a CORPORATION, list ail officers of the Corporation below: (Ar:ach list ifnecessar'/~ Linda Taylor Chappell, President/Secretary/Treasurer B ..... are. Taylor Creech, Vice President If Lhe. " app.c .... is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. mz.'r.,b~rs or partners in the org~ization b~low: (Atrac.h list ~'n~cessau') ~ Ch:ok here ir' the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Woodmast. er$, L.L.C. Janice Key, Manager Print Name p, ev. Planning commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA/# 4 Page 12 "APPLI..CATIO1v PAGE 4 OF 4 ." CONDI'. IONAL REZONING ['.. ;:7 '..., :'... i.i"~, i:~.-;.: :' ~I~Y?F. VIRGINIA BBA CH Applicant's Name: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Taylor Group of Virginia, inc., a Virginia corporation List All Current Property Owners: Wcodmas~ers. L.L.C., a Vi~.ginia limi=¢d, liability cqmpanv PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ~ the proper~ owner is a CORPORATION, Est all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach tis: ~necessapy) Janice Key~ Manager Raymond Kev, Manager If :he property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list ail members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a co~oration, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLI C.&N~r DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) Linde Taylor Chappell, President/Secretary/Treasurer Barbera Tayl~.r Creech, Vice President b' :he applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. is.'. all members or partners in the organization below'. (Attach list ifnecessa~,j Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, 5rrn, or other unincorporated orgamzation. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate, The Tayl G , f git iai c. - dS ignature Linde Taylor Chappell, President: Bmrbara Taylor Creech, Vice Presidemt Print Nam~ Planning Commission Agenda e. October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 13 .. , . rUC^TrONraGE 4 O? 4i '" .:'"'::-':. i: NAL: REZONING -DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: The Taylor Group of Virginia, The., a Virg±nia corporate'on List All Current Property Owners: Seaborn, LLC ., :a Virginia limited liability company PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPOI~a. TION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach li~t if necessary) Jeffrey .D. Brooks, Sole Member If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list al! members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) '~ Check hem if thc prop~y 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 tk~t if necessary) Linda Taylor Chapp, ell~ President/Secretary/Treasurer B~rb.ara Taylor Creecha Vice ?residen't If thc applicant is a PARTNERSItlP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, }ist all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, pmnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accttrate. t - - Signature Linda T~ylor Chappell, ~resident Barbara Taylor Creech, Vice President Print Name Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002~~¢-~' .~ THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA ! # 4 Page 14 AFPLICATION PA GE 4 OF 4 · COND! IONAL RFZONING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Tko Taylor group of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation List All Current Property Owners: 5eaborn, LLC ., 'a Virginia limited !iahi!ity company PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE It' the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ~fnecessaryj Jeffrey P. Brooks, Sole Member If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or panners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~]] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorpora:ed organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICAaNT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) Linde Tavlar Chapoell, President/Secretary/Treasurer Barbara T~vlor Creeck. Vice President Ir' 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 appli:ant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION, [ certify, that the information contained herein is true and accurate, Seabor n, I.LI7 Jeffrey D. Brooks, blanager Print Name Planning Commission Agenda Oc, o ,er S, ,00, THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 15 Applicant's Name: List Alt Current Property Owners: · 'APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 J · ..'"": '.CO I IONAL REZONING[ · ..,:....... 'V,.".-.C..IT'Y.-_.OF VIRGINIA BEACH I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Taylor Group of VirRinia, Inc., a Virminia corporation Beavers & Sons, L.L.C., a Virainia limited iiabi, l%~¥ gompany PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE k- the property owner is a CORPORATION, list ali officers of the Corporation below: (A:tach list ifnecesseo') If the property owner is a PARTNERSFFIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. llst all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) tEJ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm. or other unincorporatefi organization. If the applicant is ,tot the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE ff the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) Linde Taylor Chappell, President/SecreTary/Treasurer Barbara Tay!o[ Crgech, vice President If the applicant is a PARTN-ERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list members or partners in the organization below: ;4ttach fist ifnecessery) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporauon, parmership, firm, or other unincorporated ~,. ; .,:i CERTIFICATION: 1 certify that the information c/~ntained herein is true and ~ccurate. ~S'~.gnature Linda Taylor Chappell, President Barbara Taylor Creech, Vice President Print Name Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 16 APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 ] · CONDITIONAL REZONING ..:...!:.;.. ',:::..!:.."':,C!:T'Y". 0F'VIRGENIA B EACH i DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: The Taylor ~roup of ¥'ir~.inia, Inc., a Virginia co.r~orazion List All Current Property Owners; 3eavers & Sons, L.L.C~, a Virginia limited liabiliCv company PROPERTY OBq~ER DISCLOSURE the property owner is a CORPORATION, list ail officers of the Corporation below: (Attach fist ~Fnecess~O,) If the prop,ny owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, a!l members or panners :n the organization below: (Attach fist if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm. r~r other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not rhe current ov,'ner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section be[ow: APPLICANT DIS CLOSURE If the appli:ant i~ a CORPORATION, list all officer~ of the Co~oration below: lA,tach lis~ if necessary) Linda Taylor Chappetl, Presidenc/Secrel:ary/Treasurer Barbara Tar.lot Creech, Vice President if the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED OR GANIZATION, m~mbers or pm:mort in the organization below: (Attach !k: ifnecesscry) ~ Ckeck here if the applic~t is NOT a co~oration, parmcrship, firm, or other uninccrporate~ organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify, that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Beaver A'-'"5"'xm$, L.L.C..--'--. ~ Sign,~ture · Print Name Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VA / # 4 Page 17 Item #4 The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc. Change of Zoning District Classification North side of London Bridge Road at its Intersection with Taylor Farm Road District 6 Beach October 9, 2002 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #4, the Taylor Group of Virginia. It' s an Ordinance upon Application of the Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial and 1-2 Heavy Industrial to Conditional I- 2 Heavy Industrial District on the north side of London Bridge Road at it's intersection of Taylor Farm Road. This is in the Beach District. And has no conditions. Nh-. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you again. Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. This is a proffered rezoning. It's a clean up on a situation and we appreciate being placed on the Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any opposition to Item #4, the Taylor Group of Virginia? Hearing none, Mr. Horsley. Donald Horsley: As Mr. Bourdon stated, it is a clean up application to get this property straight. This property is very compatible with Oceana surrounding and the original rezoning that occurred in 1986, this application still maintains that spirit of that and will enhance the overall industrial park. So we feel it's a good project. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Horsley. I would move to approve number four. Ronald Ripley: That's the motion. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Don Horsley. Anybody have any discussion on any of these matters? Yes. Robert Miller: I just need to abstain from Item #4. My firm is working on that project. Ronald Ripley: So noted. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 1 ATKSINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE" AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. NO. P.S. IB City of Virginia Bcach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5637 DATE: October 15, 2002 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilson~~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 29, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreemem, dated July 20, 2002, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY: /fiYl~[$, i~OL~DON. THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC., a Virginia corporation DAVID LITTLETON POWELL WOODMASTERS, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company BEAVERS & SONS, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company SEABORN, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 20t~ day of July, 2002, by and between THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; DAVID LITTLETON POWELL, Grantor, party of the second part; WOODMASTERS, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the third part; BEAVERS & SONS, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the fourth part; SEABORN, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the fifth part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the sixth part. W I_T N_.E_.S S~ T H: WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of seven (TJ parcels of property located in the Beach District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 206 acres as more particularly described as Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Exhibit ~A~ attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcels, along with the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit "A' are herein referred to as the "Property'; and GPIN: 1495-87-4771 1495-67-7298 1495-77-2031 1495-86-0064 1495-76-6055 1495-76-2161 1495-76-4404 1495-86-1301 1495-76-7397 1495-76-8053 1495-76-1395 1495-58-6352 PREPARED BY: AiI~N & Lff~'. D.C. WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of two (2) parcels of property located in the Beach District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 3.724 acres as more particularly described as Parcels 8 and 9 in Exhibit UA" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcels, along with the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit =A' are herein referred to as the =Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of one (1) parcel of property located in the Beach District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 1.300 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 10 in Exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit UA" are herein referred to as the ~Property'; and WHEREAS, the party of the fourth part is the owner of one (1) parcel of property located in the Beach District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 1.000 acre as more particularly described as Parcel 11 in Exhibit UA' attached hereto and inCorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit 'A~ are herein referred to as the =Property'; and WHEREAS, the party of the fifth part is the owner of one (1) parcel of property located in the Beach District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 6.000 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 12 in Exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit "A' are herein referred to as the ~Property'; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts to Conditional 1-2 Industrial District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and PREPARED BY: m. ItOlmDON. AtlEt~N & LEVY. P.C. WHEREAS, 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 Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, her 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 a_ny element of compulsion or c~uid pro q.uo for zoning, rezoning, site pla_n, building permit, or subdivision approve, l, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant a_nd agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, her successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, a_nd other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, each lot shall be subject to the following mandatory site development guidelines: a. A £ffty foot (507 Landscape setback from London Bridge Road, including an earthen berm four feet (4 ~ in height shall be maintained on those lots adjacent to London Bridge Road a_nd no structures shall be located within the Landscape setback. PREPARED BY: J~f[[$. [~OUI~DON. AIII~]~ & LIVY. P.C. b. A minimum fifty foot (50~ building setback shall be required from London Bridge Road. c. A minimum thirty foot (30~ front yard setback, side yard setback when adjacent to a street and rear yard setback on a through lot shall be required. d. A minimum ten foot (10~ landscaped side yard setback shall be required. e. Driveways shall be located no less than ten feet (10~ from side and rear property lines. All lighting shall be directed downward and toward the interior of f. the site. g. The number of signs shall be limited to one [1) freestanding sign and one (1) building mounted sign per lot. The content of the signage shall be limited to identification of the product or services sold or produced, the name of the business and street address. Signage will conform with all City of Virginia Beach sign ordinance regulations. No freestanding signage shall be permitted adjacent to London Bridge Road. 2. 