The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJULY 1, 2003 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES Bayside - District 4 HARRY E DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2 MARGARET L. EURE, Centerville - District I REBA S McCLANAN Rove Hall - District 3 RICHARD A MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W SCHMIDT At -Large RON A VILLANUEVA At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON At -Large DAMES L WOOD Lynnhaven -District 5 JAMES K SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L LILLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH MMC, City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 July 2003 CITY HALL BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 EMAIL Clycncl@vbgov com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS -Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. PUBLIC DIALOGUE / TOWN MEETINGS David Sullivan, Chief Information Officer B HUMAN SERVICES PLAN UPDATE Andrew M. Friedman, Director, Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS IV CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Thomas J Conant Christian Chapel Assembly of God C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS June 24, 2003 2. SPECIAL FORMAL and CLOSED SESSIONS June 17, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. Miss Virginia Beach - Lindsey Thomas I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION 1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code a. §§ 30-57 and 30-59 re the Erosion and Sediment Control Law defining "Land Disturbing Activity" and to allow for the waiver of responsible land disturbers in certain situations b. § 2-78 re background investigations of applicants for public employment and volunteer positions Deferred- June 24, 2003 2. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE additional federal revenue to the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation and increase the federal revenue accordingly re a. $94,482 re HOME housing assistance b $53,000 re housing opportunities for people with AIDS 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of 6.724 acres of property on the west side of Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road for $850,000 from WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP. and MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. re the City's OPEN SPACE initiative. 4 Ordinance to APPOINT three (3) viewers for one-year terms beginning July 1, 2003, re closures of City streets and alleys. 5 Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue a Request For Proposal and AWARD an exclusive contract for beverage vending machines on City property. K. PLANNING 1. Request of the CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND (approved April 8, 2003) to EXTEND the time for compliance re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Arctic Crescent at Arctic Circle and 14`' Street at Lot J (DISTRICT 1 - BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL 2. Application of A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. at the west side of Salem Road, south of Highland Drive for a Variance to § 4 4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance, that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to create two(2) residential lots. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation. APPROVAL 3. Application of VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for a church in an existing shopping center at 676-B North Witchduck Road. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) Recommendation- APPROVAL 4. Application of RH BUILDERS, INC. for a Change of Zoning_ District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-24 Apartment Distract on the west side of Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road. (DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL 5. Application of HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA, INC. on the north side of Shore Drive, between Powhatan Avenue and Albemarle Avenue (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial Distract b. Conditional Use Permit for multiple family dwellings and office space in the B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial District Recommendation: APPROVAL 6. Applications of CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: a. AMEND § 217 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re civil penalties for violations of the sign regulations b AMEND § 10.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance re penalties for violations of the subdivision regulations C. AMEND § 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re abandoned non -conforming signs Recommendation. APPROVAL L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT City Council, in trying to be more responsive to the needs of citizens who attend the meetings, has adopted the following time limits for future Formal Sessions pplicant or Applicant's Representative 10 Minute ttorney or Representative for Opposition 10 Minutes Other Speakers - each 3 Minutes Applicant's Rebuttal 3 Minutes THESE TIMES WILL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO. 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 06/26/03 sib www -vb2ov corn June 26, 2003 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. PUBLIC DIALOGUE / TOWN MEETINGS David Sullivan, Chief Information Officer B. HUMAN SERVICES PLAN UPDATE Andrew M. Friedman, Director, Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation II REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS IV CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf B INVOCATION: Reverend Thomas J. Conant Christian Chapel Assembly of God C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS June 24, 2003 2. SPECIAL FORMAL and CLOSED SESSIONS June 17, 2003 G AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION tt CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION Miss Virginia Beach - Lindsey Thomas CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION 1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code: a. §§ 30-57 and 30-59 re the Erosion and Sediment Control Law defining "Land Disturbing Activity" and to allow for the waiver of responsible land disturbers in certain situations b. § 2-78 re background investigations of applicants for public employment and volunteer positions Deferred: June 24, 2003 2. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE additional federal revenue to the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation and increase the federal revenue accordingly re: a. $941482 re HOME housing assistance b. $53,000 re housing opportunities for people with AIDS 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of 6.724 acres of property on the west side of Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road for $850,000 from WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP. and MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. re the City's OPEN SPACE initiative. 4. Ordinance to APPOINT three (3) viewers for one-year terms beginning July 1, 2003, re closures of City streets and alleys. 5. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue a Request For Proposal and AWARD an exclusive contract for beverage vending machines on City property. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend the Erosion and Sediment Control Law Regarding the Definition of "Land Disturbing Activity" and to Allow for the Waiver of Responsible Land Disturbers in Certain Situations. MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: The 2003 session of the General Assembly amended several provisions of the Erosion and Sediment Control regulations. The definition of shoreline exemption has been changed, so that some portion of waterfront projects may be covered by the Erosion and Sediment Control regulations. The amendments also move the time of providing the name of the responsible land disturber (RLD) from prior to plan approval to prior to land disturbance and allow the planning department to exempt single family dwellings from naming an RLD, unless there is a violation. ■ Considerations: These amendments to §§ 30-57 and 30-59 will bring the City Code into alignment with these Virginia Code amendments. ■ Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. ■ Recommendations: Adopt Ordinance. ■ Attachments: Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department 0; City Manager: 1� V " 758 IV;, 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT 2 CONTROL LAW REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF ""LAND 3 DISTURBING ACTIVITY" AND TO ALLOW FOR THE 4 WAIVER OF RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBERS IN 5 CERTAIN SITUATIONS 6 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 30-57 AND 30-59 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 9 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 That Sections 30-57 and 30-59 of the City Code are hereby 11 amended and reordained, to read as follows: 12 Sec. 30-57. Definitions. 13 14 Land -disturbing activity means any land change which may 15 result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of 16 sediments into state waters or onto lands in the city, including, 17 but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting, 18 and filling of land, except that the term shall not include: 19 . . . 20 (12) Shure _A_._J._..J_'..J11 control projects on tida± waters When tile 21 projects are approved by the wetiands boar-ci ..)f the e±tT 22 of V±rginia Beach, 23 , Shoreline 24 erosion control projects on tidal waters when all of the 25 land disturbinct activities are within the regulatory 26 authority of and approved by the wetlands board of the 27 City of Virginia Beach, the Marine Resources Commission 28 or the United States Army Corps of Enaineers; however, 29 any associated land that is disturbed outside of this 30 exempted area shall remain subject to this article and 31 the regulations adopted pursuant thereto; 32 . . . 33 COMMENT 34 This amendment comes as a result of 2003 amendments to the Virginia Code by the legislature. 35 This will increase the area of waterfront projects governed by Erosion and Sediment Control 36 regulations. 37 38 Sec. 30-59. Approved plan required for issuance of grading, 39 building or other permits; security for 40 performance. 41 (a) Prior to the issuance of any grading, building or other 42 permit for activities involving land -disturbing activities, the 43 applicant shall submit an application with an approved erosion and 44 sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be 45 followed. In addition, as a prerequisite to 46 enaaaina in the land-disturbina activity as shown on the approved 47 plan, permit or agreement in lieu of a plan, the person responsible 48 for carrying out the plan or agreements in lieu of a plan shall 49 provide the name of a responsible land disturber, who will be in 50 charge of and responsible for carrying out the land -disturbing 51 activity. Failure to provide the name of a responsible land 52 disturber prior to engaging in land disturbing activities may 53 result in revocation of the plan approval, and the person 54 responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the 55 penalties provided in this article. 2 56 However, the planning department may waive the requirement for 57 an agreement in lieu of a plan for construction of a sinctle-family 58 residence to provide the name of a responsible land disturber. If 59 a violation occurs during the land -disturbing activity, then the 60 person responsible for carrying out the agreement in lieu of a plan 61 shall correct the violation and provide the name of a responsible 62 land disturber. Failure to provide the name of a responsible land 63 disturber shall be a violation of this article. 64 65 COMMENT 66 These amendments come as a result of 2003 amendments to the Virginia Code by the 67 legislature. This amendment will allow land -disturbing activity to begin before a responsible land 68 disturber has to be named, and will allow the Planning Department to waive the requirement to name 69 a responsible land disturber for single-family dwellings. T 71 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 72 Virginia, on this day of 2003. 73 74 CA-8928 75 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/30-057&59ord.wpd 76 Rl June 19, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: r Dep rtment of Law 3 June 24, 2003 CITY ATTORNEY: We will work in the Police, Fire, and EMS; but, we won't disturb what's already there about child care and things of that nature -- MAYOR OBERNDORF: Right. CITY ATTORNEY: -- those critical areas. And we'll even get in touch with Mr. Bailey and discuss it with him before we bring it back. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you very much, Mr. Lilley. Are we ready for the motion? VICE MAYOR JONES: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, Mr. Jones. VICE MAYOR JONES: I would like to move that Item K-1.B be deferred until the first Meeting in July and then we approve Item K-1.E. COUNCIIAW REEVE: Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: By a vote of 11 to 0 you have approved Item E in relationship to the State Code, motor vehicles; and, Item B you have deferred until July 1, which is the background investigation. 10 June 24, 2003 CITY ATTORNEY: Mayor, let me just say this: It's a bit of a policy change, but if that's Council direction then -- what Mr. Bailey is saying is he wants the volunteers to do the fingerprint. The discussion I heard earlier is about not having the volunteers do it, but if the Council wants to have the volunteers do the fingerprints we can do that. But, what I would like to do is bring it back next week for us to make the changes and not do it here at the dias. I'm fine with that. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. It was my understanding we were going to need to have background investigations for people who volunteer in Police, Fire and EMS. Maybe I'm mistaken. It probably would be best to have it deferred. CITY ATTORNEY: Do you want to do all volunteers or just those -- MAYOR OBERNDORF: No, just the critical. That's what I said. COUNCILMAN DIEZEL: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Diezel. COUNCILMAN DIEZEL: We may need to make that distinction not only under public safety, but for those groups who are handling very sensitive areas, in particular child care and things like that. And I think the language itself is -- while I agree with what Mr. Bailey's intent is, should the language be changed? MAYOR OBERNDORF: I agree. WILLIAM BAILEY: I will leave that to Mr. Lilley. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. 01 June 24, 2003 MAYOR OBERNDORF: It was decided by the Council. It was my understanding that we would ask those volunteers that are in critical jobs like volunteering for the Police, Fire and EMS. That in order to get the background check, they would have to submit to the fingerprinting. We also discussed that although the State Law said shall, we don't think the State would argue, as long as they got their money, whether it came from the City or from the employees or the volunteers. And, I said it's very hard to ask people to be educated to do a job they are not going to get paid for and then pay for their own fingerprinting. WILLIAM BAILEY: Yes, ma'am. I would agree with 100% of the Council on this one then. So, I suggest that you are going to have to make a change to the actual Ordinance that you're going to vote on this evening, because once you actually put into the Virginia Beach Code it's the Law effective 1 July. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Could you tell us the page and the paragraph number you're referring to. WILLIAM BAILEY: I guess that would be -- I'm not sure what Item it is on your Agenda, but it's Page 1, 2 and 3 under the Background Investigation. I say we just simply add in Paragraph Lines 12 through 14, somewhere in that vicinity, that in the interest of the public welfare and safety an Applicant who is offered and accepted employment -- I would say an Applicant or a volunteer in public safety who's offered a position for employment would submit to the background check. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Would you wait just one moment. I want to make sure that our City Attorney has a chance to explore it and be certain that it's -- June 24, 2003 FORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. CITY CLERK: The next item is the Ordinance to Amend the City Code with reference to the background investigations for public employment. We have a speaker. Are you ready? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, ma'am. CITY CLERK: Mr. Bailey. WILLIAM BAILEY: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Members of Council, I'm William Bailey and I'm back to address this one. This time I'm more comfortable because it's something I actually know about. This one is the background investigation for public employees. I understand that we're not going to do the volunteers. My concern with that would be you have Police, Fire and EMS Volunteers who are living in the fire houses with us being exposed to people's personal property, their most private information and medical history -- all of that information. And, I think it's imperative that you add the volunteers in Police, Fire and EMS and have the FBI's background check done. I think that's very important. I think that the Public Safety Employees would feel more comfortable having everybody meeting the same security backgrounds. The part of the deal I have a problem with also is if you actually look at the City Code that you -all write in here it says, such Applicant shall pay for the cost of fingerprinting and criminal records check or both. I don't think the volunteers should have to pay that $37. MAYOR OBERNDORF: We discussed all of the above. WILLIAM BAILEY: Yes, ma'am. 7 June 24, 2003 says if you are going to get a background check you have submit to fingerprints? CITY ATTORNEY: You have to submit to fingerprints. Is that accurate? KATHY ROUNTREE: Yes. MAYOR OBERNDORF: And we, the City, pay the $35 fee? KATHY ROUNTREE: The General Assembly has actually said that the individual will pay it, but I have talked to (Inaudible) and he indicated to me that there may be several Departments that do not want to do that. Specifically the Police Department has always paid for their FBI Check and they will probably continue to. I looked through the Code and it does use the word shall, and shall generally means will. However, there is no -- there is nothing in the Code that says what will happen if you do not follow the shall. And, if certain Departments want to continue paying for their background checks, I cannot find where we would be penalized for that in any way. MAYOR OBERNDORF: I think there is a limit of what we can ask _ our volunteers to pay for in order to have the privilege of doing the job for free. CITY ATTORNEY: I feel certain that the money is going to come and the State is not going to get into the details of it. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you very much. L June 24, 2003 COUNCILMAN DIEZEL: -- for the FBI check, which I'm not suggesting we do it for 10,000 volunteers, but particularly for the sensitive ones I think it woulct be important to do that. SUSIE WALSTON: I think we could look at that because the increased expenses on Departments when you went to the State Check, the $15 Check, was a deterrent for some and they made sure they put volunteers -- they may have looked at where the volunteers were working to make sure those particular jobs were required a check. So, they have looked at it very carefully. We went to such people to ask libraries who uses a great number of volunteers and museums. But, people like Parks and Recreation who have volunteers working in youth activities, they already have been doing the background checks on volunteers. So, it's a little inconsistent. Now, we're consistent in one level, but we haven't really addressed the 37 -- CITY ATTORNEY: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, Mr. Lilley. CITY ATTORNEY: If I can add to this debate, what the _ General Assembly has basically said is if you want to do a criminal background check, you have to submit fingerprints. If you don't want to do the criminal background check, you don't have to submit the fingerprints. Now, the Code itself as to who in the City has to have a criminal background check has really not changed. It's just you have to submit fingerprints. If you want to change the policy with respect to who you submit for background checks, we can do that. But, that's really not part of this Ordinance. MAYOR OBERNDORF: It's just an umbrella ordinance. It simply 5 June 24, 2003 Volunteer Fire Department. MAYOR OBERNDORF: The Chaplains work with the Police. KATHY ROUNTREE: The Police, the actual Auxiliaries that carry guns and the active Police Officers go through the regular background checks that Police Officers go through. These provisions support that. Susie, now, didn't you say that you've added the volunteers? SUSIE WALSTAN: Not at this point. I mean, I just wanted to make Council aware that the Volunteer Council had recommended recently that volunteers and their background checks be expanded. Some Departments were doing background checks on volunteers and some were not. So, the Volunteer Council had gone through quite a bit of process in looking at this issue and, as of July 1, requiring background checks on volunteers beyond the local level. There's a free check for a local level check, but requiring the higher level, which was the $15 check if those volunteers dealt with any particular cases where access to public records, where dealing with youth volunteers that supervised other youths and were in places where there might be an issue of confidentiality or records or that type of thing. - So, the Council took a position on expanding background checks to volunteers in those situations. So, it's very possible that -- there would be the opportunity to look at these special circumstances that might require a higher level of clarification. COUNCILMAN DIEZEL: And the Council ought to be aware of the fact that what we're talking about is a $35 individual fee -- KATHY ROUNTREE: Right. 4 June 24, 2003 we have to do I think, but I think we need to consider that downstream a little bit as a requirement for more sensitive volunteer positions. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Richard. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Les, I have a quick couple of questions about some of these. I mean, is it truly academic the discussion over this? I mean, this is something we absolutely have to do? I mean, it's just being in compliant with -- CITY ATTORNEY: The fingerprint situation. Kathy. KATHY ROUNTREE: The fingerprint situation is -- and there is one thing that you can do. If we say that we're not going to check the background of anybody. That's the way that we won't check any background, period. The authorization that we have from the State that allows us to use the CCH to check, for example, on criminal history, if you want to maintain being able to do that in order to do it in the future you're going to have to check volunteers. If you don't want to do the fingerprints -- COUNCIIhQN MADDOX: Well, I have a question. What about public safety volunteers? Do we still have the Police Auxiliary? I mean, those are more sensitive jobs that perhaps you would want a more thorough background check. I mean, you're doing the FBI check on Police Officers, so why wouldn't you do it on the Police Auxiliary? COUNCIL LADY EURE: And there's the Volunteer Fire and Rescue. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: The Rescue Squad and the 3 June 24, 2003 heard that the FBI wants to make sure it has a big fingerprint data base. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: Well, I found out that -- you know my sister has been visiting here from England and she couldn't cash Traveler's Checks without a fingerprint down here in this City and I also told her a number of other things that are included under that Home Land Security Act. But this doesn't have anything to do with Home Land Security, does it? I mean, this is strictly what the General Assembly did. KATHY ROUNTREE: I couldn't find anything that I had access to why the General Assembly made reference to that. It was just a change without really a lot of explanation. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Just to give you a for instance, I was appointed to a Trade Board in Washington as a volunteer and before I could even think about -- and they don't pay me and I pay to go to the meetings and the like. It's basically a rubber-stamp committee. I had to go through the fingerprinting with the FBI and everything and this was before September the llth. KATHY ROUNTREE: MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, in Washington that's been in place for a very long time. A long time. Mr. Diezel. COUNCILMAN DIEZEL: Let me pick up on Reba's point. Do we have volunteers in such sensitive positions that we want more in-depth background information prior to turning them loose? I'm thinking of the child care industry and how some of our volunteers in this City have access to the same sort of situation or can become targets that way. So, if that's a consideration it's got to be an add -on I think. This 2 June 24, 2003 AGENDA REVIEW COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: How about B? That's one that says that we don't require volunteers -- but doesn't this essentially take the recommendation in here about this? I thought that phone call that I had said that this changes what we've been doing. MAYOR OBERNDORF: CITY ATTORNEY: KATHY ROUNTREE: the information on those. Mr. Lilley. Mrs. Rountree. Kathy Rountree is our Public Safety Attorney and she has reviewed them and will give you KATHY ROUNTREE: Basically what our Code does right now is it requires a background investigation through CCH for all employees, contractor agents and volunteers. What this change does and what the new Code requires is that in addition to the CCH we also have to send fingerprints through the FBI for investigation for all of those people, except volunteers. Volunteers will still get their criminal background check. They just won't be required to go through an FBI fingerprint check. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Does that answer your question, Mrs. McClanan? COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: It does. That's what I thought it said. Is there a logic somewhere for that? KATHY ROUNTREE: Actually Mr. Lilley asked me that too. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: I don't understand. KATHY ROUNTREE: I can only guess it was from 911 that is requiring -- and I've also unofficially 1 Virginia Beach City Council June 24, 2003 CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard A. Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: At -Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville - District 6 Centerville - District 2 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At - Large At - Large At - Large Lynnhaven - District 5 James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Ordinance to amend the City Code re: Background Investigations CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the City Code Pertaining to Background Investigations of Applicants for Public Employment and Volunteer Positions MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: Employees Currently, the City conducts criminal background investigations of all applicants who are offered employment with the City. The prospective employees submit to criminal background checks of two databases. The first search is conducted in the City's criminal information system, which includes records of arrests, outstanding warrants, and persons suspected of criminal activity, within the City of Virginia Beach. The second search is conducted in the Virginia Central Criminal Record Exchange. This state database contains statewide records of criminal charges and the disposition (guilty, not guilty, dismissed, or nolle prose). Legislation enacted during the 2003 Session of the General Assembly now requires applicants who are offered or accept employment with the City to also submit to a national FBI background check, which includes fingerprint analysis. Volunteers The City also conducts criminal background investigations of all applicants who are offered a volunteer position with the City. All applicants who are offered volunteer positions submit to a citywide criminal background check in the City's criminal information system, as described above. City Departments also may request state background checks for volunteers. The following departments require statewide background checks: Police, Fire, Emergency Medical Services, Social Services, Parks and Recreation, and Human Resources. Departments request state background checks through a process outlined in the attached April 2003 memorandum from the Volunteer Council. The amendments included in this ordinance will authorize the third level of background checks —the nationwide FBI criminal background information check for volunteers with the Police Department, Fire Department, and Emergency Medical Services Department. ■ Considerations: Amending § 2-78 will ensure that the City Code correctly reflects the requirements of the Code of Virginia. ■ Public Information: This ordinance will be advertised in the same manner other Council agenda items are advertised. ■ Recommendations: Adopt Ordinance. ■ Attachments: Ordinance; 2003 Acts of Assembly Chapter 742; April 30, 2003 Memorandum from Mary Russo and Susie Walston to Department Directors. Recommended Action: Adopt Submitting Department/Agency: Law City Manager: er: ) te-, voi F \Users\STsiouts\WP\WORK\KDR\Sec 2-78.arf wpd 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY 2 CODE OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PERTAINING 3 TO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS OF APPLICANTS FOR 4 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND VOLUNTEER POSITIONS 5 SECTION AMENDED: § 2-78 6 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 8 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 9 That Section 2-78 of the City Code is hereby amended and 10 reordained, to read as follows: 11 Sec. 2-78. Background investigations of applicants for public 12 Zgpployment and volunteer positions. 