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. All references hereinabove to the I-1 and I-2 Districts and to the requirements and regulations apphcable 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 comprehensive implementation of a new or PREPARED BY: iSYE[S. ROUttDON. AU~N & [krVy. P.C 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. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: ISYKES. t}OURDON. AII~N & LEVY. P.C. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC. a Virginia corporation a Taylor~happell, President / Barb'ara Taylor ~'r~ech, Vice President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31.st day of July, 2002, by Linda Taylor Chappell, President of The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of July, 2002, by Barbara Taylor Creech, Vice President of The Taylor Group of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Notary Public D My Commi$sion Expires: c-~z/~-~//~_.._ WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The forego/ng instrument was acknowledged before me this 2002, by David Litfleton Powell. Notary Publi~ My Commission Expires: PREPARED BY: S'~q4.[S. l~OLq~OON. , (- AItL~N & Lk-~. P._. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: WOODMASTERS, L.L.C. a Virginia limited liability company STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1st day of August, 2002, by Janice Key, Manager of Woodmasters, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002 PREPARED BY SYKF2S, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: BEAVERS & SONS, L.L.C. Title: '/~vy,~l~ ~,~-~ 'x~ (SEAL) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF NORFOLK, to-wit: The foregoing, instrument was acknowledged before me this ~o,'~day of August, 2002, by ~6/J~=/~°7~-~; ~~X~ ~-~, , f~.~.~.,~ ~. o-{-'~avers & Sons, L.L.C., a V~nia limited l~W comply. ' /~//'~ ~ ~ My Commission Expkes: ~~ 9 PREPARED BY: /§YI~[S. ]}OLqlDON. AIIERN & LIVY. P.C. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: SEABORN, .X~LXXX, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company Je/~y~ .J~Bro~"oks, h~nager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was August, 2002, by Jeffrey D. liability company. acknowledged Brooks, Manager of Seaborn, before me this of/'-day of X~ , a Virginia limited /LLC ~C My Commission Expires: lO PREPARED SYI(LS. I~O~DON. AII~N & [BtY. p.c_. EXHIBIT ~A' PARCEL 1: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as "PARCEL A-1-A (160.467 AC.)" as depicted on that certain plat entitled ~SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS A-1-A AND A-1-B AT THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, PHASE 2 AND PARCELS Q-1 AND 0-2 AT OCEANA WEST CORPORATE PARK", Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated December 5, 2001, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 304, at Pages 81 - 83. GPIN: 1495-87-4771 PARCEL 2: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as "PARCEL A-l-B-1 (33.365 AC.)" as depicted on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A-1-B AT THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, PHASE 2~, Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated April 22, 2002, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as Instrument # 200208163017794. GPIN: 1495-67-7298 PARCEL 3: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as ~PARCEL A-l-B-2 {4.374 AC.)" as depicted on that certain plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A-1-B AT THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, PHASE 2', Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated April 22, 2002, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as Instrument # 200208163017794. GPIN: 1495-77-2031 PARCEL 4: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virgin/a, and designated as "LOT 3, 1.500 AC." as depicted on that certain plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK (formerly known as TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK}, PHASE 2", Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 5, 2001, prepared by NDI, 11 PREPARED BY: SY[[S. ]}OUI~DON. AIlIillN & LEVY. RC. L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 302, at Pages 97 and 98. GPIN: 1495-86-0064 PARCEL 5: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as 'LOT 5, 1.590 AC." as depicted on that certain plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK (formerly known as TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK), PHASE 2", Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 5, 2001, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 302, at Pages 97 and 98. GPIN: 1495-76-6055 PARCEL 6: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as 'LOT 6, 2.888 AC." as depicted on that certain plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK (formerly known as TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK), PHASE 2', Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 5, 200I, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 302, at Pages 97 and 98. GPIN: 1495-76-2161 PARCEL 7: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as =LOT 8, 1.808 AC." as depicted on that certain plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK (formerly known as TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK), PHASE 2', Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 5, 2001, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 302, at Pages 97 and 98. GPIN: 1495-76-4404 PARCEL 8: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as 'LOT 1, 2.128 AC." as depicted on that certain plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC., TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK, PHASE 1, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated February 2, 2000, prepared by Basgier and Associates, which plat is recorded in the Office of the 12 PREPARED BY: [~ ~[I[$. ]}OL~DON. A~II~N & [~¥Y. P.e. Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 295, at Pages 23 to 26. GPIN: 1495-86-1301 PARCEL 9: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as 'LOT 2, 1.596 AC.' as depicted on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC., TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK, PHASE 1, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated February 2, 2000, prepared by Basgier and Associates, which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 295, at Pages 23 to 26. GPIN: 1495-76-7397 PARCEL 10: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as aLOT 4, 1.300 AC.' as depicted on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK (formerly known as TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK), PHASE 2', Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 5, 2001, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 302, at Pages 97 and 98. GPIN: 1495-76-8053 PARCEL 11: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated as "LOT 7, 1.000 AC.' as depicted on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK (formerly known as TAYLOR FARM COMMERCIAL PARK), PHASE 2", Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 5, 2001, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 302, at Pages 97 and 98. GPIN: 1495-76-1395 PARCEL 12: ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with any improvements thereon, belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach,. Virginia, and designated as "PARCEL A-l-B-3 (6.000 AC.)' as depicted on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A-1-B AT THE TAYLOR GROUP OF VIRGINIA, INC./OCEANA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, PHASE 2", Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated April 22, 2002, prepared by NDI, L.L.C., which plat is recorded in the Office of 13 PREPARED BY: SY[~5. ]}OUI~DON. A41I~N &[[VY. P.C the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as Instrument # 200208163017794. GPIN: 1495-58-6352 CONDREZN / TA~RGRO~/OC~ASO~ / PRO~R 14 Ma~ L-9,10 AG-I A6-2 )'2 The Taylor Grou /' /' / I-2 ZONING HISTORY 1, AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to I-1/I-2 Industrial District- Granted 5/5/86 Reconsideration of Conditions - Granted 6/27/95 2. Conditional Use Permit (golf driving range) - Granted 7/7/92 AG-I/AG-2 to Conditional I-1 Industrial District- Granted 5/14/02 3. AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to I-1 Industrial District - Denied 8/4/86 AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to I-1 Industrial District- Granted 1/23/89 4. AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional I-2 Industrial District - Granted 1/23/89 Modification of Proffers- Granted 2/1/00 5. Conditional Use Permit for junk/scrap storage and processing - Granted 4/25/95 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Stonewood Capital, L.L.C. - Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Stonewood Capital, LLC. Property is located at 1676 Kempsville Road (GPIN 1465039889). DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. The applicant desires to create an 1 l-lot subdivision around an existing historic home. One of the lots does not meet the minimum lot width of 75 feet and therefore requires a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed subdivision is located on property containing an historic resource, a house known as "Tallwood." The house is believed to have been constructed around 1740 by Nathaniel Nicholas. Featuring an authentic colonial architectural style, each end of the house is built of bricks that are 14 inches thick. Restored in 1940, the modern name of the house comes from the remaining trees that surround the house. Although staff would prefer the site to remain intact to preserve the 'context' within which this historic resource is situated, staff recognizes that, if the property owner desires, the property may be developed consistent with existing laws. The presence and placement of the historic house on the property serve as a hardship for subdividing the property. The staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. City Manage~~~~- ~L.submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ ,, . Stonewood Capital, L.L.C. Page 2 Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0, with 1 abstention to approve this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The properly shall be developed with no more than 11 lots, one of which may have less than the required minimum lot width of 75 feet for standard lots and 85 feet for corner lots. 2. The applicant shall record an easement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney over the lot containing the house. The applicant shall prepare and submit a tree preservation plan for the property to the Planning Department for approval prior to final subdivision approval. Where possible as determined by the Planning Director prior to final subdivision plat recordation, any existing trees with a four-inch caliper or greater outside of the building envelopes of the 11 lots shall be preserved. Tree protection shall be required on the individual construction plans for each lot. STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC / # 1 September 11, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance 1676 Kempsville Road ~,~a~ C-lO Stonewood LLC Gl~in 1465-~$-~d9 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 14650398890000 1 - CENTERVILLE 3.0 acres Ashby Moss To create an 1 l-lot subdivision around an existing historic home. One of the lots does not meet the minimum lot width of 75 feet and therefore requires a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. Major Issues: · Presence of a hardship justifying the variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda =~ · September 11, 2002 ~i. , ~i~ STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC / # 1 Page 1 Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: · Existing Lot: The existing three acre parcel is located just north of Tallwood High School. The parcel contains an historic home known as 'q'allwood." Tallwood is listed in the City's "Inventory of Historic Buildings and Sites" prepared in 1990 by the City's Office of Research and Strategic Analysis. According to this document, the house was built by Nathaniel Nicholas circa 1740 and is one of the oldest buildings in the Kempsville Borough (now Kempsville District). The house was restored in 1940. The name "Tallwood" comes from the remaining trees that surround the house. · Proposed Lots: The applicant intends to subdivide this parcel into 11 single-family lots. Lot 4 on the preliminary subdivision plat contains the historic house. Lot 3 on the preliminary subdivision plat does not meet minimum lot width and therefore requires a variance. Item Minimum Required ProPosed Lot 3 Lot Width in feet 75 *32 Lot Area in square feet 7,500 12,186 *Variance required · The 40-foot right-of-way shown on the plat would also require a subdivision variance. However, due to the limited interior road distance, the right-of-way width can be easily widened to the standard 50 feet without unnecessary additional pavement. · Traffic Engineering has indicated that the proposed subdivision will require an extension of the right turn lane currently serving Tallwood High School. This can be addressed during the subdivision plan review process. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existing Land Use and Zoning Currently, the property is a three-acre estate for the historic "Tallwood" house. The property is zoned R-7.5 Residential District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Entrance to Tallwood High School/R-7.5 Residential District · "Charlestowne" single family residential neighborhood / R-7.5 Residential District · Tallwood High School/R-7.5 Residential District · Across Kempsville Road, "Brandon" mixed duplex and single family residential development / R-5D Residential District Planning Commission Agenda September 11,2002 STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC / # 1 Page 2 Zoninq History The only Zoning actions in the immediate vicinity of this application have been for a home occupation on the property north of the subject site across the entrance road to the high school. This property was granted a conditional use permit for a home occupation in 1988, which was later modified in lgg0. Air Installation Compatible Use Z,one (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The property contains small groupings of mature trees both near the house and on the remainder of the property. The name "Tallwood" was given to this house when it was restored in 1940 because of the tall, mature trees that surround the house. Public Facilities and Services Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Kempsville Road in the vicinity of this application is a four-lane divided major urban arterial. The MTP designates this roadway as a 100-foot right-of-way with divided driving lanes and a bikeway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 136 ADT Kempsville Road 17,384 ADT ~ 33,000 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use - no change Average Daily Trips as defined by 11 single-family units Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 20-inch water main in Kempsville Road fronting the property. This subdivision must connect to City water. Plans and bonds for the construction of the water system are required. There is a 24-inch Hampton Roads Sanitation District force main in Kempsville Road fronting the property and a sewer manhole near the northeast corner of the property. This subdivision must connect to City sewer. Plans and bonds for the construction of the sewer system are required. Sewer analysis and pump station calculations are required. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends Iow density residential land use at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre for this area. The Plan supports protecting and enhancing historical, cultural, architectural and archeological resources that work toward achieving heritage, tourism, economic development, and other important strategic planning goals. The Plan emphasizes the importance of identifying and protecting buildings and sites that connect to our historic heritage. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC / # 1 Page 3 Evaluation of Request Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The proposed subdivision is located on property containing an historic resource, a house known as "Tallwood." The house is believed to have been constructed around 1740 by Nathaniel Nicholas. Featuring an authentic colonial architectural style, each end of the house is built of bricks that are 14 inches thick. Restored in 1940, the modern name of the house comes from the remaining trees that surround the house. Although staff would prefer the site to remain intact to preserve the 'context' within which this historic resource is situated, staff recognizes that, if the property owner desires, the property may be developed consistent with existing laws. The presence and placement of the historic house on the property serve as a hardship for subdividing the property. The applicant has demonstrated to staff that, if the house did not exist, eleven (11) lots could be created on the property without any subdivision variances. If the right-of-way were expanded in front of proposed lots 2, 3 and 4, all lots would meet minimum lot width (see subdivision at end of report). However, the front yards of these lots, including the lot on which the house is located, would be considerably decreased in exchange for unnecessary pavement. Also, under this scenario, the house would not meet the required front yard setback of 30 feet, thereby necessitating a different subdivision variance. Therefore, the requested variance is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. Staff has recommended the conditions below to ensure preservation of the house and as much preservation of the site as possible. Conditions 3 and 4 are intended to preserve the house and trees on the site that give the house its name. Conditions (as amended at the Planning Commission hearing) Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC / # 1 Page 4 The property shall be developed with no more than 11 lots, one of which may have less than the required minimum lot width of 75 feet for standard lots and 85 feet for corner lots. 'O The applicant shall record an easement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney over the lot containing the house. Thc oacemant shal! r~uire rev!ow and Histodc Re'/~ow Board. The applicant shall prepare and submit a tree preservation plan for the property to the Planning Department for approval prior to final subdivision approval. Where possible as determined by the Planninq Director prior to final subdivision plat recordation, A_any existing trees with a four-inch caliper or greater outside of the building envelopes of the 11 lots shall be preserved. Tree protection shall be required on the individual construction plans for each lot. NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable Cit~/ Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC / # 1 Page 5 Subdivision without Variance Planning Commission Agenda .~. ~ September 11,2002 ~ STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC / # 1 Page 6 Lot requiring variance Subdivision With Variance Planning Commission Agenda September 11, 2002 STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC/# 1 Page 7 Item # 1 Stonewood' Capital Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 1676 Kempsville Road District 1 Centerville September 11, 2002 REGULARAGENDA Ronald Ripley: Okay, that leads us to the last item, I think. We have one more item to address and we're going to hear, Item 4/1, Stonewood Capital. Robert Miller: I wanted to announce this item. Ronald Ripley: Well, go ahead and do it. Robert Miller: Item #1, Stonewood Capital. Now you tell me how much time we have to hear it? Ronald Ripley: Okay, we'll ask Mr. Bourdon. Betsy Atkinson: Can I make a comment? We like your tie Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you very much Mrs. Atkinson. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, with an effort to keep this one of the shortest meetings on record .... Eddie Bourdon: Well, I'll try to not to spoil that. Ronald Ripley: We're going to hold you to the 15-minute rule. Eddie Bourdon: I'm going to go over the 15-minute rule. I can assure you that. With me this afternoon are Paul and Bobbie Galiotos who are the applicants they are from Stonewall Capital. They reside in the house on the property. So everyone understands that. I've got some conditions. I'm not going to try and cause confusion. But I'm going to pass out additions that I wrote up and also I made a copy of § 4.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance dealing with streets and alleys. And they're designed, and I've highlighted some information there. I'll pass these out to everyone. Let me begin by saying to you today that my clients, when they bought this piece of property, they own property, they spend a number of months on working with myself, with their engineer and with City staff to try and come up with, and we explored every conceivable opportunity to try think out of a way to both preserve the value of the property and to do justice to preserving the house that is on the property. The house is not in any historical registry. It has no designation in terms of being historic and has been renovated and that was pointed out this morning. But it is still a house that has a lot of character. And it certainly has been on that piece of property for a long time. And looking at trying to cluster and trying to do something multi-family or smaller lot on one side but there were no other viable alternatives but to develop the property in accordance with its current zoning. And those avenues have been explored and were explored at the instigation of my clients. Not at anyone else's instigation. Even in terms of looking at options as far as whether the City had any desire to try to inquire that house on a parcel and try to preserve it for some other public use. Again, there's no feasible alternative out there in the near term. So, we then provided a subdivision plat to develop the property as it is allowed to be developed by right and this is clearly and correctly pointed out in the staff evaluation, we could do that and create the same 11 lots. All we're trying to do is keep the road further from the existing house and develop the property in a manner that will at least maintain a greater degree of integrity for the existing house. And the only issues that are before you is one subdivision variance because the lot doesn't meet the lot width at the set building setback. If you look at it clearly has plenty of width where the house will actually be Item #1 Stonewood Capital Page 2 built further from the setback. The problems we have are with the conditions and the wording of the conditions. Not really with the spirit or the intent of the conditions. The first condition is not problematic at all. The second condition is the one I want to spend I guess, the most time talking about. The wording that we have suggested reflects reality. It says that the depicted right-of-way serving the lots is a 40-foot right-of-way, which is not being approved with this variance. A review of the appropriate right-of-way width will be made during the subdivision review process. It is during that process that all the information, some which we do not currently have, including the tree preservation component and what right-of-way dedications may be necessary along Kempsville Road will all be on the table. We don't know those at this particular juncture. I've provided you all with a copy of § 4.