13 (a) In order to determine whether, in the interest of public 14 welfare and safety, an applicant who is 15 offered or accepts employment or a volunteer position with the 16 city, including applicants for employment under contract with any 17 city agency, may be disqualified from such employment or volunteer 18 position by reason of a criminal record, the director of human 19 resources or his designee shall request from the Virginia Central 20 Criminal Record Exchange a criminal record check of each applicant 21 for city employment, each applicant employment under contract with 22 any city agency, and each applicant for city volunteer service 23 whose anticipated duties or responsibilities will involve (i) 24 access to public records or to personal information as defined in 25 Code of Virginia section 2.i 2.2-3801, (ii) accountability for 26 public funds, (iii) access to city supplies, (iv) entry into 27 secured areas outside of working hours, (v) right of entry onto 28 private property, b-r (vi) child care or assistance to the elderly 29 or disabled, or (vii) service with either the Aolice department, 30 fire department or emergency medical services department. 31 COMMENT 32 This section requires applicants who are offered employment with the City, as well as 33 applicants for volunteer service positions, to submit to a statewide criminal background check from 34 the Virginia Central Record Exchange. 35 (b ) In addition, in the interest of public welfare and 36 safety, the director of human resources or his designee shall 37 require any applicant who is offered or accepts employment with the 38 city or who is offered or accepts a volunteer position with either 39 the police department, fire department or emergency medical 40 services department to submit to fingerprinting and to provide 41 personal descriptive information to be forwarded along with the 42 applicant's fingerprints through the Central Criminal Record 43 Exchange to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of 44 obtaining criminal history information regarding such applicant. 45 Where authorized under the provisions of Code of Virginia section 46 15.2-1503.1, the city may require such applicants to may for the 47 cost of fingerprinting or a criminal records check, or both. _ 48 COMIVIENT 49 This amendment requires applicants who are offered employment with the City, as well as 50 applicants who are offered a volunteer service position with the departments of police, fire, or 51 emergency medical services to submit to a criminal background check that includes the submission of 52 candidate's fingerprints and personal descriptive information to the F.B.I. 53 Criminal history information considered in 54 accordance with this section shall include outstanding warrants, 55 pending criminal charges and records of conviction. Records of 2 56 dispositions which occurred while an applicant was considered a 57 juvenile shall not be referenced unless authorized by court order, 58 federal regulation or state statute authorizing such dissemination. 59 -(�_Ldj Any applicant who is denied employment or rejected 60 as a volunteer on the basis of an investigation summary obtained in 61 accordance with this section may inspect that summary for the 62 purpose of clarifying, explaining or denying the information 63 therein. 64 -�dtje L The criminal history information provided in 65 accordance with this section shall be used solely to assess 66 eligibility for public employment or service, and shall not be 67 disseminated to any person not involved in the assessment process. 68 This ordinance will be effective on July 1, 2003. 69 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 70 Virginia, on this day of _ , 2003. 71 CA-8893 72 stsiouts/wp/work/KDR/Sec.2-78.ord.wpd 73 R6 June 26, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTSO god 1IJ4.aan 3 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department of"'taw VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2003 SESSION CHAPTER 742 An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15 2-1503 1, relating to background checks for certain employees and licensees [H 23731 Approved March 19, 2003 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-1503.1 as follows: § 15 2-1503 1 Background checks required for certain employees and licensees Any locality having a local ordinance adopted in accordance with § 19 2-389 shall require any (c) applicant who is offered or accepts employment with the locality or (11) prospective licensee for any categories of license designated by ordinance to submit to fingerprinting and to provide personal descriptive information to be forwarded along with the applicant's or licensee's fingerprints through the Central Criminal Records Exchange to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of obtaining criminal history record information regarding such applicant or licensee Such applicant or licensee shall pay the cost of the fingerprinting or a criminal records check or both The Central Criminal Records Exchange, upon receipt of an applicant's or licensee's record or notification that no record exists, shall make a report to the county, city or town manager, or chief law -enforcement officer or his designee, who must belong to a governmental entity If an applicant is denied employment or a licensee is denied a license because of the information appearing in his criminal history record, the locality shall notify the applicant or licensee that information obtained from the Central Criminal Records Exchange contributed to such denial The information shall not be disseminated except as provided for in this section VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date: April 30, 2003 To: Department Directors From: Mary Russo & Susie Walston J Co -Leaders of Volunteer Council Subject: Criminal Record Check Process for Volunteers After research by our Recruitment and Referral Committee and discussion by the Steering Committee, effective June 1, 2003 criminal history record checks will be conducted for all new volunteers. Human Resources supports this decision and will assist us in coordinating these checks. We are providing the attached process steps as guidance for incorporating criminal background checks into your current volunteer placement process. By ordinance, we conduct State criminal record checks for all candidates who are offered City employment, including those filling permanent, part-time and temporary services positions. Volunteers who work in certain types of positions should also receive State checks. City Code Section 2-78 authorizes the Director of Human Resources to request state criminal history record checks for... "volunteers, whose duties involve (i) access to public records or to personal information as defined in Code of Virginia Section 2.1-379, (ii) accountability for public funds, (iii) access to city supplies, (iv) entry into secured areas outside of working hours, (v) right to entry into private property, or (vi) child care or assistance to the elderly or disabled." Local Virginia Beach checks will be conducted on all other volunteers. There are no records in the Police Department for juvenile offenses; a department must make a request for information directly through the Juvenile Court System. The State Police require a $15.00 fee to conduct the record check. The fee will be charged to your departmental budget. There is no fee for the local check conducted by the Virginia Beach Police Department. We will also be forwarding a copy of this memo and the necessary forms to the Volunteer Coordinator in your department. The volunteer coordinators will be instrumental in insuring that this process is implemented (if a process is not already in practice) within their department. If you have any questions or feel that you need more information, please contact Mary Russo at 427-4722, Susie Walston at 427-5626, or Cecelia Slade at 563-1172. - - Attachments. Copy: Volunteer Coordinators Guidelines Regarding Criminal Record Check Reports for Volunteers — April 2003 • Criminal record checks will be conducted for all City Volunteers as follows: (1) A State criminal record check will be conducted for all volunteers, whose duties involve (i) access to public records or to personal information as defined in Code of Virginia Section 2.1-379, (ii) accountability for public funds, (iii) access to city supplies, (iv) entry into secured areas outside of working hours, (v) right to entry into private property, or (vi) child care or assistance to the elderly or disabled." (2) A local Virginia Beach criminal record check will be conducted for all other volunteers. (3) A check must be done on all juveniles who plan to work as supervisors of other juveniles. Since there are no records in the Police Department for juvenile record checks, a department must make a request for information directly through the Juvenile Court System. • The criminal record checks will be processed through Human Resources except for those departments who currently have processing agreements with the Police Department. • Section 1 of the State Criminal History Record Request form will need to be completed with the full name (no initials) by the volunteer, signed, and notarized. In the upper right hand comer write the word "volunteer", your department name, budget code and a contact person. (Copies of the State Criminal History Record Request form and the VBPD Criminal Record Information Request form are attached) • The cost per State request is $15.00. Using a centralized process, Human Resources will process the invoices and each departmental budget will be charged accordingly. • There is no charge for local criminal record checks. • Volunteers placed prior to receiving results of the criminal record check must sign the Statement of Certification Form. Signature on this form indicates that the volunteer understands he/she will be released if the search results produce an "unacceptable" report. • Information obtained from the criminal records check is confidential. Supervisors will be notified of results (either an "okay" or "need to make an appointment to review"). Information may only be discussed with the volunteer coordinator, the supervisor involved in the placement process, and the volunteer. • Coordinators, supervisors, and volunteers may view records in the Staffing and Compensation Services office. No copies of the report may be made. • Beyond a "yes" or "no" to verify that the applicant information is correct, specific criminal history information may not be verified or discussed on the phone, over radio, etc. • All parties involved are responsible for confidentiality of these records. Human Resources is responsible for the destruction of records immediately after viewing. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $94,482 of Additional Federal Revenue From the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the FY 2003- 04 Operating Budget of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation for the HOME Program MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: The HOME program is a Federal Grant Program that provides funding to localities for direct housing assistance to benefit low/moderate income qualified people. The FY 2003-04 budget for this program includes an estimated amount of $1,433,000 in revenues and associated appropriations. The estimated level of revenue was based on preliminary allocations from HUD. However, since the preparation of the FY 2003-04 Budget, the Department of Housing & Neighborhood Preservation has received a final notice of allocations for the HOME program. The actual level of funding awarded to the City of Virginia Beach is $1,527,482, an increase of $94,482 over the estimated amount. The Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation requests that the additional $94,482 in HOME revenue be appropriated to the FY 2003-04 Budget. The total correct amount of funding has been proposed for expenditure in the plan presented to HUD. Therefore, no new programs will be funded. ■ Considerations: Without these changes the full amount of funding will not be available for services. ■ Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process involving the advertisement of City Council Agenda and public hearings. ■ Alternatives: Not accept the full funding, thus not allowing the citizens to take full advantage of the available funding. ■ Recommendations: Approval of attached ordinance. ■ Attachments: HUD funding allocation letter (March 4, 2003) Recommended Action- Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation City Manage` /` F \Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\HOMEarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $94,482 OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REVENUE TO THE FY 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION FOR THE HOME PROGRAM BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That $94, 482 of federal revenue from the Department of Housing and Urban Development is hereby accepted and appropriated to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation for the HOME housing assistance program, with federal revenue increased accordingly. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 15 Virginia on the day of , 2003. CA-8925 Ordin/Noncode/HOMEord.wpd R-2 June 18, 2003 Approved as to Content: Management Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: epartment o aw G, . IN"Tpk o.4� a * yt o a N41 Dave OFF= OFTIMA.SSWAN7 0CRETARV U.S. DEPARTMW OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELA)MENT WASHINGTON, D.G 20410-7000 FORCOiOrQA "KANNMAMEEMAMM The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf Mayor of Virginia Beach Princess Anne Executive Park Municipal Center, Building 1 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Mayor Oberndorf ko -- --CAP —PC—ay---j March 4, 2003 r� N ZC c t! 1 MAR 1 i 20033 r-sir : ^- tfdt slp I am pleased to inform you that the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been passed Therefore, I am also pleased to provide your fiscal year 2003 full -year allocations for the Office of Community Planning and Development's (CPD) four formula programs: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); HOME Investment Partnerships; Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; and Emergency Shelter Grants. The American Dream Downpayment Initiative was also funded as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget and information on the proposed formula allocation of these funds will be provided to you separately. HUD's budget is included in the "Consolidated Appropriations Resolution" for fiscal year 2003, which dictates an across-the-board reduction of 0.65 percent. According to the law, the Department is required to reduce each program contained in the Act, with only a few exceptions, by that amount. CPD's formula programs are not exempt from this cut. The allocations below have already been reduced to reflect this requirement. Also, the amounts reflect reallocations funds in the CDBG and HOME programs. The following amounts represent your total fiscal year 2003 allocation(s): Community Development Block Grant $3,090,000 HOME Investment Partnerships $195271,482 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS $1,206,000 Emergency Shelter Grants $1032000 Some early grantees were offered and accepted partial allocations that were made available before HUD's budget was enacted. If you chose to accept a partial allocation and submitted an action plan and HUD Form 424 that reflects different amounts, you will need to revise these to match the allocations above. You will then receive an amended grant agreement for the difference. 1 I look forward to continuing our partnership to assist lower income residents in your community. As always, HUD is available to provide any assistance you require in implementing your programs. If you or any member of your staff has questions concerning this matter, please contact your local CPD Division Director. Sincerely, d� Gam• - -�_ - Roy A. Bernardi Assistant Secretary . CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $53,000 of Additional Federal Revenue From the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation for the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS Program MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: The Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS (HOPWA) program is a Federal Grant Program that provides funding to localities for housing assistance and supportive services for low to moderate income persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. The funding is allocated through a formula based on the incidence of AIDS in eligible areas. The City of Virginia Beach receives funding for the region which includes Gloucester County, Isle of Wight, James City, Matthews, York, Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Williamsburg, and Currituck County (NC). The Department of Housing & Neighborhood Preservation administers this grant for the region. The FY 2003-04 budget for this program includes an estimated amount of $1,153,000 in revenues and associated appropriations. The estimated level of revenue was based on preliminary allocations from HUD However, since the preparation of the FY 2003-04 Budget, the Department of Housing & Neighborhood Preservation has received a final notice of allocations for the HOPWA program. The actual level of funding awarded to the City of Virginia Beach is $1,206,000, an increase of $53,000 over the estimated amount. The Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation requests that the additional $53,000 in HOPWA revenue be appropriated to the FY 2003-04 Budget. The total correct amount of funding has been proposed for expenditure in the plan presented to HUD. Therefore, no new programs will be funded. ■ Considerations: Without these changes the full amount of funding will not be available for services in the region. ■ Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process involving the advertisement of City Council agenda and public hearings. ■ Alternatives: Not accept full funding, thus not allowing the citizens to take full advantage of the available funding. ■ Recommendations: Approval of attached ordinance. ■ Attachments: HUD funding allocation letter (March 4, 2003) Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency• Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation City Manager )4, :758� F \Data\Aty\Ordin\Noncode\HOPWAarf wpd 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND 2 APPROPRIATE $53,000 OF ADDITIONAL 3 FEDERAL REVENUE TO THE FY 2003-04 4 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT 5 OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD 6 PRESERVATION FOR THE HOUSING 7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH AIDS 8 PROGRAM 9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 10 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 11 - That $53, 000 of federal revenue from the Department of 12 Housing and Urban Development is hereby accepted and appropriated 13 to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the Department of Housing and 14 Neighborhood Preservation for the Housing Opportunities for People 15 With AIDS program, with federal revenues increased accordingly. 16 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 17 Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8924 Ordin/Noncode/HOPWAord.wpd R-2 June 18, 2003 Approved as to Content: Management Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: i at ti ��1lrf°R U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT * * o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410-7000 o C: OFFM OF M ASSISTANT SECMAAY G -n FOR OOir FUNM MA04 rG AND DEVEi.OPMWr March 4, 2003 � �' ry : > N :n The Honorable Meyers E. Oberndorf Mayor of Virginia Beach Princess Anne Executive Park Municipal Center, Building 1 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Mayor Oberndorf `' a t ii MAR 1 ZGU.I I rr-,f - r��" s.�I A I , ` 8f�V I am pleased to inform you that the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been passed. Therefore, I am also pleased to provide your fiscal year 2003 full -year allocations for the Office of Community Planning and Development's (CPD) four formula programs: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); HOME Investment Partnerships; Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; and Emergency Shelter Grants. The American Dream Downpayment Initiative was also funded as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget and information on the proposed formula allocation of these funds will be provided to you separately. HUD's budget is included in the "Consolidated Appropriations Resolution" for fiscal year 2003, which dictates an across-the-board reduction of 0.65 percent. According to the law, the Department is required to reduce each program contained in the Act, with only a few exceptions, by that amount. CPD's formula programs are not exempt from this cut. The allocations below have already been reduced to reflect this requirement. Also, the amounts reflect reallocations funds in the CDBG and HOME programs. The following amounts represent your total fiscal year 2003 allocation(s): Community Development Block Grant $3,090,000 HOME Investment Partnerships $1,527,482 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS $1,206,000 Emergency Shelter Grants $1032000 Some early grantees were offered and accepted partial allocations that were made available before HUD's budget was enacted. If you chose to accept a partial allocation and submitted an action plan and HUD Form 424 that reflects different amounts, you will need to revise these to match the allocations above. You will then receive an amended grant agreement for the difference. I 0 41 . Y I look forward to continuing our partnership to assist lower income residents in your community. As always, HUD is available to provide any assistance you require in implementing your programs. If you or any member of your staff has questions concerning this matter, please contact your local CPD Division Director. Sincerely, Roy A. Bernardi Assistant Secretary 2 se CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Purchase of 6.724 Acres of Property Located West Side of Centerville Turnpike, North of Kempsville Road from Williams Holding Corp. and Michael D. Sifen, Inc. for $850,000 MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: The City's Open Space Subcommittee, which is tasked with the responsibility of screening, evaluating and recommending parcels of property to be acquired in furtherance of the open space initiative, recommended acquisition of this 6.724 acre parcel. The City staff has negotiated an agreement to purchase this property for $850,000. ■ Considerations: The acquisition of this property will further the City's open space initiative. ■ Public Information: Notice of this ordinance will be handled through the normal agenda process. ■ Recommendations: Staff recommends that Council adopt the ordinance and authorize the purchase of the property for $850,000 in accordance with the terms contained in the Purchase Agreement ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Plat. Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public WorksW,,X' yas Parks and Recreation 4fpr(a'Ze. - 0.--s City Manager: 1 ORDINANCE NO 2 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE 3 ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 6.724 4 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE 5 WEST SIDE OF CENTERVILLE TURNPIKE, 6 NORTH OF KEMPSVILLE ROAD FOR 7 $8509000 FROM WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP. 8 AND MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC. 9 WHEREAS, Williams Holding Corp. owns 6.724 acres of real estate located on the 10 west side of Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road (the "Property"), and Michael 11 D. Sifen, Inc, is a contract purchaser for the Property; 12 WHEREAS, the City's Open Space Subcommittee has identified the Property as a 13 parcel to be considered for acquisition as part of the City's open space initiative, and has 14 recommended that the Property be acquired for such purposes; 15 WHEREAS, the City staff has negotiated an agreement to purchase the Property 16 for $850,000; 17 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City 18 Council") is of the opinion that the acquisition of the Property would further the City's open 19 space initiative; and 20 WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available in the Open Space Acquisition 21 CIP account (CIP 4-004) 22 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 23 VIRGINIA. 24 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition of the Property shown 25 on Exhibit A attached hereto. 26 2. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute on 27 behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, a Purchase Agreement for the Property, for the sum 28 of $850,000 and in accordance with the terms contained in the Purchase Agreement. 29 3. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute 30 all documents that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the purchase of the 31 Property, so long as such documents are acceptable to the City Manager and the City 32 Attorney. 33 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 34 , 2003. CA-8912 F.\Users\VValidej\WP\BZA\Sifen.ord wpd date: June 17, 2003 R-1 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIE C n ublic Works/Real Estate Cit ttorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: I i i Racks and Recaeat;; Q-A- r ' i 2 Exhibit "A" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Appointing Three (3) Viewers for One -Year Terms Beginning July 1, 2003, to View Each Street or Alley Proposed to be Closed MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: Pursuant to authority granted to the City of Virginia Beach by the General Assembly during its 1997 Session, City Council, by ordinance adopted June 23, 1998, added a new § 33-111.2 to the City Code which provides for the appointment of three (3) viewers for one-year terms, beginning July 1 of each year, to view each and every street or alley proposed to be altered or vacated during the term of such viewers. ■ Considerations: Since the terms of the viewers appointed by City Council on June 25, 2002, will expire on June 30, 2003, it is necessary to appoint viewers for one-year terms beginning July 1, 2003. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of attached ordinance. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Planning City Manage . F•\Data\ATY\Ord NNCODE\viewsarf wpd 1 AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING THREE (3) 2 VIEWERS FOR ONE-YEAR TERMS BEGINNING 3 JULY 1, 2003, TO VIEW EACH STREET OR 4 ALLEY PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED 5 WHEREAS, Section 33-111.2 of the City Code provides that 6 " [ t ] hree ( 3 ) viewers shall be appointed each year to serve terms of 7 one year beginning July 1 to view each and every street or alley 8 proposed to be altered or vacated during the term"; and 9 WHEREAS, it is the desire of City Council to appoint the 10 Directors of the Departments of Planning, Public Works and Parks 11 and Recreation to serve as viewers for one-year terms, beginning 12 July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004. 13 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 15 That the Director of Planning, the Director of Public 16 Works and the Director of Parks and Recreation of the City of 17 Virginia Beach are each hereby appointed as a viewer to serve a 18 one-year term beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004, to 19 view each and every application to close a street or alley, and to 20 report in writing whether in their opinion, any, and if any, what 21 inconvenience would result from discontinuing the street or alley 22 or portion thereof. 