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance and I've highlighted some pertinent parts which I will not read but I will summarize and it is absolutely clear under the subdivision ordinance that the Planning Director does have the discretion in this area. He has the discretion to allow the roadway to be 40-feet which is highlighted in there. And there is also sub section N of 4.1, in order to preserve trees, the Planning Director even has the authority to have the right-of-way be as narrow as 20 feet in width. So that discretion is clearly there. No one is asking anyone to exercise that discretion at this point. And no one is suggesting at this point that granting variance for the flag lot, you know, approves the 40-foot right-of-way. But the 40-foot right-of-way is not something that necessitates a variance. And there has been numerous instances where a 40 foot right-of-ways and less have been approved by the Planning Director as he is authorized under the ordinance. Our condition simply leaves that door open. A condition that says it shall be 50 feet or necessitates and makes that decision today that you have to get a variance to make it 40 feet, when all the facts are not before us, seems to me to be imprudent. So, we would suggest that condition #2 as we have worded and if in point in time. Fifty feet may well work and we're not adverse to doing it 50-feet, but we are adverse to putting in a condition on this variance today for this flag lot that ties everyone's hands and requires to come back and we don't yet know all the ramifications of what that would be. The second issue is condition #3. As it had been revised by the City. The first sentence is acceptable that the applicant shall record an easement in the form acceptable to the City Attorney over the lot containing the house. It is my client's intent, desire and they wish to preserve the house. The second sentence is not however acceptable. There is no standard for review. This is not needed anyway as a historical structure and to turn over the decision making as to what the home will look like in the future, as far as its exterior to the Historical Review Board without standards, or without any other means of knowing what they will be requiring is not acceptable. We will gladly work with the City Attorney and work with anyone else on staff to come up with some wording in an easement. But, you know what we are trying to do here is preserve that house but we're also not trying to set up a regiment that destroys the value of the house on a resale basis down the road. So the first sentence is acceptable. The second is not. Lastly is condition #4. I've suggested wording frankly, the revised wording that staff has passed out, the first sentence we will just use. The first sentence is acceptable. The second and the third sentence, excuse me, the third sentence of number 4 is acceptable. It's the middle sentence that is problematic. There was a problem with the original wording. The words "any" and "shall" are unmoving and are not acceptable. We are glad to agree to a wording that would say where practical or where possible existing trees with a 4-inch caliper or greater outside of the building envelopes of the 11 lots shall be preserved. The problem here, and we have no problem preserving all the trees on the lot with the house. But where we have a problem is the definition of building envelopes and the location of these larger trees and how they relate to those building envelopes. And if you have a tree that is sitting on the setback line or slightly outside the set back line the roots come over into the building envelope inside the setback line, how that is going to be dealt with. Again, this needs potentially needs flexibility. And so, you know, we are glad to work with the arborist. Will be glad to work with the staff to preserve the trees where possible outside the building envelope. But when you say "any" and "shall" that means they all shall, no matter what the circumstances. And were not comfortable with those absolute words in that one sentence. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Bob Vakos has a question. Robert Vakos: Eddie, and we'll have some discussion on some of these other items I'm Item # 1 Stonewood Capital Page 3 sure. But, On number 3, give me the standard for preservation easement. What does that really mean? Eddie Bourdon: From my, and you probably will get many different definitions with people you ask. But from my perspective and that of my client in this instance it means to preserve the house as it currently is on the exterior, as it looks on the exterior. But there are certainly changes and modifications that might be made to that over time because of unavailability or in availability materials that exactly matches the shutters and things of that nature and coloring and things of that nature. So the intent is to preserve it as it is today as nearly as practical that can be done. But, you get some of these historical preservation things and it can get very tedious in terms, you know, in giving people discretion over your property. Robert Vakos: With this definition, can they tear down? Eddie Bourdon: No. The preservation easement will not permit it to be torn down unless it was and that would be one of the things that would have to be put in the easement itself. Let's say that 75% destroyed by fire or lightening whatever, that's when you get into the part about, you know, is it going to rebuilt or would you build a different home there. And those are issues that would have to be addressed. Robert Vakos: So there is a legal interpretation of this whole condition. Eddie Bourdon: Our concern is not with the latter case, although that is something that we may differ on. If the house were to be destroyed at any point, given what is going to be around it, I'm not sure it would be practical to rebuild as it currently exists. But that is really not something we're anticipating. What we're really concerned about or where the concern is giving somebody else control over, you know, decisions on... Robert Vakos: And I understand that. In the write up, I think they said the house was restored in 1940 or something of that nature? Eddie Bourdon: That's our understanding. Robert Vakos: You know how accurate a restoration that was? Eddie Bourdon: We do not. Paul, do you have any? This is Mr. Galiotos. He was there. Paul Galiotos: The size of the house was doubled. They added a kitchen and another bedroom. They tore out a bedroom and converted it into a bathroom. Robert Vakos: So would you interpret that as being a restoration or a remodeling? It sounds more like a remodeling. Paul Galiotos: I would say that it was a remodeling. In addition, they tore out all the floors and put new floors there. Robert Vakos: So there's some question as to the authenticity of the structure as far as what it was created. When was it originally built, 1709 or something? Paul Galiotos: The original house was from 1740. Robert Vakos: 1740, excuse me. Okay. Paul Galiotos: The current structure, the historical society dates to 1830. Whether parts of that structure were from the original house built in 1740 or whether the whole thing was new they did not determine. Robert Vakos: Alright. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I can pursue this for just one second. Kay, how would the City interpret a preservation easement? I mean is itjust similar from what Mr. Bourdon said? Item # 1 Stonewood Capital Page 4 Kay Wilson: It really depends on how you write it. You can write it in any way you want to write it. That's why we added the portion here in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. That will give us some protection from what you want to protect and preserve. But, a preservation easement can be written many different ways. Robert Vakos: Okay. Alright. But you're alright with the line in the form of acceptance of the City Attorney? Eddie Bourdon: We certainly are. We want to preserve the house. We've been going down that road from day one. That isn't a road that the City sent my client down. That is a road that he went down on his own. Robert Vakos: Okay. Alright. That's my questions for now Mr. Chairman. Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Yes? Charlie Salle'. Charles Salle': I guess Eddie what I'm trying to figure out if there is a preservation easement somebody has to have the ability to enforce it. If it's not the Historical Review Board who is it to be? Eddie Bourdon: I've had the conversation with Ms. Moss. I have no problem with it being the City. I really don't have any problem. I'm not sure what enforcement powers the Historical Review Board would have. I don't have a problem with it being the City. I don't a problem with it being the State. I don't have a problem with it really being the Historical Review Board but the enforcement would be based, you know, just simply on making sure that house isn't torn down other than certain conditions are mentioned. If it is uninhabitable by destruction our concern is with determining what is approvable in terms of any exterior change to the building. That's the concern with the Historical Review Board and the language in number 2, not with necessarily them being the one to enforce the preservation aspect of the easement. Ronald Ripley: Eddie, would you have a problem with language addressing that subject was rolled into the City easement that's a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Would you have a problem with that? Put it into one document? Eddie Bourdon: If we eliminate the issue of reviewing and approving exterior changes from this, if we can come up with language that is acceptable. We don't want to get into having to file applications and deal with bureaucracy to make a, you know, a change form off white to beige or whatever. I mean, this house is not of that character that every little decision needs to be reviewed by a board and applicant having to go through all that process. What we're trying to do is say we'll do whatever. If we want to preserve the house, we're not going to tear it down. And that's essentially what we're trying to do is ensure that the house is not going to be torn down. Ronald Ripley: I thought your objection was the Historical Review Board having over site. But what you're saying you don't want to have anybody have any over site at all in any kind of exterior changes to the building. Is that what you're saying? Eddie Bourdon: In essence that's correct. Moving down to the bottom line, you know, we want to be able to make our own determinations on the exterior issues. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Will Din has a question. William Din: Eddie, just a question? Is the intent of the applicant to continue to live in this house? Is that reason why you're maybe remodeling parts of the outside? Is the intent to sell this house once the subdivision is in place? Eddie Bourdon: My client's intend to reside in the house. He has already expended monies interior, you know, making interior improvements. It is not his intention to tear down or make any significant changes to it. But again, when you get into a situation Item #1 Stonewood Capital Page 5 down the road is inevitably probably going to be sold, what are the standards? And that is what doesn't exist in terms of standards of review for this thing. It is something that we need to work on an easement and I'm very happy to do that between now and when this goes to City Council. But, we're all here trying to achieve the same goal rather than just tear the house down and build 11 houses. We're not gaining anything out of this. But we don't want to tie our hands in a way that we can't necessarily foresee with language here, but we're glad to work with the City Attorney to come up with language that guarantees the house is going to stay there, but gets away from some of the minutia that some historical structures and review of plans for historical stuff just gets into. Ronald Ripley: Are the windows in the house the original windows? DO you know? Eddie Bourdon: I don't believe anything. Paul Galiotos: From the 1800's Ronald Ripley: Can you come up please? Paul Galiotos: The existing structure is from 1830 and then there are items in the house throughout the 1800s and early 1900s. Ronald Ripley: And the original structure is about what percentage of the total is the original structure if you guessed? Paul Galiotos: I can't answer that. When the Historical Society, the house was admitted to be a historical landmark in 1975. And the state historical society said that the existing structures from 1830 and no one of importance has any relation to the house and they turned down the application. And then around 1990, there was a survey done and people conducting the survey recommended that the house be a historical landmark. As far as I know, there may be one fireplace mantle that could be back to 1830. Other than that, I don't know of anything that would be original to the house. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie, on the exterior and I a~ee with you that the house what's been down to the house is really tried to make it to look more modem I guess, I'm not sure. I'd like to see and you can define it within the easement any material changes. Something that is really material like remove the fireplace or replace all the windows with Sears whatever. Eddie Bourdon: We were perfectly happy to work with staff with wording that would not allow a significant material voluntary change to occur. But, you know, that's what the easement talks about. We have to deal with the language with that. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, would that weaken it too much or not? Robert Scott: Well, I think we can get where we need to be. But we need to'kind of think through this a little bit. The term "preservation easement" just doesn't really mean anything unless you write down what it means. And there needs to be, I think some realization that this is a building that has been substantially altered but it still does have some importance. And in fact that's the only reason why, to me this variance has merit. I do think it has merit by the way. But I think it's because we're doing to save this historical house. 'If that's why you're doing it you also have to respect what the historical nature there is by some sort of an agreement. Now, I'm okay with the idea of pursuing reasonable wording. You know, that will define what the term "preservation easement" means to the satisfaction of everybody involved. But, I do think there needs to be some handle on this, you know, mutually agreed to that makes clear that the reason why we're granting this variance is going to be respected in the future. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Dot? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Chairman, we have so few old houses in our City. I really have a problem with not having some type of over site of this house. Just to make sure that it is Item #1 Stonewood Capital Page 6 maintained. And I know Eddie you said that they didn't want the Beach Historical Review Board but there needs to be someone who is going to have over site. Eddie Bourdon: Well, Dot, in the reality of it is the word "any" exterior changes be, again, too broad. The houses, again, we want to preserve the house and making the effort to do that, but there are no one else stepping to the plate or has stepped to the plate or willing to step up to the plate with any resources to do it. The key is the wording. I agree with what Mr. Scott had to say. We are certainly amenable to working out wording that will not permit a material change. But, again we dealt with these types of issues before and they can get into minutia that is just -- you want to pull your hair out. We don't have a situation here. This isn't the Adam Thoroughgood house. This is not authentic. This house has been modified numerous times. Okay. We don't have really good standards and I don't there is anyone out there. I don't think anyone in this room and if I'm offending anybody, I apologize is going to be able to tell anybody what those standards are for the review of changes. And that's the problem. We don't have a history. We don't have anything there to go on. So, my point is the language in here simply says any exterior changes will be reviewed by the Virginia Beach Historical Review Board. That's language that's very absolute as far as any and we don't have any standards. So, I don't have a problem with saying who's going to be the beneficiary of the easement. I don't have any problem with working out language for dealing with what's material change and what's not. But, the wording here again, in my estimation, and that of my client is too restricted. Any exterior change has to be approved by the Virginia Beach Historical Review Board. It's too broad. We're more than happy to try to work out something that will work for everybody. That won't work. Dorothy Wood: What about the front of the house. I know that the only addition, well I think our van trip looked like the only addition was the portion in the back. Is that correct? And the original house and I can't describe what I'm saying, but the original front of the house. I looked like it was original and then in the back, the little wing, looked like it had been the addition. Eddie Bourdon: Original would be 1740. The final house is not 1740. Dorothy Wood: I'm son3', 1830 then. Eddie Bourdon: Right. So... Dorothy Wood: Still pretty old. Eddie Bourdon: That is tree. I can't tell you what's original. What's 18307 What's 18507 What's 19007 I don't know the answer to that. I keep coming back to the fact, you know, the house can, you know, not a threat because that is not what my client intends. It can be torn down tomorrow and, you know build 11 houses. What we're trying to do is, you know, give assurance through a preservation easement that the house will stay there and it will not be materially altered. And we're glad to work with the City Attorney to do that. Ronald Ripley: Don Horsley has a question. Donald Horsley: I think Mr. Bourdon just read my mind because if it wasn't for applying for this variance we wouldn't even have the opportunity to get this preservation easement that they're willing to work out. I think this is a plus for the City that we are going to get this because they can go down there and tear it down and then apply for a subdivision and we don't know what we'll get. But at least we're getting, and you know those of us who live in the country are familiar with old houses. And you know old house are just what they are, old houses. It can get very expensive up keeping old homes and when we get the opportunity to try and preserve one, you're really putting a constraint on the property owners if you say they' ve got to apply for and they are not going to get any help from the Historical Society. We've run through that on some property that the family has so I think it's a win-win situation. It's a win for the property owners and with the City. At Item # 1 Stonewood Capital Page 7 least, we're going to get some type of preservation easement worked out on the property. So, that's my comment. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Don. Bob, you had a question? Robert Vakos: I was just going to add. I'm k/nd of on the same line with Don. We've had a lot of discussion about this particular issue, preservation easement with comments from Mr. Scott. If we put in there in a form acceptable to the City Attorney's office, I'm assuming they will take it into consideration the discussion we've had today and work it out to where it's mutually agreeable because we can sit here all day trying to talk paint colors and stuff. And I don't think we want to do that. That's just one issue. We've got two more we've got to deal with. Ronald Ripley: Why don't we deal with one at a time. Yes, John? John Baum: I know it's not the same thing as antique but we were told once on a foreign cabinet that needed repair. Over 30 percent is no longer an antique. Well, this is got less than 30 percent I gather. But the other thing since Don mentioned it, the Historical Society they have a house there that is far too expensive to fix up. The Historical Society won't let you tear it down. We like to know why do they propose if nothing? Eddie Bourdon: These situations can be put in a bind very easily. That's the hesitation here. Our intent is actually along the lines of what everybody wants. But the problem is, you know, there are practical issues that we're trying to deal within a practical way. I think we can come to an agreement on a preservation easement wording that will satisfy. The only reason why we're talking about it is because we need a variance for the lot which without it we can still will be able to do this subdivision. We'll still get the same number of lots but the road would be closer to the front of the house we're trying to preserve and keep it's integrity. So, you get this subdivision regardless. We're doing it in a manner that at least if it creates is impossible. Clearly a change with having these new houses around it but at least we' re trying to preserve the integrity as best we can. But, we wouldn't need the variance. And I think Ashby showed you all this morning. We did a bulb over on that side, we do the same 11 lots essentially the same configuration but we would be looking for a variance for the existing home to be preserved, you know being closer to the right-of-way. Ronald Ripley: Let me ask you at this point. Is there anybody who has any opposition before we try to work through this motion? Does anybody have any opposition who wish to speak on this? Okay. Eddie, is there anything else you want to say? Eddie Bourdon: No. I didn't know if you want to talk about the other conditions or not? Ronald Ripley: Bob? Robert Vakos: The other two conditions that we sort of have a difference of opinion on. And I guess the one about the right-of-way. I guess my question is for Mr. Scott. You' ve read Eddie's interpretation? Robert Scott: No, actually I haven't seen it. Robert Vakos: You haven't seen it? I'd like to have your comment on that. I'll give you a chance to read it. And then I guess I'll skip over to the last one about the trees. That's probably my biggest concern out there. And you know and John made a good point today or somebody did in the informal session. When you start doing construction, trees are going to be affected no matter what happens. It's just that lot has such beautiful trees and the house can come and go but the trees have probably been there a lot longer, well maybe not as long as the house but still they're a significant part of this. Where do we differ on - I know you mention the "shall" part and the "any." As far as the preservation of the trees themselves, do you have -- I guess you're going to do that tree prese~'ation plan. You don't have anything here for us now do you? Item #1 Stonewood Capital Page 8 Eddie Bourdon: No. There's a tree sur~,ey, which the City has and we have identified all the trees and their location. But, what we have to do is go out with and knowing what the lot configuration is going to be and which we still don't totally know because we're not sure about whether it's going to be required dedications along Kempsville Road. But once we have a final subdivision layout, then we will overlay where all the trees are located with that and the setbacks and determine which trees are in the area where the house is going to be built and which ones are outside of it. We fully concur with the intent of number 4. The only problem we have is the use of the word "any" and "shall" in there because it's all relative to what is outside the building envelope. If I got a tree that is on the edge of the setback and the tree has a huge limb that grows where the building envelope would be and some of those are old Oak trees with long root systems, we may not be able to preserve it and yet technically one might argue it is outside of the building envelope. The problem is saying "any" and "shall" rather than where possible or where practical we will preserve all those trees that are 4 inch caliper or larger that are outside the building envelope. Robert Vakos: Are these houses all going to be built the same time by the same contractor or are they going to be split? Eddie Bourdon: More than likely, but it's conceivable that there might be more than one contractor, but more than likely, given the current market conditions, I would anticipate that the lots would be sold quickly and more than likely to one or two contractors. Robert Vakos: I don't know. I wish I knew exactly what it was going to look like and how many trees were going to be there and how would go because we've approved other applications where we leave the wording in there "where preserved trees where possible" and it all gets clear cut and then we get new trees. Eddie Bourdon: And I appreciate you saying that Bob because I meant to mention that and I didn't. Because I know actually what you're talking about and I know that the staff does too. In many of those instances, not to say all, but in many of those instances the result is because of requirements of Public Works with regard to drainage. And that is something that we don't control. And again, that's a problem that argumentatively wording would be problematic. But we do have that issue. And the Galiotos property is one that's come up lately, and there have been others and there have been lots of them. Where the developer is perfectly happy and Mr. Foster will pontificate about this for the longest time. You try to preserve trees and sometimes the other regulations that we have to live under that are government regulations are what cause the trees to go. Not the developer. In this case, whom you're dealing with is living there, wants to live there and wants to preserve the trees. We're not in a position where we're trying to get rid of the trees. Robert Vakos: You might not know this but will there be any change in the elevation on these lots? Because I know a lot of times when we lose trees because you change elevations. Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. Drainage requirements may well result... Robert Vakos: You haven't worked through that because you haven't got the final site plan. Eddie Bourdon: Not totally, but it is certainly a possibility that in order to get the drainage to work there may have to be fill put on some portions of the property and that is a classic way that you lose trees. Robert Vakos: Alright. Mr. Scott, have you had a chance to read it over. Robert Scott: I have. Let's do tree preservation first. Robert Vakos: Oh okay. Item # 1 Stonewood Capital Page 9 Robert Scott: The problem with the tree preservation plan is that it promises a great deal and delivers very little. There are practicalities involved and I agree that part of the cause for the loss of the trees is the need to drain the property. People do want that drains. So you can't blame them for that. There are other reasons too. I mean, my inspectors can come in and tell you stories about what they had to stop the bulldozer operator from doing and so forth. There are communication problems out there that are really pretty scary. Mr. Bourdon and I and you if we could all talk in terms of paper but the bulldozer blade and the tree trunk come into contact with one another out there it doesn't matter any more what the paper says. Eddie Bourdon: Very tree. Robert Scott: I think we need to have an approach where - I'm okay with opening this up a little bit and going on out on the site with an arborist. I think that was suggested earlier. But I think by the time that process is done we ought to have a pretty good idea what trees need to be kept and what trees would have to go. And the reality of it is and I agree with this to, sometimes some really nice trees and some really big ones, often the ones with the biggest root systems we know are going to be lost despite everybody's best effort. They might as well just admit it to one another up front. But I think this condition is very well intentioned. I think it's an important one. I think I'd be in favor of, instead of dealing in the absolute of tree calipers and so forth, I think we need to deal with absolutes but I think we need to get to that by a different method. Maybe that involves going out with an arborist on a case-by-case basis and put ribbons around trees or whatever else is appropriate. I think we ought to approach it from that direction. Ronald Ripley: What stage would that occur? Robert Scott: Well, I think it ought to occur probably - it has to be done after the engineering plans are approved. After the site plan is designed by the engineer and approved by the City. And at that point, we can tell based on the drainage what's going to have to go and what's going to stay. Ronald Ripley: What concerns me is and I agree with what you're saying because of what's been said by a number of people. And I know from experience that you can lose the trees pretty easily. But if we're having this type of discussion you know that City Council is going to have this same discussion on this particular piece of property. So as long you have something in the form of condition that you're comfortable with so you can flag the trees can be saved and understanding that drainage and other things that you're going to move trees on. That's probably the most practical thing. I think aside from you coming back with the tree preservation document at this point, you will have to fully engineer the property in order to do that. And that might not even be correct. Right Mr. Miller? I'm not sure, but you know what I mean. Those things really don't always work and so that could be a problem also. So, you need a document that you can work through and if there's a significant tree that can be saved by moving the building this way or that way, it needs to have that flexibility. Eddie Bourdon: I completely agree and my client, again, living on the site he wants to preserve as many trees as possible. It's just the absolute language and the same is tree frankly, for the right-of-way decision because the same issue, it's right in the ordinance. We may need the flexibility to have a section of the road be 40-foot right-of-way. It's a small road anyway. Not necessarily all of it you know in order to, again, better afford the opportunity to protect the tree rather than simply say it shall be 50 feet. It may well be and we're not adverse to it being but that was my concern with the other condition. It's to simply maintain flexibility because it's not until we get to the detailed engineering and the subdivision and its drainage plan that we will be in a position to know. Again, I go back. This is not an application that increases density one bit. If we tore the house down we could do 11 lots. We wouldn't have a tree preservation plan. We wouldn't have a preservation of the house plan. We would just have 11 new lots on a totally clean site which is something we could clearly do. We're trying to do what everyone here today is trying to accomplish. We're all trying to accomplish the same thing. We're just simply Item #1 Stonewood Capital Page 10 trying to maintain, what I believe to be needed flexibility as we move forward in this process. Ronald Ripley: What if we added on that, leave ever~hing just like it is, and it just says where possible at the end of that second sentence, as determined by the Planning Director at final site plan approval. Would that work? You think? Robert Scott: I think that the timing suggested here is right one. I think it needs to be done prior to the final subdivision plat. Subdivision plat approval I would say. Ronald Ripley: Yes? Would that work Eddie? Eddie Bourdon: I think actually dealing with Ashby's wording on condition #4, staff's wording, I'm sorry. I would put the language at the beginning of the second sentence as opposed to the end of the second sentence. Ronald Ripley: Yeah, that would work. Eddie Bourdon: I don't have any problem with that. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Baum? John Baum: We would have saved a lot of discussion if the trees were shown on this plan, the center of the tree and the drip line. These are two tenths of an acre lot. And the big tree will take up more than ten percent out of it. So out here, if you got some big trees on Kempsville Road you can save them. But I can predict you're not going to be able to save many and the other thing is it adds to the value of the lot if it's got an attractive tree or two in the right place, but if you have trees come down in two years, it's a scandal. You just can't save as many trees especially on small lots because people want to be better off starting with new trees. I was a tree farmer once. Eddie Bourdon: A very knowledgeable one. Ronald Ripley: John, I think the final site plan prior to the final site plan approval will probably be the time to find that out. Wouldn't you agree? John Baum: Yeah. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Yes, Will? William Din: I brought up in the, if we're finished with those conditions? Robert Vakos: We still haven't done one, alright two. Excuse me. William Din: Okay. Why don't we finish that first. Robert Scott: We still got one more. When Ashby talked to you this morning, I think her biggest purpose here was to make sure that it's understood that just because the plan that you see up there shows 40 feet doesn't mean we're going to have 40 feet. There's a process that it needs to go through. The Planning Director does have the authority to do it. Well, most of the discussion here leads in the wrong direction. The Planning Director may not end up approving this request. As empowered he maybe to make it. I think one of the things that we're going to have to find is that you can fit all the things in the right- of-way that need to go in the right-of-way. We got street lighting. We got drainage. We got curb and gutter. We got street trees. We got utilities and you know on and on. That has yet to be all hashed out at this point. We're having trouble fitting in a 50-foot right- of-way to be honest with you, so I'm happy to look at it. And if it's right, I do have the authority to deal with that and I'I1 be happy to do it. With that being said, quite frankly, I'd rather go with no conditions. Strike the condition out. I think we established the understanding that the site plan there doesn't finalize the discussion. With that understanding I think we're better off with out the condition at all. Item # 1 Stonewood Capital Page 11 Ronald Ripley: So remove two? Eddie Bourdon: That's really fine with me. The first sentence of my #2 was just to make it clear that it was not being approved. Either way it's perfectly fine. Robert Vakos: Easy. I wish the others were that easy. Ronald Ripley: Let's see if I can summarize this. If I understand it correctly. Number 1 condition is okay. Number 2, remove. Number 3, the first sentence is acceptable, removing the second. Is that the way the Commission sees it? And number 4, if we add the language before the second sentence which would read "where possible as determined by the Planning Director prior to final site plan approval any existing tree with a 4 inch caliper or greater outside the building envelope of the 11 lots shall be preserved". Eddie Bourdon: I think it should be subdivision approval not site plan approval. Robert Scott: Prior to final subdivision plat recordation. Eddie Bourdon: Okay, that's fine. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: Final subdivision plat recordation is fine. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: I think that's the end of that one. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Everybody understand that? Yes, Will? You have more discussion? William Din: I understand it. Ronald Ripley: You understand it? William Din: I just want to bring up the comment I mentioned in the informal session. What will the subdivision look like from Kempsville Road? You know, what kind of entrance is it going have? Is it going to have fencing around it? You have a high school with an entrance there. Is it going to be compatible with the entrance? Eddie Bourdon: We will not continue the chain link fencing that is on the entrance to the high school. Although, I think there is chain link fencing in front of the property today. The chain link fencing will not remain but there will be an entrance sign and some basic. You want to try and create a neighborhood so you're going to spend some money to put a nice entrance there. But it is just a small little in-fill property. It's not going to have a grandiose entrance. It's just going to be basic signage and a basic entrance with a turn lane. William Din: But I think we ought to take an opportunity here to improve what Kemspville Road looks like there. You know, Kempsville Road has a lot of fencing on it primarily because of the traffic that's on that road. But I think at some point we need to again, take the opportunities like this to try and improve what we see there. If it's an entranceway like most subdivisions have I would put some kind of a gated entrance or, what do they call it, walls around it. Similar to what you currently have but maybe update it or some sort. I think it's an opportunity we should take a look at the improved Kempsville Road. There is no proposal I guess. As some applications that we see does propose some kind of an entrance design. Eddie Bourdon: In cases where you're dealing with a rezoning and even some situations with Conditional Use Permits for Open Space Promotion or PDH. You're proposing to develop a piece of property in a manner that is not consistent with the current zoning on Item #1 Stonewood Capital Page 12 that property and obviously that's the norm. In this situation, we are developing the property consistent with the zoning of the property and again, other than the effort that my client has made from the beginning to preserve the house that is the only reason that this application is here. Otherwise, it would simply be developed as 11 lots as you see there on the plan. And, we do not have a plan to put berms and fancy signage on Kempsville Road. It's a just an in-fill piece of property. The entrance will be as nice as the entrance of the other neighborhoods on either side it. But they'll simply have community entrance signs and that's it. William Din: Again, I think it would help the City if you would take an attempt to try improve that entrance somehow. It's an important start along Kempsville Road. I'm not saying I disapprove of your subdivision, I just think that it's an opportunity that we need to take here. Ronald Ripley: I think Bob Vakos has one last question. Robert Vakos: Yes, it will be. I promise you. Eddie, I guess my question, and Will brought this to my attention and I'd not thought of it until he did so. Along Kempsville Road, I think there are four lots along there that are proposed. Is that right? Eddie Bourdon: There are four lots that either have a side or rear that will .... Robert Vakos: That will front Kempsville Road. Eddie Bourdon: That about. None of the lots front it. Robert Vakos: Do you know if they are going to have stockade fences along there to separate from the road? Eddie Bourdon: I would anticipate that is a possibility. Again, you got a fence ordinance that requires that fence to be set now. Lot of the fences you see don't comply because they're grand-fathered, that the fence can only be four feet in height... Robert Vakos: With landscaping. Eddie Bourdon: With landscaping on the outside and setback ten feet or is it five feet? Kay Wilson: Five feet. Eddie Bourdon: Five feet. Thank you Kay. Which is not what you see in a lot of setting. But they will have to comply with that but I'm certain they're going to want to create some privacy from heavily traveled Kempsville Road and there are other fences up and down Kempsville Road that don't meet that criteria that are six feet in height and don't have landscaping on the outside. But I would anticipate you would see four feet privacy fences with landscaping on the outside five feet from the rear property. Robert Vakos: Yeah and I can understand the property owner point of view by living there. But to me, they don't add to the attractiveness of Kempsville Road north to the property. But, I understand that it is allowed. Eddie Bourdon: I have to at least put in the editorial comment. My client initially tried to explore the idea of doing something totally different with some multi-family owned one side of the property and tried to do some things that would have allowed that opportunity to keep the frontage with the entrance etc, but there just isn't any means to have that happen without significant diminishing the value of the property. We tried in three or four different directions to find a way to do that. So that's where we are today. Robert Vakos: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? Item # 1 Stonewood Capital Page 13 John Baum': It's a good thing that we didn't have but one application? Ronald Ripley: This is true. Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: I'll make a motion since I was not part of all the discussion. I'd move that we accept the application with the modifications that our Chairman has made to the conditions eliminating number two and rewording three and four. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion made by Betsy Atkinson and seconded by Don Horsley to approve the applications with the modifications that I've read off earlier. Are you clear with those Ed? Yes? Robert Miller: I need to abstain. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: So noted. Alright, then we're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS I ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Ripley: With a vote of 10-0 with one abstention, the motion carries. This will bring our meeting to adjourn. Thank you all very much. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: STONEWOOD CAPITAL~ LLC STONEWOOD CAPITAL, LLC PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary} PAUL GALIOTOS 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) PAUL GALIOTOS 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 hero if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization.. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name CERTIFICATION: Rev. 9/15/98 Map C-lO ~,~:o: ~o ~:~ Stonewood LLC' Gpin 1465--03-9889 ZONING HISTORY Modification of Conditions to Conditional Use Permit granted 6-13-88 for a home occupation, Approved 8-28-90 Conditional Use Permit (home occupation) Approved 6-13-88 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Amendment to Section 203 - B-3A Parking MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: Currently, Section 203 of the City Zoning Ordinance allows the use of public parking to satisfy the parking requirements of a proposed use only in connection with an application for a rezoning of property to the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District. The option is not available for uses already zoned B-3A. On September 24, 2002, the City Council passed a resolution referring to the Planning Commission the attached amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. The resolution directs the Planning Commission to "transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the amendments no later than" October 16, 2002. Considerations: The proposed amendment allows parking requirements for uses in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District to be met by using any one or a combination of (1) on-site parking; (2) off-site parking allowed by Section 901(a) of the City Zoning Ordinance; and (3) public parking, if the Planning Director finds that there is sufficient available public parking for the proposed use and that the utilization of public parking to meet the parking requirements of a proposed use are warranted under certain criteria: 1. The extent to which the proposed use advances the goals and objectives of the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District, as stated in Section 900 of the City Zoning Ordinance; 2. The extent to which the proposed use conforms to the Urban Design Plan component of the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan; and 3. The amount of the projected tax revenue to be generated by the proposed use and improvements. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed section allows public parking to be used to satisfy the parking requirements of proposed uses already zoned B-3A; the staff recommended approval; and there was no opposition to the request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: recommends approval. Staff recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentJAl~ncy: Planning Department City Manag~ Planning Commission Amendment to Section 203 Page 2 of 2 Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 203 / #24 October 9, 2002 Background: Currently, Section 203 of the City Zoning Ordinance allows the use of public parking to satisfy the parking requirements of a proposed use only in connection with an application for a rezoning of property to the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District. The option is not available for uses already zoned B-3A. On September 24, 2002, the City Council passed a resolution referring to the Planning Commission the attached amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. The resolution directs the Planning Commission to "transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the amendments no later than" October 16, 2002. Proposed Amendments: An ordinance to amend the off-street vehicular parking requirements for the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District. The proposed amendment allows parking requirements for uses in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District to be met by using any one or a combination of (1) on- site parking; (2) off-site parking allowed by Section 901 (a) of the City Zoning Ordinance; and (3) public parking, if the Planning Director finds that there is sufficient available public parking for the proposed use and that the utilization of public parking to meet the parking requirements of a proposed use are warranted under certain criteria: 1. The extent to which the proposed use advances the goals and objectives of the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District, as stated in Section 900 of the City Zoning Ordinance; 2. The extent to which the proposed use conforms to the Urban Design Plan component of the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan; and 3. The amount of the projected tax revenue to be generated by the proposed use and improvements. A significant difference between the existing section and the proposed section is that, where the existing section allows the use of public parking to satisfy the parking requirements of a proposed use only in connection with an application for a rezoning to B-3A, the proposed section allows public parking to be used to satisfy the parking requirements of proposed uses already zoned B-3A. EvaluatiOn: The proposed amendments are recommended for approval. Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 203 1 #24 Page 1 Item #24 City of Virginia Beach Ordinance. to Amend the City Zoning Ordinance regarding parking requirements in the B-3A Central Business Core District Item #25 Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance regarding setback requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District October 9, 2002 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: I'm going to read the next two items together. Number 24 and 25. Twenty-four is the City of Virginia Beach. It's an Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance regarding parking requirements in the B-3A Central Business Core District, number 25, the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding setback requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District. Is there any objection to these two items? Hearing none. Mr. Pauls will you please comment on these two? Tom Pauls: My name is Tom Pauls, Comprehensive Plan Coordinator for the City of Virginia Beach. These two items are basically housekeeping items, one dealing with the modification to the setback regulations and the zoning ordinance for the B-3A Business District and the other one addresses issues relating to the linkage between public parking and supply and the demand created for that supply by the private sector. And does allow for the review of the aesthetics and quality of that ordinance. Both of these proposals are what I would deem to be an ongoing evolution and what's happening in the Town Center in the B-3A section of the Central Business District and I would support both of these. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Pauls. I would move to approve numbers 24 & 25. Ronald Ripley: That's the motion. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Don Horsley. Anybody have any discussion on any of these matters? Yes. Robert Miller: I just need to abstain from Items #24, & 25. My firm is working on those projects. Ronald Ripley: So noted. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT0 ABS 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. 1 2 3 5 6 REVISED VERSION AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFF-STREET VEHICULAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE B- 3A PEMBROKE CENTRAL BUSINESS CORE DISTRICT 7 8 9 10 11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 203 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to off-street parking requirements, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Sec. 203. Off-street parking requirements. (i) In any =~pl~=L~v. for the change of zonzng ..... any proper to D-3A FeJ~roke Central Bus' - ....... ~ .... : ..... applicant subject of the application or on other property within =o= o..~. parking Zo znt=.d=d to o==~=. If pazkzng ~o:- to - ff o~t=, it o.,~= meet the requizemento f~= b= provided o -- this ordinance. the applicant may ~u~=~=~ .~=~ = wu~ e~tlty for the uo= u~ publicly-owned pas=:--~.