23 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 24 Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8886 ODIN\NONCODE\VIEWERS.wpd R-2 June 26, 2003 Approved as to Content: f5e'partment Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Office -� zs r •sue-' •, a J CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: There are currently 193 cold drink vending machines in place around the City which are being serviced by 25 vendors under 36 individual contracts. Currently these sales create private income generated at public facilities, and the present system has resulted in cash transactions that have not been placed through competitive or negotiated contracts. This income is also outside of the City's audit and contract process. Through the use of an Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract, the City has the ability to manage and account for these funds, and may have the further ability to both increase vending commissions and create marketing revenue as well. The consolidated beverage -vending contract will be awarded on the basis of the best offer to the City in response to a Request For Proposal procurement process. ■ Considerations: City Council was briefed on this issue on June 10, 2003. City Council requested staff follow-up which was distributed in the June 20, 2003 City Council packets. ■ Public Information: Opportunity for public comment was held at the regularly scheduled June 24, 2003 City Council meeting. ■ Alternatives: Stay with the existing arrangements. ■ Recommendations: To authorize the City Manager to issue a Request For Proposal for an Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract and to authorize the City Manager to execute the Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine Contract after negotiations have been concluded. ■ Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Recommend acceptance of the resolution authorizing the City manager to Issue the Exclusive Beverage Vending Machine RFP and to execute the contract after negotiations have been concluded. Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitor Development City Manage Ic 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY 2 MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR 3 PROPOSALS AND AWARD AN EXCLUSIVE 4 BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE CONTRACT 5 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach ("City') currently 6 has a variety of beverage vending machines, operated by different 7 vendors, that are located on city property; 8 WHEREAS, the City can better manage these machines and 9 significantly increase revenue by entering into an exclusive 10 contract for the placement of beverage vending machines on city 11 property; and 12 WHEREAS, this contract will be awarded after a request 13 for proposals has been issued that gives all prospective vendors a 14 chance to compete. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 16 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 17 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to have 18 prepared and issued a request for proposals for an exclusive 19 contract for the placement of beverage vending machines on city 20 property. 21 2. After a review of the submitted proposals and the 22 conclusion of negotiations, the City Manager is hereby authorized 23 to enter into an exclusive contract for the placement of beverage 24 vending machines on city property. 25 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 26 Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8931 ORDIN\NONCODE\RFPres.wpd R-2 June 26, 2003 APP 0 TO ONTENT: Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department aw K K. PLANNING 1. Request of the CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND (approved April 8, 2003) to EXTEND the time for compliance re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Arctic Crescent at Arctic Circle and 14' Street at Lot J. (DISTRICT 1 - BEACH) 2. Application of A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. at the west side of Salem Road, south of Highla Drive for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance, that requires all newly created 14 meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to create two(2) residential lots. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) 3. Application of VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH for a Conditi Permit for a church in an existing shopping center at 676-B North Witchduck Road. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) 4. Application of RH BUILDERS, INC. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-24 Apartment District on the west side Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road (DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE) 5. Application of HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA, INC. on the north side of Shore Dri between Powhatan Avenue and Albemarle Avenue (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial District b. Conditional Use Permit for multiple family dwellings and office space in the B-4 (SD Resort Commercial District 6. Applications of CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: a. AMEND § 217 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re civil penalties for violations the sign regulations b. AMEND § 10.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance re penalties for violations of subdivision regulations C. AMEND § 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re abandoned signs Mnn M_ K_ 7 Catholic Diocese of Richmond ,1JFL ILI •/ 1• , i� 1�" •7F� � ��-Usk Street Closure — Arctic Cresc. ZONING HISTORY 1 Conditional Use Permit (Church / Additions) — Approved 4-12-94 Rezoning (R-5S Residential to RT-3 Resort Tourist) — Approved 6-9-92 Street Closure — Approved 3-10-92 2 Conditional Use Permit (Church / School Expansion) — Approved 5-9-95 Conditional Use Permit (School) — Approved 9-25-90 3 Conditional Use Permit (Parking Lot) — Approved 8-14-01 Conditional Use Permit (50 unit Motel) — Approved 11-8-65 Rezoning (R-3 Multiple Family Residence to M-H Motel -Hotel) and Conditional Use Permit (36 unit Motel) — Approved 8-10-64 4 Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) — Approved 4-11-00 5 Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) — Approved 1-26-93 6 Conditional Use Permit (Parking Lot) — Approved 2-14-95 7 Street Closure — Approved 3-10-98 8 Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) — Approved 5-26-92 9. Street Closure — Approved 5-8-01 r.�C1U B �C'1 400 + 1 ft': �. t"r •si 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Catholic Diocese of Richmond — Street Closure MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: Closure of Arctic Crescent beginning at the western boundary of Lot J and running east approximately 125 feet. Said parcel contains 2,304 feet. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH ■ Considerations: On July 9, 2002, City Council approved the closure of a portion of Arctic Crescent with the following conditions The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee The applicant shall dedicate certain right- of-way to the City for Arctic Crescent as depicted on the Exhibits filed with the application The net area of right-of-way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right-of-way being dedicated to the City by the applicant will be purchased from the City. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2 The applicant is required to re -subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval 3 The applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent at the western boundary of Lot J, and at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14th Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat 4 The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are private utilities (Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas) within the right-of-way proposed for closure If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must Catholic Diocese of Richmond — Street Closure Page 2 of 2 be provided 5 The applicant shall apply for and obtain a conditional use permit for a church for this area prior to recordation of the street closure plat 6 A 20-foot drainage easement is required along the northern portion of 14th Street and Arctic Crescent for the existing storm drainage pipe system 7 A 20-foot Public Utility easement shall be dedicated for each utility located within the proposed street closures. The existing utilities are a 6 inch water main and 24 inch gravity sanitary sewer 8 Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way, this approval shall be considered null and void On April 8, 2003 the City Council granted a request to reduce the area of closure Condition #3 was revised to reflect the reduced area as follows: 3. The applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14th Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. The applicant is now requesting that the City Council grant a six-month extension of time to satisfy all of the conditions attached to the street closure ■ Attachments: Ordinance Plat Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the six-month extension of time The new date of compliance with conditions will be January 8, 2004. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager. r V ,,. ORDINANCE NO. 1 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DATE FOR 2 SATISFYING CONDITIONS IN THE MATTER OF 3 THE CLOSING, VACATING AND 4 DISCONTINUING OF A PORTION OF ARCTIC 5 CRESCENT AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN 6 PLAT ENTITLED "PLAT SHOWING PORTION 7 OF ARCTIC CRESCENT TO BE CLOSED & 8 VACATED BY CITY COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA 9 BEACH" 10 WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach acted upon the 11 applications of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond for the closure of portion of Arctic Crescent; 12 WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002 the Council adopted an Ordinances to close the aforesaid street, 13 subject to certain conditions being met on or before July 8, 2003; and 14 WHEREAS, on April 8, 2003, the applicant requested a modification of the area of the street 15 closure. Said request was granted by the Council as ORD-2740Q, however the deadline for 16 conditions as established in the original ordinance adopted July 9, 2002 remained the same. 17 WHEREAS, on July 1, 2003, the applicants requested an extension of time to satisfy the 18 conditions attached to the aforesaid street closures. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 20 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 21 GPINS: (Parcel adjacent to these portions of street) 2427-16-5054-0000, 2427-15-5854-0000 and 22 2417-15-5054-0000 23 ---- , - --- - -- 24 That the date for meeting conditions of closure as stated in the Ordinance adopted on July 9, 2002, 25 upon application of the Catholic Diocese or Richmond, is extended to January 8, 2004. 26 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 27 , 2003. 28 CA-8844 29 ORDIN\NONCODE\StarOfSea.ord 30 Date:06/03/03 31 RI 32 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 33 0*'� `^ei•o 34 Planning Dep ent APPROVED AS TO LEG S CIENCY: City Attomey's Office 5-21-03, 9.41AM,CiTY ATTORNEY ,757 563 1167 # 2/ 2 WILLIAM C. BISCHOFF MARK T DEL DUCA BARBARA A FULLER MELISSA 5 IOTTI KEVIN E. MARTINGAYLE KELLAM T PARKS JOHN W RICHARDSON MELINDA F SEEMAR MOODY E. STALLINGS, JR BRANDON H ZEIGLER STALLINGS AND RICHARDSON, P.C. AYTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 2101 PARKS AVENUE PAVILION CENTER SUITE 801 P.O BOX 16137 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23ASI-4134 Wallace Smith, Assistant City Attorney CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ANNEX 2412 North Landing Road, Building 20 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 May 15, 2003 RE: STAR OF THE SEA CATHOLIC CHURCH Our File No. 20326 Dear Wally: i MAY rCf� � Ml;vR%:c'f CITY O MMINK BEACH! _ r_T=9A _N 757) 42Z-4700 FACSIMILE (757) 422-3320 I spoke with Bruce Gallup who is revising the cul-de-sac plan for the Church's street closure which has been approved by Council. As you may know, this closure was originally approved in July of last year giving us until July of this year to consummate the matter. However, my client elected to reduce the amount of strect to be closed and we went back to City Council on April 8th of this year. Mr. Gallup is concerned that we will not be able to meet the City's requirements and obtain approval of the cul-de-sac plan by the July 8th date and 1 would therefore request that we be grantedCs;ix6) moma extans nion or this purpose If this necessitates another appearance before Councease vise will be happy to put the matter back on Council's docket if necessary. I look forward to hearing from you at your first convenience. Many thanks. V truly yours, ohn W. Richardson JWRhtd cc: Jean Choplinsky cc: Bruce Gallup Gp:n See app&canon ZONING HISTORY 1 9/25/90 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (home for elderly) - Granted 2 9/24/02 — SUBDIVISION VARIANCE - Granted 3 8/27/86 — DOWNZONE from B-2 Business to AG2 Agriculture - Denied ax i 04 �?F ;5-' 12 {v: Yij CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A.O.S. Properties, Inc. — Subdivision Variance West Side of Salem Road, south of Highland Drive MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for A O S Properties, L.L C Property is located on the west side of Salem Road, 1412 feet south of Highland Drive (GPIN 1484236788; -5478; -5330,-8438). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of this request is to create two residential lots by combining four existing pieces of property ■ Considerations: It is the intent of the applicant to combine four parcels to create two residential lots The proposed dwellings on each proposed lot will be located to minimize impacts to the floodplain and wetland areas on the lots There are four existing parcels that were legally created in 1907 The subject site is on the south side of a tidal creek leading to the North Landing River and all four existing properties have land that lies below the 100-year floodplain elevation There are also wetland areas related to the Southern Watershed Management Area on the property. The northernmost existing lot is also impacted by a 120-foot wide Virginia Power easement The subject property is heavily impacted by the 100-year floodplain, wetlands and utility easements. The hardship is created by this physical character of the property and is not self-imposed There is sufficient area outside of the sensitive areas on the proposed lots to accommodate single-family dwelling units with accompanying front and rear yard areas. No encroachment into the sensitive areas on the site is proposed. The overall development of the site will result in two residential units on 4 55 acres. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to this request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions AOS Properties Page 2of2 1. The proposed dwellings shall be located as shown on the preliminary resubdivision entitled "A.O.S. Properties, LLC", dated November 2, 2001 and prepared by John E Shine and Associates, Ltd., as exhibited to the City Council and on file in the Planning Department. 2. The driveway for the proposed dwelling on Parcel C-2 shall be located so as to minimize disturbance and/or fill within the 100-year floodplain where it must cross this area. 3. All land area within the 100-year floodplain shall be shown on the final plat. A note shall be shown on the final plat that states that the area within the 100-year floodplain shall be left in a natural state and undisturbed No principal or accessory structures shall be allowed within this area on Parcel C-1 and Parcel C-2 ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department .4— City Manager: �- . Y?t A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 June 11, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: F12-211-SVR-2003 REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance ADDRESS: West side of Salem Road, 1,412 feet south of Highland Drive �laF�hP �oZSzo:e A•(1•S. t'raper R -15 `� ' Jy AG-2 A - IIL C1 All G P I N : 14842367880000 14842354780000 14842353300000 14842384380000 Gpfn See applacanon `ies. Inc. � �Q"r'" - H •� Planning Commission Agenda �> June 11, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 — PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE. 4 550 Acres STAFF PLANNER: Barbara Duke PURPOSE: To create two residential lots by combining four existing pieces of property. Major Issues: • Presence of a hardship justifying the variances to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. • Compatibility of density with surrounding residential development. Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: Existing Lots: There are four existing parcels that were legally created around 1907 The subject site is on the south side of a tidal creek leading to the North Landing River and all four existing properties have land that lies below the 100-year floodplain elevation There are also some Southern Watershed wetland areas on the existing properties The northernmost existing lot is also impacted by a 120-foot wide Virginia Power easement Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to combine the four parcels to create two residential lots. The proposed dwellings on each proposed lot will be located to minimize impacts to the floodplain and wetland areas on the lots Item Required Parcel C-1 Parcel C-2 Lot Width in feet (outside of floodplain area and Virginia Power easement area) 150 feet 140 feet* 92 feet* Lot Area insquare feet 43,560 1 25,600 17,700 Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 2 (outside of floodplain area square feet square feet* square feet* and Virginia Power easement area) *Variance required Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existing Land Use and Zoning The existing property is heavily wooded There is one residential structure existing in the southeastern portion of the site. A City -owned sewer pump station is located in front of the northern half of the property. The pump station was recently built in 1999 There is a 120-foot wide Virginia Power right of way that also runs through the northernmost portion of the property and there is one transmission tower located within this easement on the property A tidal creek leading to the North Landing River runs along the northern edge of the property, Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: . Single -Family homes / AG2 Agriculture and R-15 Residential District South: . Single -Family homes / AG2 Agriculture District East: . Single -Family homes / AG2 Agriculture District West: • Heavily wooded area / AG-1 Agriculture District Zoning History There have been no zoning actions on the subject property Zoning actions in the surrounding area are as noted on the zoning history map at the end of this report Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The proposed lots must connect to City water and sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Salem Road in this vicinity is considered a two lane undivided minor suburban arterial. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) as a 100-foot wide right-of-way. The preliminary plan shows a 25 -foot wide right-of-way dedication along the frontage of the site that is sufficient There are no roadway improvement projects scheduled in the current CIP for this section of Salem Road. The alignment for the Southeastern Parkway lies approximately 1,000 feet north of the creek that borders the northern edge of the subject property. The property is not impacted by the alignment. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Ca acit Existing Land Use - 48 ADT Salem Road 5,000 ADT 13,600 ADT' Proposed Land Use 3 - 24 ADT 'Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 4 existing lots 3 as defined by 2 proposed lots Public Safetv Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate Adequate Comprehensive Plan The subject site is located on the northern boundary of the Transition Area Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 4 Evaluation of Request Staff evaluation of a Subdivision Variance is based on several factors, including the degree of compliance with City ordinances and regulations, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and adherence to good accepted land use and development practices and theory. Personal hardship does not enter into the Staff's evaluation Above all, Staff's evaluation is based on Section 9 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which addresses variances to the ordinance Section 9 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states* 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 B. 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 C 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. D. 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 E The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance The subject property is heavily impacted by the 100-year floodplain, wetlands and utility easements The hardship is created by the physical character of the property and is not self-imposed There is sufficient area outside of the sensitive areas on the proposed lots to accommodate single-family dwelling units with accompanying front and rear yard areas No encroachment into the sensitive areas on the site is proposed However, it should be noted that on Parcel C-2, the area designated for the proposed dwelling is located between a sewer pump station and a large transmission tower The overall development of the site will result in two residential units on 4 55 acres It is Planning Commission Agenda June ll, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 5 recommended that the following conditions be attached to this subdivision variance if approved Conditions 1. The proposed dwellings shall be located as shown on the preliminary resubdivision entitled "A.O S Properties, LLC", dated November 2, 2001 and prepared by John E Sinne and Associates, Ltd , as exhibited to the City Council and on file in the Planning Department 2 The driveway for the proposed dwelling on Parcel C-2 shall be located so as to minimize disturbance and/or fill within the 100-year floodplain where it must cross this area 3. All land area within the 100-year floodplain shall be shown on the final plat. A note shall be shown on the final plat that states that the area within the 100-year floodplain shall be left in a natural state and undisturbed No principal or accessory structures shall be allowed within this area on Parcel C-1 and Parcel C-2 NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 6 �4 I 4i NQ (W ' s vnx" dwru }9 ? dY y it HAR 311 MVAi = if 3 L104; S I Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 7 53 > yr ... moo•• �.T ►^ r x+' : t _ .. . •tAfW r W 'k`' „� d�'Gf `,' .•-w+� -^"';N '�'.. r �'R%-,,j �•'E ,�A' r �� n � a �,� ?.. ,,`^6 � r . .r�"��; � •« x`s5= �'� ti�iX�. �'. �u� �, iz�g" s -�,', d , � r.,� r ..,,: " Y r "•`.c r �� . � :Y! "°� �' +a a ..j..�. �' ,� �"s'� it�r• ...� .v� 9� +x 1- ..+y � .; r{ ' �` + ¢ ' Sew f„fi a rism$ x a i •F � .w , , t `+�rt ,�? - t .•,#♦ a ✓"a 1�;Wa �5. �,, � � .r. •. � � "� ,:,. .'� a" .!. ,� rye+' ^ 4T°Mr .s u - '°�e•::� � ;."z � ��` �,r-�'"t�,.� �,,, .�� ''� M ,�'"�.• .t. �� .,a •hoe•. 2�` e SAWS? ate`' �. �. • °"'d. � " 2.. .e ,r : '.'• x ... ��, T vt Alit 14 I 00-i- lot, jv Ilk ,�' .r �+�� ,,,�• x ems+ � � ��,� ;,u not A ,,� �& ; i A � • ,AL ,` .�, `ip mat .. �,*�• v - y 3 .. lie' °• ,�► �° % Jig �" ' "�' .:� .i ,r ,44' a'{"— y r 41(W >� , h yi':. T pyiMf �`,� 2� � + • � •� y [� 'ry .�.,.:b i,.,s uj � aM 3 } -� r�"� a �'•` ;y�y.�. ,,. �'a»�, �' .�W r c.. . » w' � �, i°'i M A 'tiF� x.� � �`°+ 3 4 d. ✓,r'�' ' l - ,G,� iV.s J � .. � y.',,� ri �` ,.;,,� .`� �� . °fy ! .` %.i.r.• Xis• ��,. _"�,° � ,w�V it.,, �� a e _ �„`T" `? 't' ` •,� �"Y�� z � � � ..w rl� ,`. d �.F` „(,fit d' Pub. �.`A4 /yard` _ C7 UrlOCG DISCLOSU.:E STATEMENT Applicant's Name A.O.S. Properties, L.L.C. List All Current Property Owners (See Attachment "A") APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below - (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary) David B. Oglesby, Jr, and Rodger D. Adams 13 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) N/A If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary) Contract Owner: A.Q.S. Propeties, L.L.C. David B. Oglesby, Jr. and Rodger D. Adams 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. ,r ' David B. Oglesby, Jr. Signature 61 f J Print Name Subdivision Variance Application Page 9 of 13 Modified 10 16 202 Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 A.O.S. PROPERTIES, L.L.C. / # 5 Page 9 Item #5 A.O.S. Properties, L.L.0 Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard To certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance West side of Salem Road District 7 Princess Anne June 11, 2003 DEFERRED Ronald Ripley: The Chair's also aware that Item #5, A O.S properties, L.L.C., which is appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, has requested a deferral Stephen White. Mr. Chairman? Ronald Ripley: No? Stephen White: They would like to have that item heard. Ronald Ripley: I'm sorry, you're right I marked that wrong. So the applicant wishes to hear the case? Stephen White: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Remove that, please from the deferral request REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #5, A.O.S Properties, L.L.C. David Oglesby: Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen of Planning, I'm David Oglesby. I'm a realtor/builder and developer, forty years of experience in the business A little background on this property. I became the contract person well over a year ago and immediately found out about all the problems associated with it. First, it was illegally subdivided by deed in 1954, which was one year shy of making it not legal The people who own it of course have been paying taxes on what they thought was saleable lot for the last 35-40 years So, I went to Planning and thought maybe the first answer was to resubdivide the property We also found out that we had to do a legal subdivision and they decided that they didn't want it rezoned and thought we could work it out by leaving it stay in AG-2. And, of course in AG-2 you need a 150-foot road frontage in order to have a site And the interim, the flood plain ordinance changed, it came last June, I believe a year ago and so that created a problem because we already had the property delineated for wetlands and that worked out. And, the buildable area is about six feet above sea level and if you are all aware, most of Lagomar where they have million dollar Item #5 A.O.S. Properties, L.L C Page 2 houses is three feet above sea level. So, in trying to make the thing work we're placing one house and by the way, the old house on the property, the City condemned it and wanted it torn down It was unsightly. In fact, the neighbors who live next door, who's here to speak in favor of, so we get nd of the shack and we've already got a $350 thousand house sold on that lot and I think the one that you all had a question with was where we wanted to put the house behind the pump station Well, the City said they wanted it on good high land and there's a knoll back there of about 3/4 of an acre that I could put an 8,000-10,000 square foot house on Now we have a gentleman waiting in the wings who wants to buy that because he wants the privacy. Pump stations don't bother him a bit. The property was okay for the City to come along and put a pump station, which made it a hardship on the lady who still owned the rest of the land. And then again, because of the power lines that was our other hardship. And, I met with Barbara and she said that you thought maybe you ought to defer it. And, it's been going on now for about a year and half and trying to move it over where it would front we run into the back. If you look at the plat, the flood plain comes up awfully close and we have to fill and I don't think they allow you to fill to about five percent. And, I got plenty of good high dirt hidden under the power line and of course they do allow you to do some filling in the flood plain from your property. And, that was put there when they dug the pump station. But, I think in all fairness the people who pay taxes They have no use for their property. The man will build another $300,000 house on the lot and loves it back there in the woods. So, I certainly wish that you all would reconsider and approve it. And, if there are any questions, I'll be glad to try and answer them. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Oglesby, good to see you again. It's been a long time. David Oglesby. You're so right. Ronald Ripley: I think maybe we were being too presumptuous. We were looking at this plan and why we suggested to defer was to hopefully help you. But, what your saying is your happy with what you have David Oglesby Yes And, if I thought it wouldn't work, I'd be more than glad to but I think all we're going to do is open another Pandora's box and another 30 days down the road and it still wouldn't work. Ronald Ripley- That's not a problem. I don't know if anyone on the Commission has a problem with that David Oglesby: And what makes the property work is nothing can happen with it really even though it was illegal until the City water and sewer came So when the pump station came, all of a sudden that made it viable and then the people wanted to sell and then they found out they couldn't sell Item #5 A.O.S. Properties, L.L C. Page 3 Ronald Ripley: The discussion that we had in the informal was to try hopefully if staff could find where they could site you a better location but if you're satisfy with what you have, I don't see a problem. David Oglesby. Yes I think really it's the best and the man that wants to buy it loves it because he wants the trees all around him Ronald Ripley: That's fine. Okay. David Oglesby. Thank you Robert Miller: We do have another speaker Paul Wakefield in support. Paul Wakefield: Good afternoon. I own the two acres adjacent to him. And, I have basically the same problem with mine. I was hoping maybe by getting this approved, it would help rezone mine. I'm lacking about 25 feet of frontage. But, after speaking with Mrs. Duke, I understand that's not the case. That won't happen. Still, I'm here to support Mr. Oglesby. That's an ancient subdivision there. And, the trees are so thick and vegetation so heavy that at 50 feet off the road you wouldn't be able to see that pump station. And, that house isn't going to hurt a thing Ronald Ripley: Okay Paul Wakefield I would appreciate if you would approve it for him Thank you for letting me speak. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Ed, did you get the name? Robert Miller: Paul Wakefield. It's on the card. Ronald Ripley Any questions or comments" Discussion? Bob Miller Robert Miller: Yeah Mr Oglesby, it is good to see you and Mr Wakefield I appreciate your comments. And, I'm going to vote to support what you've asked for I think what we were observing is that sometimes our own rules have caused us to create situations that aren't as we would like to have necessarily and perhaps what you would like to have where the houses would be closer to the road and not behind the pump station next to the power line tower. The other thing that you just brought up that I didn't note this morning is that when the City acquires pump station land it would be nice that if the next time and I'll mention this to my friends in Public Utilities that we acquire it under the Virginia power line and would have left that front piece open there so something could have occurred. It looks like we just beat this piece of property up pretty good between Virginia Power and all of our ordinances So, I'm going to support it but I just wanted to make sure that I said this Item #5 A.O.S. Properties, L.L C. Page 4 Ronald Ripley- Does anybody wish to say anything else? Could I get a motion? Barry Barry Knight: Like Chairman Ripley said earlier, we were trying to help you out Mr. Oglesby but in view of the fact that it looks like you got the situation rectified, I'll make a motion to approve the application subject to conditions noted therein Robert Miller: Second. Ronald Ripley. A motion by Barry Knight, seconded by Bob Miller to approve the application AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. ABSENT 4"*% 17--A t 7 T1 7 Tf •7 7 in t• A-%7 _ _'L!��7%I!S�II��Ys�l�%11%��►X`f'�/17��yii��s�f/"�1y��iL� * _ .__2S Vol �W .�''�S \ � �!►�� ~ � � fir' � WN Gpin 1477-19-4707 ZONING HISTORY 1 11-14-95 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (bingo addition) - Granted 12-8-92 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (bingo expansion) - Granted 2. 4-10-89 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (warehouse) — Granted 3 8-23-94 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto sales) — Granted 2-12-90 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas & car wash) — Granted 4 9-26-95 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (cemetery, mausoleum, & columbarium) — Granted 5 8-11-86 — SUBDIVISION VARIANCE — Granted 6 8-12-85 — REZONING (R-6 Residential to B-2 Business) — Denied 7 5-12-86 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas pumps & convenience store) — Granted 6-16-75 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (service station) — Granted 8 8-27-73 — REZONING (RS-4 Residential to CL-1 Commercial Limited) — Granted 9 11-24-80 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas station) — Granted r G�gE^ln l04sXr .r.R •.��7 �ya�yv CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church — Conditional Use Permit (church) 676-B N. Witchduck Road MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 676-B North Witchduck Road (GPIN 1477194707) DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE The purpose of this request is to operate a church in an existing shopping center ■ Considerations: The subject property is developed with a commercial shopping center and is zoned B-2 Community Business District The applicant proposes to hold church services and other church -related activities in the existing building. The church is already operating at the site and was unaware of the Conditional Use Permit requirement until informed by the Fire Marshall's office The church intends to use this location only temporarily until its membership increases. There are a total of 217 parking spaces on the site. There is also an adjacent lot used for overflow parking during peak periods, which can accommodate 56 vehicles The proposed church is compatible with the other uses in the shopping center and will not negatively affect neighboring properties The only potential time for parking conflicts is on Wednesday evenings, which is the only time the bingo hall's hours conflict with the church's However, due to the availability of overflow parking for the bingo customers, this has not presented a problem to date During all other church assembly times, on -site parking easily accommodates all tenants of the site The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an existing use and is compatible with the surrounding uses Staff recommended approval There was no opposition to the request Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church Page 2 of 2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1 The unit shall be used for group gatherings only during evenings between 6.00 p m and 9 00 p m. and Sundays between 8.00 a.m and 9.00 p m. 2. The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and approvals from the Fire Department and the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department before occupancy of the building A Certificate of Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department 3 The use shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department -- City Manager: C • - VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / #6 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: E06 - 211 - CUP - 2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a church ADDRESS: 676 N Witchduck Road &4" t% F'1, t 7 17 1 June 11, 2003 !11 `loo vet to Scolc v u z3vuGre "fate 1vlZJJZU7tu Loiturcit I Rosewood kferv&Y) Cerhe[rry j 1 t 1 o gal co r�• * �/ /� . `'' mod\ / \ %��~` ° CS Lr'•0,5 _� 1 Gpin 1477-19-4707 G P I N : 14771947070000 {� J W:71 NIA B� IN - Planning Commission Agenda 111 June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / # 6:; Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 - BAYSIDE SITE SIZE 2 532 acres STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOSE: To operate a church in an existing shopping center. Major Issues: • Compatibility with other uses in the commercial center, particularly in terms of available parking Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject property is developed with a commercial shopping center and is zoned B-2 Community Business District Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Across Witchduck Road, Rosewood Memorial Cemetery / R-7 5 Residential District South: • Single family homes / R-7.5 Residential District East: • Auto sales at corner and vacant lot used for overflow parking behind that / B-2 Community Business District West: • Storage facility / B-2 Community Business District Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / # 6 Page 2 �4 amp IN A / i27 Zoning History Conditional Use Permits were approved to expand the Witchduck Bingo Hall in 1992 and 1995 The bingo hall is now 10,060 square feet and is only open on Wednesdays and Fridays from 9.00 a m. to 11 00 p m On surrounding properties on the south side of Witchduck Road, Conditional Use Permits have been granted for motor vehicle sales, automobile service, gas stations, and a warehouse use North of Witchduck Road, a Conditional Use Permit was approved for a cemetery, mausoleum, and columbarium in 1995, and a Rezoning from residential to commercial was denied in 1986. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The property is already connected to City water and sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Witchduck Road in the vicinity of this application is a four lane divided roadway. The MTP calls for a 100-foot right-of-way with divided traffic lanes and a bikeway for this section of Witchduck Road. There are no projects in the currently adopted CIP to upgrade this section of Witchduck Road Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 28200 ADT' Potential Land Use — 63 ADT Witchduck Road 20,000 , Level of Proposed Land Use 3- ADT Service C Weekdays — 13 ADT Sunda — 53 ADT 'Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 1,460 square foot retail 3 as defined by 1,460 square foot church Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / # 6 Page 3 Public Safety Police: No comments. Fire and To be occupied as a place of assembly, additional building Rescue: code requirements may be required in regard to fire protection, tenant separation, and the means of egress A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official prior to occupancy Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area for retail, service, office, and other uses compatible with commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities The land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan also recognize the need for legitimate support uses that fulfill the needs and services of the adjacent community Summary of Proposal Proposal • The applicant proposes to hold church services and other church -related activities in the existing building The church is already operating at the site and was unaware of the Conditional Use Permit requirement until informed by the Fire Marshall's office The church intends to use this location only temporarily until its membership increases • The church holds services on Sunday mornings and meetings on Wednesday and Sunday evenings. Attendance varies, but the church currently has 51 seats available in the sanctuary • Other uses in the shopping center include a bingo hall, which is only open on Wednesdays and Fridays, a restaurant/bar, an automobile repair shop, a hair salon, and an embroidery shop Site Design Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / # 6 Page 4 • There are two separate buildings on the site. The larger building, which is 14,140 square feet, contains the bingo hall and the restaurant The smaller building, which is just 4,315 square feet, contains the proposed church, auto repair, hair salon, and embroidery shop PREMISES OCCUPANCY & SQUARE FOOTAGE Aril 11 2003 660 B-C Miss Kitty's Village Inn Restaurant Bar 660 D-E-F-G Witchduck Hall, Inc. Bingo 676 A Mugsy's Family Hair Hair Salon 676 B Va. Beach Bible Missionary Church 676 C Doodle Designs Embroidery Shop 676 D Southside Transmission Transmission Shop Grand Total ................ Incl. 900 sq. ft. metal building. The church's portion of the building is 1,460 square feet. 4,080 sq. ft. 10,060 sq. ft. 14,140 sq. ft. 675 sq. ft. 1,460 sq. ft. 530 sq. ft. 1.650 sq. ft. 4,315 sq. ft. 18,455 sq. ft. • There are a total of 217 parking spaces on the site There is also an adjacent lot used for overflow parking during peak periods, which can accommodate 56 vehicles Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • The shopping center currently has one vehicular access point on North Witchduck Road and one on Jacqueline Avenue A sidewalk already exists along North Witchduck Road Landscape and Open Space Design • Landscaping within the site does not meet requirements since it was developed prior to the adoption of these requirements Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / # 6 Page 5 Evaluation of Request The application for a Conditional Use Permit for a church is acceptable The proposed church is compatible with the other uses in the shopping center and will not negatively affect neighboring properties The only potential time for parking conflicts is on Wednesday evenings, which is the only time the bingo hall's hours conflict with the church's However, due to the availability of overflow parking for the bingo customers, this has not presented a problem to date. During all other church assembly times, on - site parking easily accommodates all tenants of the site Staff recommends that this proposal be approved subject to the conditions below. Condition 1 The unit shall be used for group gatherings only during evenings between 6 00 p m and 9-00 p.m. and Sundays between 8.00 a m and 9.00 p m 2 The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, inspections, and approvals from the Fire Department and the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department before occupancy of the building. A Certificate of Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department. 3. The use shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH 14 6 Page 6 C6: --. 1-9 -3-W, { ,NIA Bfrj x r4 .may i (` Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / # 6:f Page 7 q�. ,y a ::�' *. y �� .'�`�[ .its' � � •�..> iw �k5"c` "4`: , R jr Mr .: yY Ar T N w�5 •� i o:� # rli� W low At c - V =x ' Y " > r ..•gy�pp.. �, 'S+" n ..v FY :: "" � M dh�'►iR y: +. -„i•• x no �� sty ^ -.. ... ... • L �' �p�a �^w �' •;,�� 5�.,�`� � '• fit{+` �,; it � a,�. .-�, <-�, ',{ •^ � � ., � .f., % +b:. - % ;-.Ql ;Ilanninn [.nmmiccinn d y Or-Akorl MIISLt MlbblUNAKY L;HUKL;H / 9 E n..__ c [SCLOSURE STATEMnIT I. Applicant's Name List All Current Property Owners Nelson P. Tibbitt, Jr. and Deborah S. 'T_'ibbitt APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach lisr if necessary) _ a' `'j.�:\ D Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization _ If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below - (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION ! certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Sign, e�J Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Print Name Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH / # 6 Page 9 Item #6 Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church Conditional Use Permit 676-B North Witchduck Road District 4 Bayside June 11, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #6, which is the Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church It's an ordinance upon Application of the Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church located on North Witchduck Road and there are three conditions. Pastor Barry Jenkins: Hi. Good morning. I'm Pastor Barry Jenkins, the senior pastor of the church. I've read the conditions. They are acceptable. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. I understand that we had lot of letters of people thinking that you're doing a wonderful job. Pastor Barry Jenkins: I appreciate that. Dorothy Wood. Is there any opposition to Item #6, the Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church located at 676-B North Witchduck Road in the Bayside with three conditions`' Thank you. Heanng none. Mr Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda but before we vote on it, I would like to have Mr. Strange talk about Item #6 Mr. Strange, number 6 please Joseph Strange Sure Item #6 is a Conditional Use Permit to operate a church in an existing shopping center. The only real issues here, since this is allowed under the Comprehensive Plan is the compatibility with other uses in the commercial center. The site is an AICUZ zone with less than 65 dbs This church was operating in this area before unaware they had to have a Conditional Use Permit so we have some type of history with this operation and there haven't been any problems The adjacent property owner has written us a letter in support of this application. We've consented it based on three conditions, which limits the numbers of hours they can operate. The condition that they get the proper permits and it's all conditioned that they get an annual administrative review. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Strange. Mr Ripley, I would move to approve this item on this consent agenda with the conditions. Ronald Ripley: You already read the conditions and the item number Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr Gene Crabtree to approve this item on the consent Item #6 Virginia Beach Bible Missionary Church Page 2 AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries ABSENT Gpin 1455-82-0576 ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning (R-5D Residential to B-2 Business) — Approved 5-9-00 Reconsideration of Modified Conditions —Withdrawn 1-14-97 Modification of Conditions —Approved 11-12-96 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) — Approved 2-23-93 Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) — Approved 3-18-85 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) — Approved 7-16-73 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) — Approved 1-28-63 2 Rezoning (R-5D Residential to Conditional 1-1 Industrial) - Pending Reconsideration of Conditions (#5, #7, #9, #11) — Approved 9-26-95 Conditional Use Permit (Fill - Borrow Pit) — Approved 3-26-90 3 Modification of Conditions — Approved 9-28-99 Rezoning (R-5D Residential to Conditional R-51D Residential with a PD-112 Planned Unit Development Overlay) —Approved 1-12-99 Conditional Use Permit (Two Communication Towers) — Approved 1-22-90 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) — Approved 8-28-99 Rezoning (R-5D Residential to B-2 Business) — Withdrawn 12-19-88 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) — Approved 2-13-84 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) — Approved 5-18-81 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) — Approved 11-18-74 4 Conditional Use Permit (Church expansion) — Approved 3-26-02 Conditional Use Permit (Church expansion) — Approved 9-28-99 Conditional Use Permit (Church) — Approved 1-11-88 Conditional Use Permit (Church) — Approved 10-3-83 r4 ` r""r""+�. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: RH Builders, Inc. — Change of Zoning District Classification Centerville Turnpike, north of Kempsville Road MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of RH Builders, Inc for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-24 Apartment District on the west side of Centerville Turnpike, approximately 300 feet north of Kempsville Road (GPIN 1455820576). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this property for retail, service, office and other compatible uses DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE The purpose of this request is to rezone the site from B-2 Business District to Conditional A-24 Apartment District in order to develop 380 multiple -family dwelling units in two phases — 190 units being developed in each phase Phase 2 will not commence until the filling and stabilization of the existing borrow pit to the rear of the site is complete. ■ Considerations: A portion of the property, 13.64 acres, is undeveloped The balance of the site is an on going borrow pit fill operation The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District The applicant is proposing to rezone the site from B-2 Commercial to Conditional A-24 Apartment and develop a total of 380 multiple family dwelling units, associated parking and recreational amenities The site is to be developed in two phases, each containing 190 units While the A-24 Apartment district permits 24 dwelling units to the acre, the applicant has proffered 13 9 units to the acre in Phase I, and 14 6 units to the acre in Phase II Phase II will not be developed until the filling of the borrow pit has been completed in accordance with all applicable permits and regulations Each phase contains nineteen (19) ten -unit buildings The buildings are similar in design as The Traditions at Cypress Point and Browningstone at the Village of West Neck Each unit has an individual entrance There are no shared hallways or stairs Most units have either a patio or balcony. Each unit has a one or two- RH Builders Page 2 of 2 car garage plus additional parking in the driveway Internal drive aisles have been designed at 26 feet in width to accommodate fire and rescue vehicles Staff recommended approval of this request, as proffered There was no opposition to the proposal ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-0 with 2 abstentions to approve this request, as proffered ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: er: RH BUILDERS, INC. June 11, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: 1310-212-PDH-2002 REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-24 Apartment District ADDRESS: Property located on the west side of Centerville Turnpike, 300 feet north of Kempsville Road G P I N : 14558205760000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 1 - CENTERVILLE Builders Gpin 1455-82-0576 Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 �v � RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1� Page 1 SITE SIZE STAFF PLANNER: 26 64 acres Faith Christie PURPOSE: To rezone the site from B-2 Business District to Conditional A-24 Apartment District in order to develop 380 multiple -family dwelling units in two phases — 190 units being developed in each phase. Phase 2 will not commence until the filling and stabilization of the existing borrow pit to the rear of the site is complete. Major Issues: • Compatibility with surrounding land uses. • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning A portion of the property, 13.64 acres, is undeveloped. The balance of the site is an on -going borrow pit fill operation. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . City of Virginia Beach Landfill # 2 (Mount Trashmore II Park) / R-5D Residential South: . Walgreen's Drugstore and a church / B-2 Business and R-5D Residential East: . Centerville Turnpike • Across Centerville Turnpike is a 7-11 Store, Atlantic Shore Church and School, and a United States Postal facility / B-2 Business Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 2 West: . Multiple -family dwellings / R-5D Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development Overlay Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Any of the principal and or conditional uses permitted in Zoning: the B-2 Business District such as retail establishments, restaurants, offices, automobile service stations, public buildings and grounds, mini -warehouses, small service establishments, and recreational and amusement facilities. With 380 multiple -family dwelling units, associated parking, Proposed and recreational amenities as shown on the proffered Zoning: site plan and stated in the proffer agreement Zoning History The following history applies to the site: January 28, 1963 — Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit July 16, 1973 — Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower February 13, 1984 — Conditional Use Permit to add additional acreage to the borrow pit March 18, 1985 — Rezoning from R-8 Residential to B-2 Commercial on 29 acres of the borrow pit area March 26, 1990 — Conditional Use Permit to begin filling the borrow pit February 23, 1993 — Conditional Use Permit to remove 6.5 acres along Centerville Turnpike and add an equal amount of property in rear of the site September 26, 1995 — Reconsideration of Conditions November 12, 1996 — Modification of Conditions January 14, 1997 — Reconsider Modification of Conditions (withdrawn) May 9, 2000 — Rezoning from R-5D Residential to B-2 Commercial Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water is available for the site Sewer and pump station analysis will be required to determine if the future flows can be accommodated If analysis reveals the need for additional capacity, the developer will be responsible for the necessary upgrades to the system Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Centerville Turnpike in front of this site is considered a two-lane undivided minor suburban arterial. It is shown on the Master Transportation Plan Map as a 120 foot divided right-of-way with a multi -use trail. A twelve -foot dedication for a right turn lane will be required during detailed site plan review. The applicant's proposed site plan depicts the dedication for the right turn lane. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 1ADTo Existing Land Use — 12,447 Centerville Turnpike 13,600 ADT' 3 Proposed Land Use - 2,519 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 290,000 square feet of retail 3 as defined by 380 rental apartments Schools School Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment Tallwood 620 720 66 66 Elementary Brandon Middle 1450 1740 24 24 School Tallwood High 1991 2283 30 30 School Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 4 "S 1 "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students) Public Safety Police: 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 they pertain to this site. Fire and Fire hydrants shall be located within 500 feet of residential Rescue: structures. Private fire hydrants must be maintained annually as identified in N.F.P A 25. The minimum fire lane width shall be not less than 20 feet, under some conditions the authority having jurisdiction will require a greater width. Additional fire lanes may be required after occupancy. Any gates shall provide for fire department access using the Knox or Supra key system. Gates shall have a failsafe operation in the event of a power failure A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Code Official before occupancy of the units. Fire code permits may be required at the time of occupancy. Please contact the Fire Department for permit information. Gas or charcoal grills, or similar devices, shall not be allowed on combustible balconies or within 10 feet of combustible construction. There shall be no on -street parking on road widths of less than 26 feet Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. 1 # 1 Page 5 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this site as suitable for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Summary of Proposal Proposal • The applicant is proposing to rezone the site from B-2 Commercial to Conditional A- 24 Apartment and develop a total of 380 multiple family dwelling units, associated parking and recreational amenities The site is to be developed in two phases, each containing 190 units While the A-24 Apartment district permits 24 dwelling units to the acre, the applicant has proffered 13.9 units to the acre in Phase I, and 14.6 units to the acre in Phase II. While the density is low enough that an A-18 category would be appropriate, the applicant is using the A-24 category in order to utilize the greater height (45 feet versus 35 feet) allowed in A-24 Phase II will not be developed until the filling of the borrow pit has been completed in accordance with all applicable permits and regulations, which is estimated to be at least 20 to 30 years into the future. • Each phase contains nineteen (19) ten -unit buildings. The buildings are similar in design as The Traditions at Cypress Point and Browningstone at the Village of West Neck Each unit has an individual entrance. There are no shared hallways or stairs. Most units have either a patio or balcony. Each unit has a one or two -car garage plus additional parking in the driveway. Internal drive aisles have been designed at 26 feet in width to accommodate fire and rescue vehicles Site Design • The primary entrance to the site is from Centerville Turnpike. A secondary entrance is located on Kempsville Road The entrances will be constructed of asphalt pavers or stamped, colored asphalt. A monument sign will be located at the Centerville Turnpike entrance Nineteen buildings are dispersed throughout the area of Phase 1, all meeting the required setbacks from the property lines. Distances between buildings vary between 25 feet and 35 feet Each unit has a single or double car garage Additional parking is located throughout the site Drive aisles are designed at 26 feet in width Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. /# 1 Page 6 • Phase II, to be developed when the borrow pit filling operation is complete, is similar in design as Phase I. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • Vehicular entry to the site will be via a primary entrance from Centerville Turnpike and a secondary entrance from Kempsville Road. A five-foot multi -use pathway of stamped asphalt is located along the perimeter of the site. • Interior roadways are private and designed at 26 foot in width to accommodate emergency vehicles. On -site maneuvering is adequate. Architectural Design • The buildings are a transitional style of architecture. The design is known as the "Big House" multiple -family plan. The buildings present the image of a large home. The style is similar to The Traditions at Cypress Point and Browningstone in the Village of West Neck. • The exterior of the buildings are vinyl siding with brick accents in earth tone colors. White trim and corner boards provide additional detail The entryways are covered. Some units have fireplaces, some units have bay windows, and most of the units have patios or balconies The roof material will be gray composition singles. Landscape and Open Space • A landscape buffer is proposed around much of the perimeter of the site. Along Centerville Turnpike landscaped berms and a serpentine vinyl clad two -rail style fence is proposed The berms will be planted with evergreen and deciduous trees • Along the sides and rear of the site the landscape areas will be planted with pines and wax myrtle shrubs. • Interior coverage landscaping will be reviewed during detailed site plan review Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 7 Proffers PROFFER # 1 The Property shall be developed in two phases in accordance with the "PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PHASE I AND (FUTURE) PHASE II, AVONDALE AT KEMPSVILLE ("Concept Plan"), which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, so that there shall be coordinated design and development of the site in terms of vehicular circulation, parking, buffering, landscaping, tree planting, building location, orientation, walking trails, and recreational amenities, to better foster a sense of community. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable It Insures that the site will be developed in accordance with the proffered site plan PROFFER # 2 The portion of the Property designated on the Concept Plan as "FUTURE PHASE Il", (proposed) PARCEL (A-1-B) 13.0 acres is an existing Borrow Pit which is being filled pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit approved by the party of the third part. The filling, and reclamation of the area designated Phase II will continue until completion. No development of Phase 11 will occur until such time as the filling operation has been completed in accordance with all applicable permits, rules, and regulations. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that Phase 11 of the project will not commence until the filing of the borrow pit is complete and deemed safe for development. PROFFER # 3 The architectural design of the residential buildings will be as depicted on the exhibits entitled "R.H. BUILDERS AVONDALE at KEMPSVILLE, Virginia Beach, Va." ("Elevations") prepared by Humphreys and Partners Architects, L.P. which has exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The exterior building materials shall be brick and high quality vinyl that will be earth tone colors. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the buildings will Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. I # 1 Page 8 be constructed in accordance with the submitted elevations using high quality matenals. PROFFER # 4 Each residential unit shall have a one or two car garage as well as additional parking area where possible in each driveway and other areas on -site Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that adequate parking will exist on the site. PROFFER # 5 When the property is developed, a community Club House and swimming pool complex will be provided as designated on the Concept Plan. The Club House building design and materials shall compliment the Elevations of the residential buildings. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the recreational amenities will be in keeping with the overall design of the site. PROFFER # 6 When the Property is developed, berming shall be created along Centerville Turnpike, to include a combination of evergreen shrubs and a serpentine, vinyl clad, two rail style fence Evergreen clusters of trees and ornamental deciduous trees will also be planted Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable It proffers landscaping that is above and beyond the minimum requirements. The proposed berming, landscaping, and fencing will provide an attractive amenity not only for the project but also along this section of Centerville Turnpike. PROFFER # 7 A landscaped entrance feature shall be constructed with a monument style sign as depicted and described on the "ENTRANCE FEATURE PERSPECTIVE — AVONDALE at KEMPSVILLE", dated April 15, 2003, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It provides for an attractive landscaped entrance into the project, and proffers a monument sign. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. I# 1 Page 9 PROFFER # 8 The total number of living units permitted to be constructed in Phase I, (proposed) Parcel A-1-A will not exceed one hundred and ninety (190) and there shall be provided a minimum of four hundred and seven (407) parking spaces, including garage spaces, within Phase I. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It limits the density of Phase 1, and provides parking of two spaces per unit, which is above the minimum requirement. PROFFER # 9 When future Phase ii is developed, the total number of living units permitted to be constructed in Phase II, (proposed) Parcel A-1-13 will not exceed one hundred and ninety (190) and there shall be provided a minimum of four hundred and nineteen (419) parking spaces, including garage spaces, within Phase II. Staff Evaluation: The proffer Is acceptable. It limits the density of Phase 11 and also provides parking above the minimum requirement. PROFFER # 10 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated April 10, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the site from B-2 Business District to Conditional A-24 Apartment District for the development of 380 multiple -family dwelling units, associated parking, Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 10 and recreational amenities is acceptable. Although the request is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Map recommendation for the area, the proposed use is acceptable. The trend in the general area has been toward more residential uses as evidenced by recent residential development south of the site on Kempsville Road The applicant has proffered an attractive project aimed at attracting young professionals The general layout of the project, unique design of the buildings for this type of unit, and landscaping of the site will add an upscale look to the immediate area Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the site from B-2 Business district to Conditional A-24 Apartment district as proffered. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. 1 # 1 Page 11 �� ems��-MMe4 �d�dnota � 11 3Sl J {3anl(U) 3N1 '9NI833NON3 311 SJV43)1 Nnd Sus '— dnoUO 313dNNId �av1+►Kn3ad 190 H ►, ! ! 11 I if gem + € ♦ �i s e s a s ■rf arr y \ i { o fig 4� !4 a� 00 ( / • � it`s yy: _ °aj" �� t�� " �R •rws � � � !i f� t ��i �a p_ 'R �� ! fill y.N Planning Commission Agenda �z �J,, I 4> June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1�'��=� Page 12 w sn Q` � a j Planning Commission Agenda ��Z June 11, 2003 ,. _74; = RH BUILDERS, INC. 1 # 1 r Page 13 Amu j w co [L > LU CD M c\f Q < LU c a- M > O 0 Planning Commission Agenda June ll,2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 14 x ~ 'vN fad .y " �"ux 's fF t� B ro,'.a ti OV Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 15 iiEo6 TT r 11 jj "� ;s Y.. � *' �`.. � s/' 1� (1t - r �" +4� .'�"rp .. sib "� �- 'Y `'.�t _ "�- `•+ �`' i � .. .. - tb_,'w s +� t IiA t art, i 9 Al M. . . .N.'.. . . I 1 4 f r Ujo ,. A' w� cy m 0 V a DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ( 1 Applicant's Name List All Current P roperty Owners , ' - - a�:s `C y- T Cc�rD,r '-ic== APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant ,s a CORPORATION, i st all officers of the bel--w t;ach i,st necessary) -- 4 -R� . - al_i. r -itl?T. i14_ew ��3` wy_Z If the aop ,car_ s a PARTNERSHIP. FIRM or of ler UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION iist ad : emnars or �Dar,ners i-i the organization oelo,v 'Aaoh 1,s• 1; nacessa, f� r7 Cneck here ,f the applican` is NOT a corperat:on oartnersnip, firm cr r, er i✓n,nco-pora.ed orgy^ization If the applicant is not the current owner of the property. complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the oroper-y owner is a CORPORATION, list all o;:icers of the Corporation below �n :ach last d nez;essaryj 7.P. Bo-,;' er , Pres den::,` 1 r easurer If the orocery -caner is a PARTNERSHIP FIRM cr other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, i:5t all mem-ers o- partners in t: e organization oe,o,N ; G`f ch ,1sf :f 1_::3SSan , _J l�-iec< mere i :I'._ to vr ier ,s NOT a ccr; ora.io'" sar_t e"sngc 1-7 c, c "ier Jnincomorare3 o--ariica inln CERTIFICATION I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 RH BUILDERS, INC. / # 1 Page 17 r `��NtA,8E1�.6 ti Item # 1 RH Builders, Inc. Change of Zoning Distnct Classification West side of Centerville Turnpike District 1 Centerville June 11, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: This takes us in to items that will be heard today. We have essentially five items. We have five applications to be heard The first item is an item that I'm going to abstain on. I have a financial interest in this particular item and I need not to discuss this or anything. So, I've asked Dot Wood if she would conduct the meeting. I'm going to turn the Chair over to her. Dot. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. Mr. Miller would you please call the first item. Robert Miller: The first item is R H Builders, Inc Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone here representing R.H. Builders, Inc.? Eddie Bourdon- That would be my privilege. For the record, I'm Eddie Bourdon a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant Can I ask if there are any speakers signed up other than on this application9 Robert Miller- Rodney Flores. Eddie Bourdon He's our engineer. Alright. Just wanted to make sure. I will be very brief based on the staff recommendation and discussion in the informal this morning. This is a large parcel of property near the corner of Centerville and Kemspville Roads. The front portion is an area that is zoned B-2 It's all zoned B-2. The front portion has never been utilized. The back portion is a borrow pit that is in the process of being filled. The area that we're talking about has been under a great deal of scrutiny over the last few months with some other applications and I think at this point that there really isn't a demand for additional commercial in this area. This property has been on the market The portion on Centerville Turnpike has been on the market for years. There is so much commercial development in this area both up on Indian River Road a short distance to north and over in Chesapeake in the Greenbrier Section and the Woods Corner Shopping Center at this intersection that there really is a lot of strips in this area that have fairly significant vacancies, high rates of vacancies So, the application is one that we think at 14 units per acre at this very high quality proposed residential community will be a real asset to this area My clients and I should have started by saying that Andy Heatwole and Ms. Lou Joyner are here and they have a lot of boards and pictures that we're not going to go through unless you want to see them. They've done the heavy lifting. They've gone out and they met with Alexandria Civic League. They've met with the Item # 1 RH Builders, Inc Page 2 Charlestownwood Civic League. They've contacted Charlestown Lakes and made every effort to contact Bngadoon. But, the word is out in the community about what the proposal is. They've gone out and met. They showed them again, what you all have seen and what your staff has appropriately, I think correctly analyzed is a very high quality project, high -end units. These will be for rent but if they were for sale, we would be talking about sales prices of $160-170 thousand per unit What you're going to wind up with in this area eventually is this multi -family project and a very large open space park area, most of which the City owns or will be acquiring via option. To the north of this site a few months ago, you recommended approval of a self -storage facility on a piece of property again, same owner. Michael Sifen was the applicant. Since that time, the City has decided to acquire that property and so this will basically be a multi -family development adjacent to some additional multi -family and what will eventually be a park site. It's a two-phase project The second phase is the part of the property that is being filled. It's impossible to predict when that will be but my guess is it won't be before until about 10 years from now It could be longer. It could theoretically be sooner 1f heaven for bid we have a major hurricane come through and we had a need for a lot of fill area that capacity would be used up real quickly. If you all have any questions, I'm happy to answer any questions. Given the staff recommendation of approval and given the discussion in the informal this morning and there is no opposition here, we'll just wait and answer your questions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr Bourdon. Are there questions for Mr. Bourdon9 Any discussion9 Joe Strange: This is in my district and I will make this comment here Mr. Bourdon I think this is a real nice high -end community that's coming in there I think it's going to bring some higher income into the area That retail space that we have down there for the customers out there. So, I will be supporting this projectjust since it's in my district. Dorothy Wood Are there any other comments? Kathy Katsias I will also be supporting this project. I think this is a very attractive development. This will be the first apartment for rent community that will be of this type in the area. And, I understand that there are similar units in the Cypress Point area for sale. I think the fact that they have parking garages and they have access to the apartments through the parking garage, I just think it's a lovely community and an asset to that area. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Jan. Janice Anderson- Yes I'm in agreement with Kathy I think it is a good plan I will be supporting it The main thing is there is some concern with traffic and from what the traffic outlay shows that changing that into a residential you will have less traffic on that road then if you use with the B-2, which it is currently zoned So, actually this changes and it would benefit the traffic problem Item # 1 RH Builders, Inc. Page 3 Donald Horsley. Along the lines that Janice talked about the traffic, Monday night at our workshop we showed the Master Transportation Plan Don't we show some road improvements in that area that may help this traffic situation? City Line Road in particular? Robert Scott: Yeah City Line Road is an important project for us. I will say that there is more to it than that In addition to building roads, I think what you need to do is get people living closer to the commercial that they use. They take long trips for small reasons. And again, that is one of the reasons why this application was appealing to us is because it starts to do that. As we've said many times and we've used this phrase "were not going to pave our way out of our transportation problem, we have to think our way out of them." And, by putting higher quality, higher density development in closer proximity to the commercial that it's going to serve we intend the aggregate to cut down on the transportation needs of the community So, we see that as a good thing. It's one of the reason why we kind of like this application. Dorothy Wood: Any other comments? Joe Strange: I'd like to make a motion Dot that we approve this application. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? William Din: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: A motion made by Mr. Strange, seconded by Mr. Din. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from this item. My firm is working on the project. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY ABS SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT 1 ABSENT Item # 1 RH Builders, Inc. Page 4 Dorothy Wood: By a vote of 8-0, it is passed. And we have two abstentions, Mr. Ripley and Mr. Miller Thank you Mr Bourdon Eddie Bourdon. Thank you all for your comments. FORM NO P 5 18 Oct J TV 1s2�OF OUR ONS 9 NpZ, City of Virgirzi� Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5720 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilson INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: June 18, 2003 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application R. H. Builders, Inc. and Williams Holding Corp. The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 1, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated April 154 2003, 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 JSYM. $OUIiixK I A]10bN & LEVY. PC R.H. BUILDERS, INC., a Virginia corporation WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 15thday of April, 2003, by and between R.H. BUILDERS, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation, party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 26.64 acres which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of a 13.64 acre portion of the parcel described in Exhibit "A" which is designated Parcel A-1-A or Phase I; and WHEREAS, the parties of the first and second part have 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 B-2 to Conditional A-24; 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; FTM GPIN: 1455-82-0576 1 PREPARED BY . • SYKES. BOITR[X)N. A[IERN & LEW. I?C WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, 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 cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the A-24 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid -pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. The Property shall be developed in two phases in accordance with the "PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PHASE I AND (FUTURE) PHASE II, AVONDALE AT KEMPSVILLE ("Concept Plan"), prepared by Pinnacle Group Engineering, Inc., dated 4/ 14/03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, so that there shall be coordinated design and development of the site in terms of vehicular circulation, parking, buffering, landscaping, tree planting, building location, orientation, walking trails, and recreational amenities, to better foster a sense of community. 2. The portion of the Property designated on the Concept Plan as FUTURE PHASE II", (proposed) PARCEL (A-1-B) 13.0 acres is an existing Borrow Pit which is being filled pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit approved by the party of the third part. The filling, and reclamation of the area designated Phase II will continue until completion. No development of Phase II will occur until such time as the filling operation has been completed in accordance with all applicable permits, rules, and regulations. 3. The architectural design of the residential buildings will be as depicted on the exhibits entitled "R.H. BUILDERS AVONDALE at KEMPSVILLE, Virginia Beach, Va." ("Elevations"), dated April 15, 2003, prepared by Humphreys and Partners Architects, L.P. which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The exterior building materials shall be brick and high quality vinyl which will be in earth tone colors. 4. Each residential unit shall have a one or two car garage as well as additional parking area where possible in each driveway and other areas on -site. S. When the Property is developed, a community Club House and swimming pool complex will be provided as designated on the Concept Plan. The Club House building design and materials shall compliment the Elevations for the residential buildings. 6. When the Property is developed, berming shall be created along Centerville Turnpike, to include a combination of evergreen shrubs and a serpentine, vinyl clad, two rail style fence. Evergreen clusters of trees and ornamental deciduous trees will also be planted. 7. A landscaped entrance feature shall be constructed with a monument style sign as depicted on the "MONUMENT SIGN EXHIBIT - AVONDALE at KEMPSVILLE", dated April 15, 2003, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach PREPARED BY City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. JSYKES. $OITRIX)N. 8. The total number of living units permitted to be constructed in Phase I, AHERN & LEVY. P.0 (proposed) Parcel A-1-A will not exceed one hundred and ninety (190) and there shall 3 PREPARED BY. JSYM ROURWN. IAHMN & LEVY. RC be provided a minimum of four hundred and seven (407) parking spaces, including garage spaces, within Phase I. 9. When future Phase H is developed, the total number of living units permitted to be constructed in Phase H, (proposed) Parcel A-1-B will not exceed one hundred and ninety (190) and there shall be provided a m;n;mu n of four hundred and nineteen (419) parking spaces, including garage spaces, within Phase II. 10. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City I agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. 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 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 n SYCES. BOURDON. AAHlN & LLW. PC 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 name of the Grantor and the Grantee. 5 PREPMED Or • SYKE& BOURMN. AWN & LEVY. PC WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: R.H. Builders, Inc., a Virginia corporation Ag!! 2� r�--2 By: (SEAL) Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23rd day of April, 2003, by F. 3dia Rilolev , of R.H. Builders, Inc., a Virginia corporation. dua- Notary Public My Commission Expires: Seio3D, c2OO6' C: P"�� ev SYEM ROURDON. AUM & LEVY. K WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: WILLIAMS HOLDING CORP., a Virginia corporation 11 By:F , C �� (SEAL) E. R. Bowler, President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this 24th day of April, 2003, by E. R. Bowler, President of Williams Holding Corp., a Virginia corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 7 EDIT "A" ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the building and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, designated as "PARCEL A-1 (GPIN: 1455-82-0576)" as depicted on the recorded subdivision plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 285, at Page 88. GPIN: 1455-82-0576 CONDREZONE/MMURDM/AVONDALE/PROFFER PREPARM BY • SYM ROURDON. ARMN do LEVY. PC inia '1C CIN Gpin - See Applications ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning (B-2 Business, R-5D Residential and P-1 Preservation to A-18 Apartment with a PD-H Planned Unit Overlay District) — Approved 4-28-98 Street Closure — Approved — 4-28-98 Rezoning (B-2 Business to P-1 Preservation) — Approved 3-27-89 Rezoning (R-5D Residential to P-1 Preservation) — Approved 3-27-89 2. Street Closure — Approved 4-23-90 ., +'ak , ~�Wv CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. — Change of Zoning District Classification and Conditional use Permit Shore Drive, between Powhatan Avenue and Albemarle Avenue MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Home Associates of Virginia, Inc fora Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial District on the north side of Shore Drive, between Powhatan Avenue and Albemarle Avenue (GPIN 1489381936; -3908, - 2919) DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE An Ordinance upon Application of Home Associates of Virginia, Inc for a Conditional Use Permit for multiple family dwellings in the B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial District on the north side of Shore Drive, between Powhatan Avenue and Albemarle Avenue (GPIN 1489381936, -3908, -2919) DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE The purpose of the requests is to rezone the property from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial District, and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for six (6) multiple -family dwelling units The applicant proposes to develop the site with a mixed use of multiple -family dwellings and office space ■ Considerations: Currently the property is occupied by a single-family dwelling. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay was applied to the site in October 1998 The site is an oddly shaped and curved with residential streets on the east and west sides, residential uses on the north side, and public right-of-way and Shore Drive on the south side The site has an approximate depth of 100 feet and width of 250 feet. The submitted preliminary layout plan depicts two groups of buildings one building containing six (6) attached dwelling units and a commercial building Each residential unit has two (2) parking spaces plus a garage The commercial building has 16 parking spaces Home Associates Page 2 of 2 The entire perimeter of the site is landscaped with the exception of the entrance from Albemarle Avenue The applicant has indicated that they will use plants listed in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. A three-foot serpentine brick wall is also depicted on the concept plan. Staff recommends approval There was opposition to the requests. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions. 1 The site shall be developed in accordance with the submitted "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR THE VILLAS AT OCEAN PARK", dated December 16, 2002, prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning 2 The proposed residential and commercial buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted "Building Elevation, Villas at Ocean Park", dated January 14, 2003, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The building materials shall be in accordance with the submitted "Materials Board for Ocean Villas at Ocean Park" dated January 10, 2003 3 The applicant shall obtain the necessary setback and parking variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals before the site is developed. 4 The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that is in accordance with the recommended plant lists specified in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan (Appendices) 5 The applicant shall have the option of adding brick to the exterior of the first floor of the structures subject to elevations acceptable to staff ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City 9 Mana er: �' V- HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 June 11, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION G03-212-CRZ-2003 NUMBER: G03-212-CUP-2003 REQUEST: 8 Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial District 9 Conditional Use Permit for Multiple -family Dwelling Units (6 units) ADDRESS: Property located on the north side of Shore Drive, between Powhatan Avenue and Albemarle Avenue. Map F-G l Me, Nc., to kale Home Associates ot Vir inia �. 00 I 0 t 0 31 ��' 0 i 00 0 r a�� (S ) 1 03� a Jc /0/ L-j, 00; Cam_ -e {��J,• �. � n1[ �.�' r�. mil, (SD) HI _ -- Gpin — See Applications Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA 1 # 8 Page 1 GPIN: 14893819360000 14893839080000 14893829190000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 - BAYSIDE SITE SIZE 23,958 square feet STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie PURPOSE: To rezone the property from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial District, and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for six (6) multiple -family dwelling units The applicant proposes to develop the site with a mixed use of multiple - family dwellings and office space. Major Issues: • Consistency with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District and the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning Currently the property is occupied by a single-family dwelling. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay was applied to the site in October 1998 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . Duplex dwellings / R-5R Residential Resort (SD Shore Drive Overlay District) South: . Shore Drive Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 2 • Across Shore Drive are resort related businesses / B-2 Community Business (SD Shore Drive Overlay District) East: • Albemarle Avenue • Across Albemarle Avenue is an interior decorating business / B-2 Community Business (SD Shore Drive Overlay District) West: . Powhatan Avenue • Across Powhatan Avenue are single-family dwellings / A-18 Apartment (PD-111) (SD Shore Drive Overlay District) Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Any of the principal and or conditional uses permitted in Zoning: the B-2 Business District such as retail establishments, restaurants, offices, automobile service stations, public buildings and grounds, mini -warehouses, small service establishments, and recreational and amusement facilities With With the Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial and Proposed Conditional Use Permit for multiple -family dwellings the Zoning: only uses permitted on the site will be six (6) residential units and in the commercial building • Business studios, offices, and clinics, • Florists, gift shops and stationary stores, or • Medical and dental offices and clinics Zoning History There is little zoning history involving the site Currently, a portion of the site is occupied by a single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1936. The site was zoned C-L3 Limited Commercial until 1973 With the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in 1973, the site was zoned B-2 Commercial The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay was adopted on the site in October 1998 Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 3 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The site must connect to city water and city sewer Sewer and pump station upgrades may be required. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Shore Drive in front of this site is a four lane divided major urban arterial roadway. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 150 foot divided right-of-way with a multi -use trail. According to the Department of Public Works, the right-of-way at this location is sufficient to meet the requirement of the Master Transportation Plan Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 17,300ADT Existing Land Use 2 - 439 Shore Drive 35,000Level of ADT Service "C' Proposed Land Use 3 - 159 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by existing zoning 3 as defined by the proposed uses Public Safetv 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 they pertain to this site The concept of mixed use in this application is commendable Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA I # 8 Page 4 The use of this design adds to both perceived and actual feelings of safety The presence of activity supports natural surveillance of the site by the users of the site Users of the site, both day and night, casually and unconsciously serve as "eyes and ears", observing any suspicious or abnormal behavior that may occur on the site Fire and Fire hydrant must be located within 400 feet of the commercial Rescue: structure Private fire hydrants must be maintained annually as identified in N F P A 25 The minimum fire lane width must not be less than 20 feet. Under some conditions the authority having jurisdiction may require a greater width Additional fire lanes may be required after occupancy A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained form the Building Code Official before occupancy of the structures. Gas or charcoal grills or similar devices will not be allowed on combustible balconies or within 10 feet of combustible construction Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map identifies the site as a resort area, planned for resort type uses including lodging, retail, and entertainment, recreational, cultural and other uses The Bayfront Planning Area's land use policies and the map designation for this corridor _ support well -planned and designed developments that promote community aesthetics, economic vitality, protection of sensitive natural resources, and an enhanced quality of life. The Shore Drive Design Guidelines are established to ensure that these initiatives are achieved Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA/ # 8 Page 5 Summary of Proposal Proposal • The applicant proposes to rezone the site and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for multiple -family dwellings The applicant intends to develop the site as a mixed -use project consisting of six (6) residential units and offices. • The site is located in an area defined as a "Mixed Zone" by the Shore Drive Design Guidelines This area of Shore Drive is a mix of residential and commercial uses To accommodate the mixture of uses in the area the site should be well screened and the buildings designed to complement the existing residential uses in the area. The applicant has incorporated many of the design guidelines recommendations into the project Site Design • The site is an oddly shaped and curved with residential streets on the east and west sides, residential uses on the north side, and public right-of-way and Shore Drive on the south side The site has an approximate depth of 100 feet and width of 250 feet. The submitted preliminary layout plan depicts two groups of buildings one building containing six (6) attached dwelling units and a commercial building • The proposed buildings are situated along the Shore Drive frontage of the site, with setbacks varying from 5.36 feet to 8.23 feet — this side and the north side of the property are the side yards The residential building is sited along Powhatan Avenue with setbacks varying from 6 57 feet to 20 feet. The commercial building is proposed along Albemarle Avenue between 15 feet and 22 feet The drive aisle along the side of the site is five (5) feet from the residential property Variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the setbacks will be required before the applicant develops the site While the proposed development does not meet the required setbacks and parking layout it does achieve the recommended site design for the corridor If the applicant does not obtain the required variances form the Board of Zoning Appeals, then he will be prohibited from developing the site as proffered. • Each residential unit has two (2) parking spaces plus a garage. The commercial building has 16 parking spaces, however, some of the spaces are stacked and a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals will be required in order to stack the parking spaces as shown. • The entire perimeter of the site is landscaped with the exception of the entrance from Albemarle Avenue The applicant has indicated that they will use plants listed in Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 6 the Shore Drive Corridor Plan A three-foot serpentine brick wall is also depicted on the concept plan. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • A single entrance is depicted from Albemarle Avenue It appears that vehicular access and maneuvering on the site is adequate • There are no sidewalks on this section of Shore Drive. The applicant has indicated a willingness to cost participate with the City in the installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks and landscaping that will enhance and further the objectives of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan in this particular section of Shore Drive. Architectural Design • The proposed buildings are three-story transitional style using a brick base with synthetic cedar shake siding and architectural asphalt roof shingles The brick base is sand color. The cedar shake siding is brown. Bright white trim accent pieces and corner boards add architectural detail to the structures. Front porches covered by standing seam metal roofs front on Shore Drive Third floor modified gabled dormers provide visual relief Second floor decks cover rear entryways Landscape and Open Space • The submitted preliminary layout plan depicts landscaping around the perimeter of the site, however the plan does not specify the species of plants, sizes or quantities. Additionally a three-foot tall brick serpentine fence is depicted along Powhatan Avenue and a portion of Albemarle Avenue As previously noted, the applicant has expressed a willingness to landscape the site in accordance with the recommendations of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan utilizing the suggested plant species for Shore Drive Additionally the applicant is interested in cost participating with the City in landscaping the right-of-way area currently existing between his site and the edge of Shore Drive. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 7 Proffers PROFFER # 1 In order to achieve a coordinated design and development this mixed use site in terms of vehicular circulation, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR THE VILLAS AT OCEAN PARK", dated December 16, 2002, prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable It insures that the site will be developed in accordance with the proffered plan. PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed, vehicular Ingress and Egress to the six (6) residential units and the office building shall be via one driveway from Albemarle Avenue. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that only a single entrance will be developed for both uses on the site. It also Insures that there will be no access to the site from Shore Drive. PROFFER # 3 When the Property is developed, a serpentine brick wall, three (3) feet in height, shall be constructed substantially as described on the Concept Plan and all landscaping and berming shall substantially adhere to the landscape plan prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc and depicted on the Concept Plan dated December 16, 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") Staff Evaluation: The proffer ►s acceptable It insures that the site will be landscaped according to the proffered plan. While the concept plan lacks detail such as plant species, size and quantity it does depict the areas that are to be landscaped with the development of the site. Conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit can insure that the applicant uses the recommended plants for the Shore Dnve corridor. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 8 PROFFER # 4 In the building labeled "Residential" on the Concept Plan, there shall be no more than six (6) residential units, each one being no more than three (3) stories in height Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It limits the density and height of the residential uses on the site PROFFER # 5 The architectural design of the building will be substantially as depicted on the exhibits entitled "Building Elevation, Villas at Ocean Park", dated January 14, 2003, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations"). The primary exterior building material shall be brick and synthetic cedar shake siding, substantially as depicted and described on the "Materials Board for Ocean Villas at Ocean Park" dated January 10, 2003, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Materials Board"). Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the buildings will be constructed in accordance with the submitted elevations, and that high quality building materials will be used. PROFFER # 6 The building labeled "Commercial Use" on the concept plan shall contain no more than 4,220 square feet of enclosed floor area and shall not be used for residential dwellings The only uses permitted in the "Commercial Use" building are a Business studios, offices, and clinics; b Florists, gift shops and stationary stores, or c Medical and dental offices and clinics Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable It limits the commercial uses that may be placed on the site The proffer also limits the amount of commercial square footage to be developed on the site. PROFFER # 7 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA I # 8 Page 9 City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. Staff Evaluation: The proffer ►s acceptable. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated January 9, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The requests to rezone the site from B-2 Business District to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial District (Shore Drive) and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for six multiple - family dwellings is acceptable The requests are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and the goals and objectives of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan The applicant has implemented many of the design recommendations of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines into the design of the buildings and site. While the concept plan does not specify plant species, sizes or quantities the applicant is agreeable to using the types of plants specified in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan As previously mentioned the applicant is also prepared to share in the costs of landscaping, sidewalks, curb and gutter along the Shore Drive right-of-way in front of the site in accordance with proposed improvements along Shore Drive so as to present a unified appearance along this portion of Shore Drive Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning request to rezone the site from B-2 Business to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial (Shore Drive) and the Conditional Use Permit Request for six (6) multiple -family dwelling units subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 The site shall be developed in accordance with the submitted "PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR THE VILLAS AT OCEAN PARK", dated December 16, 2002, prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc , which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA/# 8 Page 10 Planning 2 The proposed residential and commercial buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted "Building Elevation, Villas at Ocean Park", dated January 14, 2003, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning The building materials shall be in accordance with the submitted "Materials Board for Ocean Villas at Ocean Park" dated January 10, 2003. 3. The applicant shall obtain the necessary setback and parking variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals before the site is developed. 4 The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that is in accordance with the recommended plant lists specified in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan (Appendices) NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with these rezoning and conditional use permit applications may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 11 r' Y W Q I' i i' O RN,' 1 p U \ z VI) A ti r^ VJ V I L7 U3 p r, �y a� yam" :y. ')?� 5n u~-r �w i•nr ` r ? ;` \t t\ ,^ fir"-` rl t � � orb •_ 'j;�nN n •�S(� • ti �/l� < - _� y {j ' ` � , f g La 0 o o v 40 01 t W g o{ N' •`� Lj m � � T 7 `' z T `s L 3 .c _..� aze 1 op Wvv_rSM5 LTvZZ—HktaLS'.iZ3x�t �� VL ram} ra�.¢�o oai`E'Sro _ �Nr�v 6a^.-.aOXlr �mmW 4�-' Chi . ....'i.. ..... �..{- f Planning Commission Agenda � ° Z� June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 12 14 All i. ♦Z4,, A `Vh'sR+� '{ ¢' h t 7• 41tV 7 . H 1 'J F ire y� i". jM� • f � �{ � \tee, •.T �� .. ..� ,. ~r'l � it 1 • J' w� .+a . � � %!i �° 40 � �♦ � w P 1+p,G�,� > °f �M ,,,+''• w 3t p F yp� Planning Commission Agenda °- June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA I # 8 Page 13 � r— Front (Shore Drive) Elevation — Office Units Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003,.�.� • w HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8,;;�:= Page 14 Front (Shore Drive) Elevation — Residential 1 In itc Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 15 Rear (North) Elevation — Residential Units Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 16 101 bp a�'3' Ylk Wl!mnninfv U-f%rv%rnv%-_L-i^r% A II %, *: 10 10 4 r ± I I I �.l m 0 "SCLOSURE STAi'EME'""°dT Applicant's Name. Ncmp assLc►ates. of V_r4?lnla,_Inc.. List All Current Bailev Parker Cogstrsction Corporation Property Owners. Bailey Parker Fa Daly Partnership, L.F. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach ll;,t if necessary) D 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 property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below - (Attach list it necessary) James �11. Arnriold. President filar 1 Feald, Secretarv!Treasurer If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach Its if necessary) D Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or othe, unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION- I certify that the information contained herein is true and -accurate. Iloce Associates of Vircin-ia Inc. B;: Signatu Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Janes M. .lrnhol d,Frei i dent ___ Print Name Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 18 Q O V I) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name--Fie_e Associates-of_Vjroi-�.�,.�,,..7nc--___ List All Current Bailey Parker Construction Corporation Property Owners. _baY�e�_P �ri,c�r_Kimily Partite:'sh�F�—L��--------------- PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) Baileti i__Parker, Jr.. President; SecretarylTreasurer ___________ 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 property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) `Ja me `s'izL4�S1� _fie s i d e a t-------------- Mary Heald,_Secretarv/Treasurer If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary,) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION ! certify that the information contained herein is true pnd accurate. Bailey.Fq,Aer Construct p ation Bv--------- Signature Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 19 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name Hone :15s{�c a tes c� f _Vz r List All Current Bailey Parkcr Construction Corporation Property Owners _Bailey Parker Fa -ilk PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below (Attach list if necessary) —Eazlev T. Parker. Jr. General_&_L-ma ted Pawner__ 11 �Iarlcn W. Parker, Genera'_ & Limited Partner ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization if the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) -------------------------------------- Mary Heald,_Secretary/Treasurer If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Bailey Parker Farniiv f' e _p, L.P. r i ignature Print Narrfe General Partner Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA / # 8 Page 20 Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit North side of Shore Drive, between Powhatan Avenue And Albemarle District 4 Bayside June 11, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: The next items are Items #8 & 9, Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Eddie Bourdon: Good afternoon again Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon. And I have the privilege of representing Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. on this application. Jim Arnhold, the principal of Home Associates of Virginia, Inc is also with me this afternoon. I may call on him if there are technical questions that I'm unable to provide an answer too The property we're dealing with is located on the north side of Shore Drive. As you can see it up there on the Powerpoint it is between West Stratford Road and Albemarle. The property is kind of oddly shaped because there was at one time in the original subdivision plat that created this road that is now Shore Drive, this traffic circle here to the south enclosed some years ago. There was a boat sales facility there. But that is why you see this arch in the property even though the actual improved right- of-way is south of that And it is because of that strange shape that is one of the reasons why this proposal does involve the need for some variances. The proposal is to rezone this property, which is currently zoned B-2. It's an Unconditional B-2 zoning to a Conditional B-4 with a Conditional Use Permit and it's conditional zoning. We specifically proffered a mixed used development which is in line and in accordance with the recommendations of both the ULI Study for Shore Drive and the Shore Drive Committee's desires and I think this body desires and Council's desires to see smart development in this location and I think that is actually what is before you is a very smart development. It involves a six residential unit building with an entrance coming off of Albemarle The only entrance to the property is off of Albemarle. These are the residential units that were proffered. The site plan we proffered and the elevations The office use is located here. This would be the office for Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Mr. Arnhold has lived there on Shore Drive for a couple of decades. This is where his company will have their offices. And, we very significantly restricted what can go in this office use. These six residential units, town home -style units are attractively designed Each has 2200 square feet of living area. Each has a garage. The parking is provided in front of the units as well as in the garage. We tried to and I think succeeded incorporating all the design guidelines recommended on the Shore Drive Corridor. And, a brick serpentine fence on the sides, landscaping offered to participate in a landscape project in front of the property in the excess right-of-way along Shore Drive The Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 2 buildings, if you go back to the composite map Stephen, you'll notice these buildings you see in your write-up do require setback variances from our property line are well behind all of the units that are located to our west in the Three Ships Landing Condominium. We'll be set back far further from Shore Drive then those buildings are set back. And, they are certainly not as great a volume as what you see along there And, they'll also not be in a straight line because of the curvature of the property line. We got a natural curvature that will take place with the significant amount of landscaping that can go out here in the excess nght-of-way We think we'll have an extremely attractive project, one that will be an enhancement to the area of Shore Drive. The application is recommended for approval by your staff. I want to let you know that Mr. Arnhold posted on the Ocean Park Website a couple of weeks ago the project all the information on it and requested comments. He also posted on the internet that he would be at the Shore Drive Advisory Committee Meeting to answer questions and to entertain any discussion about the application. I got a lot of positive feedback We got actually very little feedback in total. And, I understand today that we been delouged by emails to some degree, just a bunch of emails. But it is our position, we worked with the staff for many, many months to permit this type of highly controlled attractive development on this property as contrasted with a Taco Bell or and I don't want to knock other people's businesses, there are any number of businesses, drive-thru of that nature that could go on that piece of property and there is no Use Permit process for that. There is no conditional rezoning process for that and frankly, I think this is an ideal mixed use that is highly controlled by the proffers. And, I think it fulfills what was intended, what is intended by the Shore Drive Overlay. Even though it does in fact involve a rezoning to B-4 because it is proffered, it doesn't open up any doors to any high-rise development or any types of development that somebody finds to be less acceptable. I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of you have. Ronald Ripley- Thank you Mr. Bourdon Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? I got a question. And it's my understanding talking with the applicant and just to make sure it's clear that the railings and exposed posts are going to be vinyl clad. Eddie Bourdon- Maintenance free, essentially maintenance free. Yes sir, that's correct Ronald Ripley: The other thing and I mentioned this in the informal meeting about the possibility of more brick on the first floor Would your client be amenable to an optional? He would have the option of adding more brick to that or not? Eddie Bourdon: He's certainly amenable to that. It is my understanding that and working with staff, we had originally proposed more brick. But in looking at trying to be consistent with some of the architecture of some of the older homes in the area that was suggested that we maybe would look at drawing the brick down but we certainly are not opposed to adding brick to the top of the first floor level essentially that is, again, one of the difficulties with the design guidelines and it's overlay and that is so much of this is subjective to this as to what. Mr Arnhold is perfectly willing to work with staff and with the Advisory Committee to make sure what he is building out there is in accordance with those guidelines The difficult part is who makes that ultimate determination He's not at Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 3 all adverse to putting more bnck up to the first floor level I don't want to arbitrate between different people's perspectives on what's the best way. Ronald Ripley: I'm not sure either. Although I know he appeared before the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and a number of them expressed that opinion. Visually, maybe that's a better way to do it efficiently. But they tend to like a little more brick on the first floor. Eddie Bourdon: I share that view and I think my client shares that view Again, our point we will gladly do that. It started out that way Ronald Ripley: The other question that I would like to address a little bit more is the public area that the applicant is interested in sharing with the City and improving. And, can you describe that here so that we understand. Eddie Bourdon: Describe the area? Ronald Ripley: Descnbe what would be done to the area so we can have it on the record. Eddie Bourdon: As I understand the concept is with basically a demonstration project It will be some form of walkway through and I'm sure there would be not a straight line. You put in a sidewalk that meanders through here and then you would landscape this area in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee I know the Parson Bnnckerhoff Transportation Study along Shore Drive that in there, they also included some landscaping suggestions and obviously the ULI Report to the City included some landscape direction or suggestions. And to date, I know on the opposite side of the Lesner Bridge, Reese Smith has made the same offer to participate in putting in a demonstration project and that's exactly the same thing that Mr. Arnhold is willing to do. In working with the City staff and with the Advisory Committee to design something. I don't know if there is actually a formal and I'm sure there isn't a formal design at this point. But, I'm quite comfortable that the folks at Ocean Park would like to see some Live Oaks planted on the property. I don't think that's a problem. There are none on the property today, so it will be a net gain if there are some planted in that area. And, I think that would be something I would expect to see. But, our point is that we will participate with the City in doing that project but we need to work hand in hand within doing something And those improvements would be in the public right-of-way. Ronald Ripley And, the other question I had of the plan was the stacked parking Is that something that they will work out internally when they're in the office? Who's going to occupy the office? And, how would that work? Eddie Bourdon. The office is going to be occupied by Home Associates of Virginia. That will be the occupant of the 4200 square foot office building. And, the stacked parking will be utilized. And if you look at the other businesses that have proffered that could go in there in place of that, they're not high traffic generating businesses They're Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 4 not your retail type of businesses. And, what would happen is that your employees would stack their cars in a couple of spaces leaving the other spaces for people who are coming for meetings or what have you but again, it's not an intense business in terms of a lots of people coming there. More than likely, the spaces that are there on most days are more than adequate but, when you got meetings scheduled for something that's going to bring other people there, then the employees would stack their vehicles just like if you were putting parking in your driveway back to back, two cars back to back leaving adequate parking for those who will be coming to the office. The other thing that is interesting about any type of a mix use situation is that when the office is being utilized during the daytime hours your parking for your residential units is less likely to be utilized. Because the folks who live there are at work. So, there's obviously the opportunity there if there would ever be a need for with this Use is not likely that you have available for 30-40 minutes, the opportunity to park in front any of the units along there when the people are not home. Ronald Ripley: Will Din has a question. William Din: You brought up in the informal meeting the concern about the trash pickup in this area. I remember someone saying that each of these units will be a public trash can of the dumpster type that currently each resident has. My concern here is, I guess each of these moving up to an area where it will impede the access to this area. I don't see any area where these are going to be stacked up. There is not going to be a dumpster out here. Can you tell me how you're considering that? Eddie Bourdon. A very good point. I did speak at the informal because that's not permitted. But, I never said it was indicated. This will be a condominium. And as such, it is most likely that trash pickup will have to be done by a private concern They'll have to come on the site and pick it up. It would not be done by the City. There is the potential that you could have trash pick up on Albemarle but my understanding of the way it works and the way the City has required it, they don't do it to too many condos but with larger condominiums is that you have trash pick up private. So, that is what I anticipate will probably be the case But, I know it was suggested that there might be curbside pickup with people rolling their dumpsters out to Albemarle but I believe the more likely scenario I think the answer is that it will be picked up by private haul on site. That is what I believe is required. William Din Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Mr. Miller, do we have any speakers? Robert Miller: We have speakers in opposition. Barry Porter. Barry Porter: Good afternoon I appreciate the opportunity to speak As I said in my letter to the Commission members, I'm the President of Three Ships Landing Association, which is directly adjacent across the street. I think we, as a community were Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 5 somewhat surprised by the lateness in which we received the notification of how this process works. I mean we received a certified letter approximately May 291h by the development that I believe has been ongoing for the last 4-6 months. If you access the Planning and Zoning website, there is nothing you can access because it is restricted to staff use only So, we come to you, or at least I come to you. We're relatively in the dark about the problem I suppose it's been ongoing for five or six months. So, I just make that comment The other thing that I don't understand is that if in fact this was zoned B-2 and that the City Code Section 900 says there is no intent to change anything or to enlarge B-4, why now all of a sudden we're proposing that a B-2 enlargement take place. There's no recommendation from the staff planning on why they are making such a change. And, I, as a member of the community would be interested in knowing. Other than the self-interest of the developer makes the point that we're going to change to what is the policy I think the other thing is that as a new member to Virginia Beach, we're from Connecticut, approximately 2Y2 years, we came off the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, made a left and that drive going down to the Oceanfront is a real impact. So, I think regardless of the outcome it's very important that we create a boulevard look down the whole area. And, I'm not sure this will do that. So, that's basically our point is that we haven't had an opportunity to review it. And, that's basically how we feel about it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Barry Porter. Thank you for your time. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr Porter? I will make this comment. Notice was followed, I'm certain to the letter of the law as to what we have to do. And you did receive notice and there were signs posted and it was in the Beacon, what a couple of times at least. It was on the website. I hear what you're saying but we have a process that does follow and I think we even extended those notice times and they're going to extend them again. Am I correct on that? Barry Porter I'm not questioning the effort put forward but with so much access to the internet and the fact that you use a government agency as the reference point, you as a person should be able to go the Planning and Zoning website and pull down that particular information and the ongoing comments rather than have the remarks say "staff use only " Ronald Ripley: Well, those comments are available but it's only available after the staff has finished their conclusions. And, they're given to the Planning Commissioners. We don't receive them either until last Thursday And, so we don't have access to them either. The staff needs to be able to do what they're suppose to do and that is evaluate it and make a recommendation without Planning Commissioners or anybody else interfering with that which would be wrong and I don't think you would want that. They need to work through the issue and then bring it forward. So you get notice the same day we get notice. Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 6 Barry Porter: I don't mean to be argumentative but one would think that if there's a major decision going to change zoning from B-2 to B-4 when the documentation clearly states there is going to be no increase. But, that's a pretty significant issue and I won't take anymore time. I appreciate the effort in hearing what I had to say. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller. Tim Solanic. Tim Solanic: Chairman, Commissioners. It's going to look kind of funny in the transcribed notes again, it's actually Solanic. I'm not going to say the joke. Ronald Ripley: I think we messed it up the first time. Tim Solanic: Mr. Porter had a very excellent point about the notice. It was legally and I guess it was done. If I could have 10 minutes or split it between Todd Solomon and myself. Ronald Ripley. You need to stick with the timetable. You have three minutes. Tim Solanic: At the beginning, it was mentioned that the applicant and the Council have 10 minutes and a representative of the community is representing the opposition has 10 minutes and other people have three. Robert Miller: We have six of you here. Tim Solanic. Right. Ronald Ripley: We have six. Who is the opposition? Tim Solanic The six of us. Robert Miller. Are all of you speaking for yourselves? Ronald Ripley: Are you all in a group? Tim Solanic. I'm representing Ocean Park Civic League. Ronald Ripley- Are you all in a group? Tim Solanic I'm personally representing Ocean Park Civic League. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Page 7 Tim Solanic: Everybody else is here Somebody's representing Shore Drive Community Coalition. Ronald Ripley: So you want to split five minutes between you and Mr. Solomon? Tim Solanic Well, I don't want to go over. I don't want to waste our time. I really would prefer not to have come down here to be here because it would be great to work it out with Jim and Eddie, not here, but we had no notice Ronald Ripley: Then we'll do ten. Tim Solanic. Legally, the notice was correct for a certain number of people. Not everybody received the notice. I'm not sure how far we need to split hairs on the legal notice. I know obviously you guys don't mail out the notice. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, you give notice to everybody in that immediately surrounding? Robert Scott- Every adjacent property gets a certified letter. Ronald Ripley: Then we put notice of signs. Tim Solanic: I understand. It's the certified letter that probably slips through the cracks somewhere because a lot of people did not receive the notice on this particular property. Robert Miller: If they are not adjacent to the property, they do not get a letter. Tim Solanic: So, the road doesn't matter? Robert Miller: The road counts as taking away adjacents. Tim Solanic: Well, I don't want to waste my 10 minutes arguing about that's the case. Ronald Ripley But notice was served Tim Solanic: Pardon me? Ronald Ripley Notice was served. Tim Solanic: Okay I'm not trying to argumentative. Ronald Ripley I know. Go ahead. Tim Solanic: Anyway Ed has mentioned that it was posted on the Ocean Park Civic League site I know the exact time it was there because I put it there. I happen to be the Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 8 webmaster for our site. I sent an email to Faith Christie when I heard about the project. About an hour or two later, I received an email from Mr. Arnhold which I misspelled his name on our site. I apologize and I didn't realize that until today. So basically, it's been there for a couple of weeks. Legal or not legal, it doesn't matter. But, I'm very happy to know that Mr. Porter, as an example moved from Connecticut when there has been a net loss of citizens in the City of Virginia Beach to Chesapeake and Suffolk pouring into the City also as he mentioned going from B-2 to B-4, a lot of people have been talking about the six lane Shore Drive I have a bunch of different tangents here that are all concerned with a tipping point or eventually there are going to be a lot of crazy things happening based on decisions today. If this development is allowed we rather have it deferred so we can work it out with the applicant If it's allowed to go from B-2 to B-4, you're allowing more housing. In an email from the applicant he even admitted that he doesn't want to see a six -lane Shore Drive. This particular project obviously is not going to force a six - lane Shore Drive. Eventually, allowing variances, up zoning and everything else, it will happen. It can't have any additional housing and no six -lane, I mean, you understand my point. This particular project will not make a difference. All of them will definitely make a difference Also according to Section 900 which Mr. Porter mentioned the purpose of the B-4 Resort Commercial District is to provide for retail and commercial service facilities to serve the need for visitors in the existing resort areas and residents leading into or adjacent to such area It is not the intent to create additional B-4 districts or enlarge the limits of existing B-4 districts But, I'm sure you all know that and that is our biggest concern is allowing more housing to this for the contract buyer. There have been a number of comments about the architecture that is as an example. The architecture for the proposed project is not visually pleasing. It's not showing any commitment to the aesthetics aspirations of the Shore Drive Community. This was an email that I received For an excellent example of what an architectural pleasing vision of what the future Shore Drive could be like one only need to look at coastal waterworks where the renovated office building at the corner of Shore Drive and East Stratford Road. The structural features right now to the landscaping of these two beautiful renovated properties set a fine example of the architectural standards of the residents of Shore Drive as well as Virginia Beach community expects and deserves as the northern most gateway toward a fine resort, city and oceanfront. And, you said you were delouged with emails We did not deluge you with emails We could deluge you with paperwork too but we just want to keep the points fine. We don't want to come down here to discuss this. We love to work stuff out with Mr Bourdon and the developers up there so we don't waste everybody's time My point is there is no reason to go from B-2 to B-4. Simple. It's stated in Section 900. There has been a net loss of people moving out of Virginia Beach. This is right from the City and also the demand for land on the southern portion of the City may be at a loss to the population flight from urban to suburban areas which have larger lot sizes open space, which is related to another project that has been well documented in urban economic literature. The documentation is incredible Just to draw the line, leave it B-2. And, we'll be more than willing to work it out with the contract buyer to put a gorgeous commercial facility there with no housing. And, the Taco Bell can't be developed out there. It's not an acre But, I'm sure you knew that too. Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 9 Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Solanic? Robert Miller- Yes, I have one Mr Solanic, who else are you speaking for? Tim Solanic. Ocean Park Civic League. Robert Miller: Who else on this group of six people? Mr. Hook? Tim Solanic: No He's an individual. Robert Miller: You're not speaking for any of these other people? I thought he was speaking for other people. Tim Solanic We're just trying to follow all the rules. I personally apologize for having to be down here. Robert Miller: Next speaker is William Hook. Tim Solanic. Thank you. William Hook: Thank you for allowing me to speak ladies and gentlemen. Ronald Ripley: Nice to have you back. William Hook: It's nice to be back. I'm a member of the Ocean Park Civic League I think that everyone's aware of that. And, because of all the publicity that we've gotten through the media, through the McKlesky Property, I think that everyone is aware of the mood of Ocean Park when it comes to density. And, I feel honestly that this B-2 to B-4 is being taken way to lightly This B-4 zoning is a major change for the Corridor of Shore Drive. As a matter fact, the closest to it stops right around the bridge area, the B-4. And, then this suggested B-4 is way down in the center of our community It's also pointed toward Baylake Pines and Bayville Farms. I don't know if you could imagine the condo situation on the other side of the Lesner Bridge extending all the way through Baylake Pines and Bayville Farms and who knows where else once that line is broken. I greatly fear that will happen and I don't know how to express the importance that I feel over this issue right here. This may very well be the largest issue that's ever been discussed from my community And, I do feel insulted about only hearing about it two weeks ago when it has been planned for several months. I have to say the plan in secret. I do feel because of the importance of this if you can't deny it at least defer it so everyone that will be affected along Shore Drive has an opportunity for some input. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley Thank you Mr Hook Robert Miller The next speaker is Edwin Brody. Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Page 10 Edwin Brody: Good afternoon. I'm Edwin Brody. I represent Shore Line Properties. I own the four duplexes immediately to the north of this property Ronald Ripley: Can you point out the four. There's a pointer right there. Robert Miller There's a laser right there, the black box. Edwin Brody. Okay. Ronald Ripley: Push the button. Edwin Brody: This one, this one, this and this, lots 2, 3, 4 & 5. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Edwin Brody: My main objection to this is the design of the buildings being attached and being six residential units To me, it's essentially like building a 150 foot wall, 35 feet high behind my duplexes where as everything else in that area has been duplexes or single- family condos with space in between and this has absolutely no space in between there. There's a small space between the commercial section and the six dwelling units and the fact that the entire back of it is concrete. It also makes it a little bit unattractive from my duplexes And, that's my main concern not necessarily from the road but from where my property is Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much Edwin Brody: Thank you. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Todd Solomon Todd Solomon: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Solomon. I'm here representing the Shore Drive Community Coalition and I'll only take three minutes since I won't be representing anybody else back here. I won't use up that much time. The Shore Drive Community Coalition recently learned of this project via June 51h Shore Drive Advisory Committee Meeting, which was last Thursday. The short notice, the Shore Drive Community Coalition hasn't been able to take an official stand on this specific project We have a meeting at the end of the month. On June 30`h is our next general meeting where we could discuss this when we get a representative to demonstrate and show us what exactly is proposed However, the Shore Drive Community Coalition has pre - standing positions, which allow us recommend denial based on two major concerns. The first concern being an increase in density that violates the Shore Drive Community Coalition Charter to maintain quality of life along Shore Drive. The Shore Drive Community Coalition Charter was voted on by the general members at the groups inception back in the year 2001. The second point is the increased density for up zoning or change of character which conflicts with the ULI Study, which Mr. Bourdon Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Page 11 mentioned and three other city study recommendations. The first point, the Shore Drive Community Coalition bylaws require the organization to increase the quality of life along Shore Drive. Those changes in zoning to allow this construction of closed, packed multi- family dwelling will result in a reduction in the community's quality of life. We believe a change to B-4 is basically a request to increase density You're going from basically zero multi -family dwelling to the potential, in this case ten units on the Overlay district would be a potential for a B-4 on 55 acres. Will this continue on down Shore Drive to all the other B-2s? I guess that's up to you since there's nothing specific in any ordinances that would be stopping this. I guess it would basically be some type of spot zoning for potential B-2's along that property. I would like to read you a quick blurb from the ULI, which was referenced earlier. There are a number of fine communities along Shore Drive with a variety of character and density Many communities are made up of single-family homes and should be protected from the intrusion of high -density development. In the communities of Ocean Park where zoning allows the transition from single family to higher density units, the attention should be paid to the results of this intensification. The density of new development in this area should not overwhelm these two communities That is echoed also in the Shore Dnve Corridor Study, the Shore Drive Transportation Study and the Comprehensive Plan, which you here are definitely familiar with and responsible for. In conclusion, we'd like for you to take into account what may be done in the future on B-2 if this approved. It is basically if you go down on the eastern side of the Lesner Bridge, if you look at the inlet development which is see is kind of staggered but wall to wall, you're basically taking that and putting it on the western side of Lesner Bridge. So, basically it's a cancer that could be potentially moved to the western side of the bndge That's about it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Solomon. Anyone got a question? Dorothy Wood. Yes Mr. Solomon, I was really concerned to hear those speakers talk about and it seems to me that they're saying that this was done in secret. Mr. Scott and his staff really work hard to keep the community advised of everything. And, I know the signs were up before last Thursday Do you not drive by there and didn't see the orange signs" Todd Solomon. I see them. But they're put up what, two weeks in advance Dorothy Wood- I believe so. And, Mr Scott does work hard and I'm sure if anytime you see the sign to call his staff, they'll be glad to work with you. They certainly don't try to do anything in secret sir. Todd Solomon- And, I never said really that we did. What we would eventually like to see, which would be a similar standpoint to the north end, which I'm sure you're all familiar with where they have a civic group that the developers actually pursue and come to the community before they take it to Planning and those types of issues We are more than welcome and open to do that The Shore Drive Advisory Committee is kind of set up that way. But, as we know, I'm not sure all the publicity in it It's during the Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 12 afternoon and a lot of people can't get out Our meetings are at night. So, we'll be more than welcome to taking in and reviewing these documents prior to it even getting to the two week notice type of a point in which case it may already be on its way. And, prevent these issues popping up at the last minute. Dorothy Wood. Thank you. Ronald Ripley Mr. Miller Robert Miller You said you were at the Shore Drive Advisory? Todd Solomon. No I was not. I was working that day Robert Miller I'm sorry. I misunderstood I thought that is what you said Todd Solomon: That's when I heard about it. Robert Miller. Were there any representatives there from the community? Todd Solomon: Yes there were other people there from the community and that's how they relayed the information to me Robert Miller. So, they saw the presentation and the information on Thursday that was done by Mr Arnhold, I believe. Todd Solomon. Correct. And, that's where some of the issues were brought up to our attention. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Thank you Robert Miller The next speaker is Jack Bryan. Jack Bryan: Good afternoon. My name is Jack Bryan. Commissioners. I represent Baylake Pines Civic League. I sent you a letter this morning by email. I listed our reasons I don't want to repeat the letter I think it will take up time. I'd like for you to read it. I'd like to know that each one of you has read it before you vote on this issue. Our comments, besides that I'd like to speak to specifically. One of our comments is that it is too massive. Just to add little bit to that instead of using one word to describe it, the property looks like the town homes in Regency Apartments or Regency Square at Great Neck Road. That's their appearance to us The roof- line is not attractive Every face on the building looks the same on each individual unit. Breaking it up, nice architectural plan But, the appearance of it does not break it up enough The roof -line looks the same Each one looks identical Secondly, regarding the Urban Land Institute of zoning to B-4. You've already heard about that. But you haven't hard my side of it. This property previously was commercial on one end, which would be the eastern end and the Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Page 13 two lots beside it were residential The Urban Land Institute and other documents that the City, recommend down zoning in this area. If Lots, and I'm referring to them as 1, 2 & 3 in that order, if lots 1 & 2 were down zoned to an R and lot 3 three was continued to stay B-21, this man could achieve what he wants He may look like he wants to slip six pieces of property in there but I'm almost positive and I'm sure gentlemen that with some type of agreement he could probably slip eight in there if he did it that way. I'm not sure what residential zoning could achieve there but he could down zone in order to achieve his goal here I feel that the B-4 and other residents of Baylake Pines feel the B-4 is a Trojan horse. Once there's one B-4, there's another In this case, the property owner as proposed to the developer has other property in the area. If it doesn't adjoin it or if one of the gentlemen who already spoke decided to sell his property, I'm sure he would get a nice offer and, the next thing that I'm going to see in my neighborhood that I grew up in, although I live in Baylake Pines. I did grow up in Ocean Park. My mother lives two houses from here and my sister lives at the next block. I have a proxy for my sister. And speaking to this, you're going to see a Day's Inn there, Marriott Courtyard if you go to B- 4. And, that's my opinion. It's the opinion of others and the cree. We do not like B-4 cre6f, Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mr Miller. Robert Miller: You actually suggested that we look at a zoning of "R" and that he could get more units on there. Jack Bryan: I do not know that sir. I think all of you are more familiar with these. Robert Miller: I thought that's what you said. Jack Bryan: That's what I said? Robert Miller- Okay Jack Bryan And these first two properties are regarding my answer to that. These first two properties to the west end were previously "R". And, when I grew up they were residential houses There is a piece of property that's being done as rental right there. Maybe it was all B-2 at the time where it seemed convenient to do that. However, now, I suggest that those two parcels, which you see the lot lines in there for go to B-4. If the property owns all of that change the lot lines Get his two commercial ends at one end and get his "R" at the other end. Thank you. And, it can all look the same to you We don't like the same. Thank you. Ronald Ripley Thank you. Mr. Miller, no more speakers? Robert Miller: No sir Ronald Ripley- That's all the speakers. We have a rebuttal from the attorney9 Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 14 Tim Solanic: May I say one sentence to answer Ms. Wood comments about Planning Ronald Ripley: Please come on back up Tim Solanic: We do love working with Planning and they have kept us informed. When I emailed Faith Christie as an example she said, "while we do not like to encourage the applicants to try for variances and put the BZA in an awkward position due to the shape of the site, it may be necessary for variances for anything proposed for the site, which is not related to this." Also, "I generally like to send my applicants to the civic league and advisory committee before they go to the Commission but on this application we have been wrestling for months trying to find a middle ground that the applicant could live with and time just ran out. Hopefully he will be able to meet with you." But she admitted that they could not get with us. So, it's just a timing issue Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Before I rebut, I wanted Jim just to let you all know what he did personally as far as the notification and attempt to get the word out. Jim Arnhold: Thank you. I'm Jim Arnhold. I guess I want to put on the record that I've certainly gone as much as possible to make sure everyone knew every single phone number once Faith Christie as well as many people and staff have worked on this project since February. Most of what the Shore Drive Coalition as well as the civic league and Ocean Park and everything else, all of those were discussed. It's not that any of that was left out So all of these changes and all the things that we've done to modify this plan and it has gone through some significant modifications. As well as discussing what would happen on the piece of property in front of it As, well as making it very obviously that it was open to the public We talked about putting benches in there at our expense. Having that sidewalk meander through there where someone could stop. This is the front of the buildings as well as having the landscaping in front of it, which actually is much better than having some of the other properties that back straight up to it with the fence as well, and this is the front of the properties It looks like the front of it. I would dare say that if you asked the condominium that is backed up to the Hardee's where they think it's better life situation there with their condominiums then backed up to an office building that's only there during the day that looks like a residential building. I have put every single phone number. My mobile phone, my home phone, my office phone, my email and have responded to every email that's come on the Ocean Park Civic League and I think Tim will tell you that Tim's been very cordial in everything we've done. And, I appreciate that. I've offered to meet him anytime at any place either at my house or anyone's house. I've had no comments I went to the Shore Drive group meeting the other day at the recreation center and even though it was a pretty good showing no one really came up and voiced any opposition I didn't hear any opposition from any of the members that are there I enjoyed meeting with Dan Brockwell, one of the members on Friday to help at least get the input for what should happen on the front parcel that we're willing to do. I just want to get that on record. Thank you. Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 15 Eddie Bourdon: I'm going to be extremely brief. The chicken little, the sky is falling arguments that somehow by having a proffered rezoning application that only permits what exactly what you see. Not ten units, not anything that might happen someday in the future. Nothing can happen on this piece of property if this approved other than what you see without going through this entire process again The idea that there's going to be a Marriott or something like that, I'm dumbfounded. It can't possibly happen. The properties that adjoin this are developed with duplexes And, I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard Bill Hooks wife and Bill and everybody else that I've talked to at Ocean Park just complain about duplexes. So, now I'm hearing well we rather you put more duplexes out here. It just doesn't add up. It does not add up And, the idea that you need an acre to build a Taco Bell, that's another one that came out of left field. There's no such requirement anywhere in existence The idea that these folks who live in Mr. Brody's duplexes would rather be backed up to a Taco Bell, a Hardee's, anything of that nature versus these extremely attractive and no more dense by any stretch of the imagination when we're talking a total of six units buildings that are setback well off of his property lines. And, I don't know what he is talking about concrete. I'm not sure because we got pavers for our driveway. We got a nice buffer between his duplexes and our single-family town homes. And, we also got the huge landscaped area along Shore Drive, which will look like the Boulevard. Unlike the constant row of single-family condominiums that are eight feet off of Shore Drive to our west at Three Ships Landing with a fence behind it. I don't think there is any comparison in terms of the increase in quality. That was clearly done before there was an Overlay not to intend to knock that community in what it looks like but this does what the Overlay is attempting to get gone in that area. And, there is no other undeveloped property between Lesner Bridge and Baylake Pines along Shore Drive on the north side except this one Ronald Ripley: Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Very quickly Eddie, Mr. Bryan suggested that this be residential zoning and you could do the same thing. Would you please comment on that? Eddie Bourdon. I don't think there's anyway you could do this if it were zoned residential. You could put three duplexes on there if it was zoned residential. If it were not divided as it currently is and you have lots divided as the ones behind us are divided, which is similar size combined parcels. You got your continuance on it. But the way the property is divided, if it was zoned like what's behind it you could put three duplexes out there Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ronald Ripley: Are there other questions? Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon. It's the same number of units. Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Page 16 Ronald Ripley: Do you know what the prices would be for these properties that would be sold. Eddie Bourdon. The individual units in the six single-family residential condos would be $275-325 in price range. Ronald Ripley- Okay Eddie Bourdon: And, we'll gladly at the lady who's beautiful architectural building to the east of us has indicated that she would like to see brick all the way to the first floor level and as I said to you Mr. Chairman, we're very happy to do that. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Okay. Open it up for the Commissioner's discussion. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I think two things that really come to my mind. One is the notification and I'll just ask Bob and Stephen just to make sure and comment on that we do proper notification of these property owners and I know we do And, I'm sure that you all are responsive and as Tim said to emails to things like that and the questions from the community that they're seeing signs up and things. Is there anything else? We've changed that recently notification process. Is that right? Will you just speak to that for a second? Robert Scott: I want to add one additional thing to all the things that we've talked about. We encourage civic leagues to have a representative whether it's their president or someone else that can possible do this to keep in touch with us. Get your list on our mailing list Keep track of what's going on. It's a simple process. It comes up every month. And, we'll be happy to send you notification whenever you want them on what's coming and what's going on. Just make sure that someone is on your list And, I'm not saying this about Ocean Park but I do think others that well, I know you told representative of the civic league but he never dessiminated the information to anybody There's nothing I can do or anyone at City Hall can do about that At some point, folks got to run with their own ball. But, we are offering and we have a standing offer and we've done this for years. If there are interested people and Ocean Park is one of the most interested civic leagues around and they may already being doing this and I don't know. Get on our mailing list and see to it that we send you on a monthly basis by email or whatever other method you want an update on what's going on and what's pending and what's about to come up in a year. The other thing and I know that Faith Christie has done this. She's has been out ill for some time now but she worked on this application And, she and the other planners do encourage every applicant to go out and aggressively get in touch with the civic leagues out there so that they're not hearing from City Hall but from the applicant themselves what's going on. It's a wonderful opportunity to start talking to one another Most of and I think you know this too I shouldn't say most. A great deal of the concern that groups have when they come to meetings like this is that theyjust don't have all the information. Once they hear the information sometimes they Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Page 17 are still concerned but other times they say, "oh, okay, now that I understand " It starts the understanding process going. And, so there are three things that need to take place. The City staff has got to aggressively go out and notify people of what's going on through the established process and I think we do that. Number two The applicants have got to out there and tell people what they're up to and what they have planned and to talk to the folks that are affected by it. And, I think they do those things. And number three, the civic leagues are the effected people themselves have got to aggressively seek information and they got to make sure they have representatives they trust to disseminate information to the rest of their affected membership. And, I think by they do that. But if all three of those processes work as well as they can work everyone is going to have a good dose of communication. Robert Miller: I appreciate that and I think you answered exactly what I expect. And, I think that is what the staff does. The second thing that I have and make it more for Stephen is a question and the reason why we're looking at B-4 with Conditional Use Permit proffered zoning is because that is the only place that this particular type of use could have been put it. It could not have done this in an "A" district or an "R' district or you would have chosen those and even with PDH Overlay we couldn't have done that? So, if you would just address that please. Stephen White We had considered initially when we came into this project a PDH application. But, as you can tell the site has only 20 something thousand square feet and we felt that was too small to be doing PDH. The only other possibility to do a unique project like this that we think is what the Shore Drive studies and ULI Studies call for is B-4. Plus B-4 does allow a mix use. That is why you have an application for B-4 before with a Conditional Use Permit. There are other ways to do it. You can split the zoning and you could have some "A" and some B-2 or some 0-2 but that requires even more variances than what you got before you. Robert Miller: Yeah That's your professional opinion then and Faith and so forth that this is the best way to do this as a Conditional Use and a proffered zoning. So, that's where we're absolutely stopping. If the Use doesn't materialize, if the conditions aren't met, if the proffers are not met, then this does not go forward. It stays at B-2. Stephen White: That's the advantage you have over the proffered rezoning. This is what you're going to get. It can't open up to all of the other multiple uses that you can do in B- 4 so you're protected And the Corridor in fact is protected in that regard. Robert Miller Thank you. Ronald Ripley Any other comments? Dorothy Wood- I think the man from Connecticut wanted to speak and I'll sponsor him Ronald Ripley Do you want to hear him now? Item #8 & 9 Horne Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 18 Dorothy Wood. He's had his hand raised Ronald Ripley: Please, come on up. Yes. Barry Porter: I'd like to be known as the man from Virginia. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: We only need new information. Barry Porter: Okay. My new information is in regards to Mr. Scott's remarks. I own two pieces of property in Three Ships Landing. I only got one certified letter for the one property I know five other property owners who did not get certified letters. Okay. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Yes, Kay has a comment. Kay Wilson Mr. Ripley, I just wanted to clarify. Mr. Miller, I believe misspoke. He said that it stayed B-2. If this plan passes, it will stay B-4. The only thing that could happen will be the proffered plan. I think you just misspoke. You meant B-4. But I just wanted to clarify that Robert Miller: With the conditions and the proffers, all those that have to be fulfilled. Kay Wilson: That is all that can happen. Robert Miller: Right. Kay Wilson: Unless they go back to Council Ronald Ripley. I want to make a couple of comments too. The Ocean Park Civic League is extremely active. They're always at the Shore Drive Advisory Committee meetings. They participate in that and Kathy and I attend there on behalf of the Commission and Bob Scott is there, Clay Bernick from the staff is there and a lot of times, Mr. Jones as well as Jim Wood, he's President And there's an opportunity there. I know that Bob always gives an update on things that are pending so we try to communicate as much as we can with the community. This particular one may be just what we talked about here And, there were some concern about it coming up and maybe not having the information they needed. I need to state that there's probably more communication going on with that particular civic league then anybody in the City, not withstanding the north end. I'm sure they're plugged in pretty good too When I looked at this application and I thought about other types of zoning that could be there, mixed uses is a new method that's definitely coming to the City. The only really mix use ordinance we have at the moment I think is the B-4. Is that correct Bob? More less? Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Page 19 Robert Scott: Yeah. Maybe we can pin the blame where the blame belongs here Our zoning ordinance is not in keeping with the ideas that we got on other developments. And, it's not the people using the zoning ordinance The zoning ordinance itself needs to be fixed a little bit. Ronald Ripley And, that's something that we're all working on. And, it's not just ready to come forth but with the proffers and the conditions that were set forth, that's where the check and balance is to the public. So, I don't see, to me we're looking at B-2 and in think in terms of other uses, particularly setbacks. You could pull the setback up and of course you have a residential zone between the commercial zoned What would be backyard setback? Could you go to the zoning map? R5-R and the B-2, could it be built to the property line on the B-2 or could we bring it within five feet, ten feet or what? Stephen White. They do require to put buffer in there between the B-2 and residential. Ronald Ripley: Okay I see it as a transition And, also I look at the trip counts on the B-2, which is the trip counts, which are proposed in here. It's a lot less I see the impact of traffic as a plus not as a minus. And, I also see the development of a park on City land between this property as a further transition between the right-of-way and what the public sees back to the neighborhood as opposed to being commercial I think after weighing everything, I think it makes sense what is being proposed. And, I'm going to support this I think I would like to see the applicant have the option to add a full brick to the first floor subject to working out the elevation with Mr. Scott and his staff that would be satisfactory to them. And, I like to see that added as part of the conditions. That's all that I have. Anybody else have some comments? Joe Strange. Joseph Strange- Yes I don't think the opposition has made their case to me that B-2 zoning which is already there and any type of establishment, automobile service station I just don't see how this B-4 is not going to be better than that for them as far as the aesthetics are concerned. In fact, when we tried to develop these communities around there where they do have multi uses, more of an urban type atmosphere I think the B-4 zoning is basically a better zone than the B-2 That's my opinion. Ronald Ripley- Thank you Joe. Are there any other comments? Dot Wood. Dorothy Wood. I'm going to support it because I think that Mr Arnhold has done a wonderful job in making it a very attractive subdivision and I was concerned about people not feeling that they heard from the City but the City does work. And Mr. Scott does work hard to make sure all people are notified. The website Mr Scott, if people see something on the website could they not call you? Robert Scott: Yeah Certainly the internet is a great communication tool but it's not the only one available The telephone is dependable too. Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 20 Dorothy Wood. Thank you. Robert Scott: We assign a planner, a specific planner to every one of these projects. And that planner is available to answer the questions that effected people in the neighborhood may have or interested folks anywhere in the City may have about the application. And, that planner is also assigned the responsibility of working through the whole project with the applicant itself And, it's part of that planner's job to get involved in this communication process and by telephone or whatever. And, I know because I see what they do everyday. They're very active. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. I will be supporting. Stephen White: Ms. Wood, if I could. Since, as Bob mentioned, we're also on the air for the public's benefit. I found it unfortunate for this gentleman had some kind of an error when he accessed our website that says, "staff use only." That should never occur. If it does, it's my hope that someone from the public will call the Planning Department or contact the webmaster to find out why that error is occurring. Dorothy Wood: Thanks. Ronald Ripley: I see a couple of other hands out and we really are in the latter stages of our discussion. Does the Planning Commissioners have the desire to hear anybody else? Donald Horsley: I'd just like to make a comment. I see hands coming up and I know thoughts are coming to your mind but you're going to have the opportunity. There will be a recommendation to Council and you'll have the opportunity to get your ducks in a row again and try to make your case before Council so it's just a recommendation But, I would also like to add that I've been around along time and I know that the Planning staff goes out of its way to notify people and the gentleman that is now from Virginia, I won't mention Connecticut is now from Virginia. I imagine if you go back and check, maybe the property is not adjacent to this very particular problem. That's the reason why you didn't get a certified. If its not adjacent, you will not get a certified letter but I see a lot of protection with the B-4 zoning with the proffers and I think the neighborhood really and when you really get down to think about it is going to end up and maybe not now but later on they were right If we left this thing B-2 would, could have had a lot of things added It wouldn't be as attractive as what we go. So with that, I'm going to say that I plan to support the motion also Ronald Ripley: Gene Eugene Crabtree I think I recall reading the notice in the Beacon about this meeting and the things that were going to be on this meeting and I've been trying to think back and it seems like to me I read it in the Beacon the following week after we had our last meeting. So, that was some time ago that this did come out And, I think that the change to this zone to B-4 is in line with the multi use that we are aiming toward and moving toward Item #8 & 9 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 21 within the City of Virginia Beach. And, therefore I think it is an overall improvement to the Shore Drive Corridor. And, therefore, I will be supporting it Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Does anybody wish to make a motion? Eugene Crabtree: I'd move that we approve this application with these conditions and proffers as stated. Dorothy Wood: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion by Gene Crabtree and a second by Dot Wood. Could we add this condition given the applicant the option to add brick to the first floor subject to working out acceptable elevations with staff? Would you accept that? Eugene Crabtree. Yes. Ronald Ripley: Maker of the motion accepted that and the second did also, so any other discussion on the motion? Robert Miller: Just a point of clanfication that we're voting on items #8 & 9 together? Ronald Ripley: That's correct. Then we're ready to call for the question AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance Section 217 MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 IN Background: An Ordinance to amend Section 217 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to civil penalties for violations of the sign regulations. ■ Considerations: The General Assembly in HB 1888 increased the amount of civil penalty allowed for second and subsequent zoning sign violations from $150.00 to $250.00, and increased the cumulative penalty from $3,000.00 to $5,000 00 This amendment will accomplish these increases. Staff recommended approval There was no opposition ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Ag ncy: Planning Departmen ':�I" City Manager: " " CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 June 11, 2003 Background: The General Assembly in HB 1888 increased the amount of civil penalty allowed for second and subsequent zoning sign violations from $150 00 to $250 00, and increased the cumulative penalty from $3,000 00 to $5,000 00 This amendment will accomplish these increases Proposed Amendments: An ordinance to amend Section 217 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to civil penalties for violations of the sign regulations Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of the amendment Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 11 Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO CIVIL PENALTIES FOR ZONING SIGN VIOLATIONS SECTION AMENDED: CZO § 217 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 217 of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 217. Civil penalties. (a) Any person who constructs, places, erects or displays a sign in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars ( $100. 00 ) for the initial summons and not more than one two hundred and fifty dollars }- ($250.00) for each additional summons. The assessment of a civil penalty shall not preclude the institution of a civil action by the zoning administrator pursuant to section 103(a) of this ordinance, but no such violation shall, unless it results in injury to any person, be prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor. (c) Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. However, specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts shall not 26 be charged more frequently than once in any ten-day period, and a 27 series of specified violations arising from the same operative set 28 of facts shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total 29 of three five thousand dollars ($5, 000. 00) . 30 31 COMMENT 32 The General Assembly in HB 1888 increased the amount of civil penalty allowed for second 33 and subsequent zoning sign violations from $150.00 to $250.00, and increased the cumulative penalty 34 from $3,000.00 to $5,000.00. This amendment will accomplish these increases. 35 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 36 Virginia, on this day of , 2003. 37 38 CA-8861 39 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/czo0217ord.wpd 40 R1 41 April 25, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: U" 4 jr-Z-03 Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL S FICr-IENCY - V %.00 Department of Law E Item # 11 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend Section 217 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining To civil penalties for violations of the sign regulations June I L 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #11 This is the City of Virginia Beach I'm going to the next three items because they are all the City of Virginia Beach Item # 11 is the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend Section 217 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to civil penalties for violations of the sign regulations. Item #12 is the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend Section 10 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to penalties for violations of the subdivision regulations. Item # 13 is the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend Section 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to abandoned non -conforming signs. Mr. Scott, will you please comment on those three items? Robert Scott: Certainly. All three of them come to you because State law has changed and we want to bring our local codes in line with State law. Regarding number 11, it has to do with civil penalties. And we just want to make sure that the amounts set out in our local code correspond with the amounts that are set out in the State law. Dorothy Wood. Mr Ripley, I would move to approve number 11, Mr Scott mentioned that to the City of Virginia Beach Ronald Ripley: Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr Gene Crabtree to approve these items on the consent. AYE 10 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. ABSENT 4 �J r w�Y CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance Section 10.1 MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend Section 10.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to penalties for violations of the subdivision regulations ■ Considerations: The General Assembly clarified in HB 1805 that violations of the Subdivision Regulations are not only punishable by a fine, but that the violation must be corrected This amendment will add the compliance provisions. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request IN Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/A ency: Planning Department City Manager: U� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / j#D12 June 11, 2003 Background: The General Assembly clarified in HB 1805 that violations of the Subdivision Regulations are not only punishable by a fine, but that the violation must be corrected. This amendment will add the compliance provisions. Proposed Amendments: An ordinance to amend Section 10.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to penalties for violations of the subdivision regulations Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 12 Page 1 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION 2 REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PENALTIES 3 SECTION AMENDED: § 10.1 4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 5 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 6 That Section 10.1 of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby 7 amended and reordained to read as follows: 8 Sec. 10.1. Penalties. 9 Any v±olat person violating any of the provisions of this 10 ordinance shall be pnn±shab±e b subject to a fine of not more than 11 five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each lot or parcel of land 12 subdivided, transferred or sold without compliance with the terms 13 hereof and shall be required to comply with all provisions of the 14 Subdivision Regulations.; e7rd t-The description of such lot or 15 parcel by metes and bounds in the instrument of transfer or other 16 document used in the process of selling or transferring shall not 17 exempt the transaction from such penalties or from other lawful 18 remedies. 19 COMMENT 20 The General Assembly clarified in HE 1805 that violations of the Subdivision Regulations are 21 not only punishable by a fine, but that the violation must be corrected. This amendment will add the 22 compliance provisions. 23 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 24 Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-8862 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/subregl0.1ord.wpd R1 - April 25, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: AP ROVED AS TO L GAL SUFFICIENCY: Planning epartment Law Departmen Item # 12 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend Section 10 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining To penalties for violations of the subdivision regulations June I L 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: Item #12 is the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend Section 10 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to penalties for violations of the subdivision regulations. Robert Scott: Regarding number 12, penalties for violations in the subdivision regulations. In addition to assessing a penalty for violating the regulations, this section actually sets out that if you mess something up you actually have to fix it and that lines up with State law as has been recently amended. Dorothy Wood: I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda. Number 12, Mr. Scott mentioned that to the City of Virginia Beach. Ronald Ripley: Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr. Gene Crabtree to approve this item on the consent. AYE 10 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. ABSENT 1 ABSENT {max ,sr w y y,�Ji CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance Section 215 MEETING DATE: July 1, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend Section 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to abandoned non -conforming signs ■ Considerations: The General Assembly clarified the term "abandoned" sign in HB 2473 and SB 820 during the last legislative session. This amendment will modify the definition of "abandoned" sign so that it mirrors the revised Virginia Code definition Staff recommended approval There was no opposition ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: ,''Z. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 13 June 11, 2003 Background: The General Assembly clarified the term "abandoned" sign in HB 2473 and SB 820 during the last legislative session This amendment will modify the definition of "abandoned" sign so that it mirrors the revised Virginia Code definition Proposed Amendments: An ordinance to amend Section 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to abandoned non -conforming signs. Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of the amendment Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 13 Pagel 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING 2 ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO NONCOMFORMING SIGNS 3 SECTION AMENDED: CZO § 215 4 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare 5 and good zoning practice so require; 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 7 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 8 That Section 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby 9 amended and reordained to read as follows: 10 Sec. 215. Nonconforming signs. 11 (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 105(f) of this 12 ordinance, no nonconforming sign shall be structurally altered, 13 enlarged, moved or replaced, whether voluntarily or by reason of 14 involuntary damage to or destruction of such sign, unless such sign 15 is brought into compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. 16 No nonconforming sign shall be repaired at a cost in excess of 17 fifty (50) percent of its original cost unless such sign is caused 18 to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Any nonconforming 19 sign which is not maintained continuously in good repair, and any 20 nonconforming sign which is abandoned 21 shall be removed. For purposes of this section, a sign shall be 22 deemed to be abandoned if 23 the business for 24 which the sign was erected has not been in operation for a period 25 of at least two ( 2 ) years. 26 . . . . 27 28 The General Assembly clarified the term "abandoned" sign in HB 2473 and SB 820 during the 29 last legislative session. This amendment will modify the definition of "abandoned" sign so that it 30 mirrors the revised Virginia Code definition. 31 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 32 Virginia, on this day of , 2003. 33 34 CA-8863 35 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/czo0215ord.wpd 36 R1 37 April 25, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: 5'Z -a Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department of Law 2 Item # 13 City of Virginia Beach An ordinance to amend Section 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining To abandoned non -conforming signs June 11, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood Item number 13 is the City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to amend Section 215 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to abandoned non -conforming signs. Robert Scott: Number 13, State law navigates us a little bit more latitude, a little bit more leeway in dealing with non -conforming signs and their removal. And we would like to take advantage of that. So accordingly, we give you number 13, which again, lines up with our local code with what State law provides. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda, number 13, Mr. Scott mentioned that to the City of Virginia Beach. Ronald Ripley: Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr. Gene Crabtree to approve this item on the consent. AYE 10 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE" STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 Ronald Ripley. By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. ABSENT 1 ABSENT L APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT Iry a 9,p�s O F OUR NNIN . 19 r amatt n0 Whereas: The City recognizes the ultimate sacrifice that one of our finest has given in the line of duty and service to the community; and Whereas: Yfe gave his Cfe as a Virginia Beach police officer to protect and to serve his fellow man since August 2, 1999; and W iereas. Yfe willingly helped to make Virginia Beach a safe city through devoted service in the (Fourth Brecinct and then as a member of the Department's Special Operations Selective Enforcement unit; and Wiereas. Ife recognized the value of fife and Liberty and cherished not only the force he served -with but the family he lovers; and Wiereas: Yfe leaves behind a legacy, and his memory -wdl five on in the hearts and minds of his wfe, Maria his nine -month -old son Carson the men and women of the Virginia Beach police force and a!C whose lives he inspired; and W iereas. The City desires to remember his valor, courage and dedication. Now, gierefore, I,-Weyera E. 06erndorf, Wayor of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia do here6y ftoclaim: ,dune 30, 2003 A (Day o Remembrancefor Rodney E. Pocceschi In Virginia Beach, I call upon all citizens to remember this unseo%h act of bravery and leadership that has taken one of our own and to whom we pay tribute and will not forget. In 10tness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Off coil Seal of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to be affixed this ghirtieth day of,7une, Two Thousand 'Three. A,O*. C . �Vleyera E. Oberndorf .Mayor