~.,~ spaces on such te£ms as may be the applicant an8 ~he publ~c entzty, subject to the approval of the City Council. Parking requirements for uses within the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District may be satisfied by any one, or a combination of, the followinq: (1) On-site parking; (2) Off-site parkinq facilities, as set forth in Section 901 of this ordinance; or (3) Public parkinq, if the Planninq Director determines 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 (i) that there is at least a sufficient number of public parkinq .spaces located within the same' development phase of the B-3A District as the proposed use to meet public parkinq demands; {ii) that such public parkinq spaces are not used to satisfy the parkinq requirements of any other use, and (iii) that the use of such public parkinq spaces to satisfy the parkinq requirements of the proposed use, either wholly or partially, is warranted in light of the followinq considerations: A. The extent to which the proposed use advances the goals and objectives of the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District, as stated in Section 900 of the City Zoninq Ordinance; B. The extent to which the proposed use conforms to the Urban Desiqn Plan component of the Virqinia Beach Central Business District Master Plan; and C. The amount of the projected tax revenue to be qenerated by the proposed use and improvements. For purposes of this section, the term "parkinq requirements" shall mean the number of off-street vehicular parkinq spaces 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 required by this section. COMMENT The proposed amendment allows parking requirements for uses in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District to be met by using any one or a combination of (1) on-site parking; (2) off-site parking allowed by Section 901 (a) of the City Zoning Ordinance; and (3) public parking, if the Planning Director finds that there is sufficient available public parking for the proposed use and that the utilization of public parking to meet the parking requirements of a proposed use are warranted under certain criteria, which are set forth in Lines 46 through 56. A significant difference between the existing section and the proposed section set forth hereinabove is that, whereas the existing section allows the use of public parking to satisfy the parking requirements of a proposed use only in connection with an application for a rezoning to B-3A, the proposed section allows public parking to be used to satisf.v the parking requirements ofproposed uses already zoned B-3A. 2 72 73 74 75 CA-8599 wmm\ordres \B3Aparkingordin. wpd R-5 September 23, 2002 76 77 78 79 8O APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: C~t~ Attorney' s 6ffice 3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Amendment to Section 902- B-3A Setbacks MEETING DATE: October 29, 2002 Background: Currently, Section 902 of the City Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback from a street of 5 feet in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District and a maximum setback of 10 feet. The Planning Director, however, is empowered to allow a reduction of the minimum setback to zero and to allow a greater setback than 10 feet under certain circumstances, which are set out in the existing ordinance. On September 24, 2002, the City Council passed a resolution referring to the Planning Commission the attached amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. The resolution directs the Planning Commission to "transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the amendments no later than" October 16, 2002. Considerations: The proposed amendment allows a zero setback from a street for structures in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District as a matter of right, rather than with the approval of the Planning Director under the circumstances set forth in the current ordinance. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because under the proposed amendment, the required setback from a street must be between zero and 10 feet, consistent with the urban character of the Town Center; the staff recommended approval; and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~ Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department Item #24 City of Virginia Beach Ordinance 'to Amend the City Zoning Ordinance regarding parking requirements in the B-3A Central Business Core District Item #25 Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance regarding setback requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District October 9, 2002 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: I'm going to read the next two items together. Number 24 and 25. Twenty-four is the City of Virginia Beach. It's an Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance regarding parking requirements in the B-3A Central Business Core District, number 25, the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding setback requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District. Is there any objection to these two items? Hearing none. Mr. Pauls will you please comment on these two? Tom Pauls: My name is Tom Pauls, Comprehensive Plan Coordinator for the City of Virginia Beach. These two items are basically housekeeping items, one dealing with the modification to the setback regulations and the zoning ordinance for the B~3A Business District and the other one addresses issues relating to the linkage between public parking and supply and the demand created for that supply by the private sector. And does allow for the review of the aesthetics and quality of that ordinance. Both of these proposals are what I would deem to be an ongoing evolution and what's happening in the Town Center in the B-3A section of the Central Business District and I would support both of these. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Pauls. I would move to approve numbers 24 & 25. Ronald Ripley: That's the motion. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Don Horsley. Anybody have any discussion on any of these matters? Yes. Robert Miller: I just need to abstain from Items #24, & 25. My firm is working on those projects. Ronald Ripley: So noted. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' · AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 902 / #25 October 9, 2002 Background: Currently, Section 902 of the City Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback from a street of 5 feet in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District and a maximum setback of 10 feet. The Planning Director, however, is empowered to allow a reduction of the minimum setback to zero and to allow a greater setback than 10 feet under certain circumstances, which are set out in the existing ordinance. On September 24, 2002, the City Council passed a resolution referring to the Planning Commission the attached amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. The resolution directs the Planning Commission to "transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the amendments no later than" October 16, 2002. Proposed Amendments: An ordinance to amend and reordain Section 902 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to setback requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District. The amendments allow a zero setback from a street for structures in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District as a matter of right, rather than with the approval of the Planning Director under the circumstances set forth in the current ordinance. The result is that, under the proposed amendments, the required setback from a street must be between zero and 10 feet, consistent with the urban character of the Town Center. Evaluation: The proposed amendments are recommended for approval. Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2002 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 902 / #25 Page I 1 2 3 4 5 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTION 902 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE B-3A PEMBROKE CENTRAL BUSINESS CORE DISTRICT SECTION AMENDED: City Zoning Ordinance § 902 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 902 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to setback requirements in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 902. Dimensional requirements [Business Districts]. (b) The following chart lists the requirements within the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District for minimum lot area, width, and yard spacing for all uses and structures (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) {6) Minimum lot area in square feet: Minimum lot width in feet:* Minimum setback from a street in feet,---mTr~e~ a reduced setback is al~v.=u ...... pursuant to subsection (bi) Maximum setback from a street in feet,---aT~r~3~ a greater o=~ is a~v~=~ puisuant to subsection Minimum side yard setback in feet, unless otherwise identified herein or a greater setback is required by section 903 Minimum rear yard setback in feet, unless a greater setback is required by sec5ion 903 B-3A 10,000 100 10 34 35 36 37 38 39 *Where applicable, newly created corner lots must also adhere to section 4.4(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance, requiring additional lot width on certain owner lots. Except as otherwise provided herein, setbacks affecting only the first floor of multistory buildings may be increased by no more than twenty (20 feet in order to allow the creation of covered 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 passageways within the B-3A District. In addition, building setbacks adjacent to roadway intersections may be increased to provide safe and reasonable line-of-sight clearances. %~-~; ~-~ou~'~-~3 ~= requirements of subsection ~/, the Plann~ng D~rectos may~-'' ~ ~ greater or ~'=~r setbac~-~ ~u., any ................ ~- =-~ ~---~-- circumstances- {l} The proposed development for ...... ~ thez=uu~u setback ........... ~ - type .......... ltv ' - o~ ~ ~ ~ ~u ~u~ consistent with (2) ~-~,,= proposed development does not=~.~u= ......... any or pasco~- which aye not visuaz~ and functionazzy ~w~=u into the enEire development, {3) Such setbacks do not compromise the intended goal achieving a safe, attractive, pedestrian-oriented development; {4) The proposed development incorporates other recognized intent .... - - ~ the D~n'~ Pembzo'--~= Central Busineo~ Core ..... d ......... : ........ ' ed ' ' ' ~ ~z a reduce ~=~=~ ~e ~u~, such r uctlon wiz~ cause undue zntezfere --~=~.~ =~.=- use ua the Fum~=-"~: right-of-way by pedestrians; and '' ..... ' ' - ght ~ == =~. znczeased setback ~o sou , the ....... ~=~ character of (b2) Applications for reduced os increased setbacks pursuant to subsection .... shall be submitted ==- Planning shall ................ ~ -' .... pl ~.~u== = ~===~=~ ~=.~ ~= development and st~eetscape an showing the relationship of all existing and proposed buildings, pedestrian improvements,==u=~==~o,-= ......... pa~=~ ........ lots,o~-==~= ........... ==~.~o~F=n 2 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 and other physical improvements and such other information as =~,~,~,,~ ~=~u~ may requmze ~ being necessary to determzne ........... ppl ' ' ~ ' ' ~,= event the Flannin~ D~rectcr aen~es an appl~cat~on for reduced oz increased ==~= ......... pursuant to subsection ~), ............... appeal such ..... I .................. twenty-one (21) days of the date on whic~h the application was COMMENT The amendments allow a zero setback from a street for structures in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District as a matter of right, rather than with the approval of the Planning Director under the circumstances set forth in the current ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8625 wmm\ ordres \B-3Asetbackordin. wpd September 18, 2002 R-1 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning E~ r tment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: APPOINTMENTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mo NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - September 2002 N. ADJOURNMEI~T CIVIL LAWSUITS RESOLVED DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2002 Ann L. Mathews v. Shilah Rose Danza, City of Virginia Beach and Contractors Paving Company, Inc. - negligence Phillip R. Dalton v. Stephen M. Blasher - uninsured motorist case Penny Butts v. Officer G. A. Fox, individually and in his official capacity and Officer R. C. Brown, individually and in his official capacity and City of Virginia Beach - negligence orames M. Ramso,, orr. v. Hughes D. Burton -negligence Marlene Beatty v. David Matson, individually, and in his capacity as Police Officer of the City of Virginia Beach, and City of Virginia Beach - negligence City of Virginia Beach v. CEZ Equity Corporation and V?ashington International Insurance Company - recover costs to complete right-of-way improvements Verizon v. City of Virginia Beach - negligence Note: Disposition details available on request from the City Attorney's Office