No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 13, 2004 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF At-Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES, Baystde -Dtstrtct 4 HAP, RYE DIEZ, EL Kempsvtlle -Dtstrtct 2 MARGARET L EURE, Centervdle -Dtstrtct 1 REBA S McCLANAN, Rose Hall -Dtstrtct 3 RICHARD A MADDOX Beach -Dtstrtct 6 JIM REEVE, Prmcess Anne -Dtstrtct 7 PETER IV SCHMIDT At-Large RON A VILLANUEVA At-Large ROSEMARY WILSOI*; At-Large JAJ4ES L WOOD, Lynnhaven -Dtstrtct 5 JAMES K SPORE, Cttv Manager : LESLIE L LILLEK ctty Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMCA Czty Clerk II ! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA i o~ OUR #~ 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 42z-45o3 FAX (757) 426-5669 E MAIL Ctycncl~vbgov corn January 13, 2004 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room 1:00 P.M. Ao WORKFORCE PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT Fagan Stackhouse, D~rector, Department of Human Resources Bo BUDGET WORKSHOP PROCESS -CHANGES Catheryn Wlutesell, Director, Department of Management Services Il. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room 3:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber 6'00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: C. Reverend Thomas H Bntton Pastor, Retired 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 January 6, 2004 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA ORDINANCES / RESOLUTION Ordinance to AMEND § 12-43 of the C~ty Code re the enforcement of the V~rg~ma statew~de Fire Prevention Code provisions regarding the overcrowding of certain spaces, floors and buildings Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $17,991 in the Francis Land House Board of Governors Trust Fund to the Museums FY 2003-2004 operating budget re a donation to the Francis Land House Museum Foundation. o Resolution to request the Commonwealth of Vlrg~ma and the Federal Government refrmn from passing under-funded and unfunded mandates on local governments; and, requesting Congress and the General Assembly review existing programs and reduce egregious reqmrements placed on local governments and school boards. PLANNING 1. Apphcatlons of SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA: (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) ao Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Stumpy Lake Lane west of Harris Creek Court Change of Zomng D~strict Classlficat~on from R-lO Reszdenttal Dtstrzct to R-SD Reszdentzal Duplex Dzsmct at (1) Indian Pdver Road and West Stumpy Lake Lane (2) South side of Stumpy Lake Lane Recommendation: APPROVAL . Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdiv~slon Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the reqmrements of the C~ty Zomng Ordinance (CZO) for MARY E. FULCHER, to subdlv~de the property ~nto four (4) single family dwelhngs at 4116 Duncarmon Lane (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: DENIAL o Apphcations of SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) at 1989 Jake Sears Road: (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) ao Change of Zomng Dlsmct Classification from R-5D and R-7 5 Restdenttal Dtstrzcts and B-2 Community Business Dtsmct to 1-2 Heavy Industrzal Dzstrtct b. Cond~tlonal Use Permit for solid waste management Recommendation: APPROVAL o Apphcatlon of HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE for a Con&tlonal Use Permit for child care at Foundry United Methodist Church at 2801 V~rg~nla Beach Boulevard and Foundry Lane (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Recommendation. APPROVAL . Ordinance to AMEND § 905 of the Cxty Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re signs in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business District. Recommendation. APPROVAL K APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS- Plumbing/Mechanical CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD COMMUNITY POLICY and MANAGEMENT TEAM - CSA AT=RISK YOUTH COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD - CSB FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA- SEVAMP TDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -VBCDC L UNFINISHED BUSINESS M NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED- December 2003 N. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assmtance at tins meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call TDD only 4274305 (TDD - Telephomc Device for the Deaf) Agenda 01 / 13/04sb www vbgov corn I I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room 1:00 P.M mo WORKFORCE PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT Fagan Stackhouse, D~rector, Department of Human Resources Bo BUDGET WORKSHOP PROCESS - CHANGES Catheryn Wh~tesell, D~rector, Department of Management Services II REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room 3:00 P.M A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION ! V FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber 6:00 P M. A CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Thomas H. Britton Pastor, Retired C PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS January 6, 2004 G AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I I CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virgima Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3 712 of the Code of V~rgima 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 Counc~l 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 d~scussed in Closed Session to which tlus certification resolution applies, and, (b) only such pubhc business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council ORDINANCES / RESOLUTION Ordinance to AMEND § 12-43 of the City Code re the enforcement of the Virg~ma statewlde Fire Prevention Code provisions regarding the overcrowding of certain spaces, floors and buildings . Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $17,991 ~n the Francis Land House Board of Governors Trust Fund to the Museums FY 2003-2004 operating budget re a donation to the Francis Land House Museum Foundation. o Resolution to request the Commonwealth of V~rgima and the Federal Government refrain from passing under-funded and unfunded mandates on local governments; and, requesting Congress and the General Assembly review existing programs and reduce egregious reqmrements placed on local governments and school boards. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM I II I I I I ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Section 12-43 Pertaining to the Enforcement of Fire Code Provisions Regarding the Overcrowding of Certain Spaces, Floors and Buildings MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 Background: Effective October 1,2003, Virginia adopted the ICC International Fire Code 2000 with certain amendments thereto. The previous F~re Code (BOCA National Fire Prevention Code 1996)included requirements concerning, among other things, overcrowding and operator responsibility for compliance with occupant load requirements. However, while the new Code retains the provisions restricting occupant loads, it does not contain any provisions for enforcement of those restncbons. The City does, however, have the authority to adopt more stringent requirements than are in the new Code. Considerations: In order for the City to effectively regulate overcrowding and operator responsibility, it ~s necessary to adopt the City Code provisions set forth in the attached ordinance. The proposed ordinance (1) makes it unlawful for the operator of a building to permit overcrowding or other hazardous conditions within the building and (2) requires the operator to check egress facilities to ensure their compliance with the Fire Code. Public Information: To be advertised in the same manner as other items on Council's agenda. Alternatives: There is no reasonable alternative to adopting the proposed ordinance. Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adoption of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department~~-~ ~t~~ City Manage~ 1~- · <~Z~t. F X~)ataX3.TY~Ordm~qONCODE\l 2-43arf wpd AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 12-43 PERTAINING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF FIRE CODE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE OVERCROWDING OF CERTAIN SPACES, FLOORS AND BUILDINGS SECTION AMENDED' § 12-43 9 Sec. 12-43. Amenc~nents. 10 11 (a) As authorized by Code of Virginia, section 27-97, 12 the following provisions of the Virginia Statewide Fire 13 Prevention Code are hereby adopted and amended. 14 (b) Section F-403.1 is hereby amended to read as 15 follows: 16 Section F-403.1. Open Burning: Open burning shall be 17 conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations set 18 forth by the department of environmental quality (air 19 division), the department of forestry, and sections 12-3 20 through 12-5 of this chapter. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Section 1003.2.2.5 is hereby amended to include: (1) Section 1003.2.2.5.1. Overcrowding: It shall be unlawful for any person to permit overcrowding or admittance of any person beyond the approved occupant load. The code official, upon finding overcrowded conditions or obstruction in aisles, passageways or other means of egress, or.upon finding any condition which constitutes a hazard to life and safety, 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 shall cause the occupancy, performance, presentation, spectacle or entertainment to be stopped until such a condition or obstruction is corrected and the addition of any further occupants prohibited until the approved occupant load is reestablished. (2) Section 1003.2.2.5.2. Operator responsi- bility: The operator or the person responsible for the operation of an assembly or educational occupancy shall check eqress facilities before such buildinq is occupied to determine compliance with this section. If such inspection reveals that any element of the required means of egress cannot be aqcessed, is obstructed, locked, fastened or otherwise unsuited for immediate utilization, admittance to the buildinq shall not be permitted until necessary corrective action has been completed. COMMENT The amendment adds important provisions concerning overcrowding and an operator's 52 responsibility to control overcrowding that were left out of the ICC International Fire Code 5 3 2000, which Virginia adopted as the Statewide Fire Prevention Code on October 1, 2003. 54 55 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virgznia Beach, 56 Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9081 Ordin/Proposed/12-43ord.doc R3 December 29, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Fire Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney"s ~Dffice ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM An Ordinance to Appropriate $17, 991 of the Fund Balance of the Francis Land House Board of Governors Trust Fund to Provide for a Donation to the Francis Land Historical Museum Foundation MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 Background: The Francis Land House Board of Governors ~s a Council-appointed citizen body that adwses the Francis Land House staff on goals, pohcy, programs and exhibits. The Board of Governors also supports the programs, exhibits and activities of the inst~tubon through sohcitations of cash donations from corporations, civic organizations and individuals, which are currently maintained by the City of V~rginia Beach in the Franc~s Land House Board of Governors Trust Fund. There is a current balance of $17,990 76 of unappropriated monies in the Trust Fund The Board has created the Francis Land Historical Museum Foundation as a 501(c)3 non-profit orgamzabon for the purpose of facilitabng fund ra,sing activities. Considerations: The Francis Land House Board of Governors requests an appropriation of the fund balance in the Trust Fund Appropriated funds will be donated to the newly established Foundation and used to support the Foundation's fund raising events and activities. Public Information: Information will be process. disseminated to the public through the normal agenda Recommendations: Adoption of attached ordinance · Attachments' Ordinance Recommended Action' Adoption Submitting Department//~genc~y: Department of Museums F \DataV~,ty\Ordln\~de\Franc~sLandarf doc 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 AN ORDINANCE TO D~PPROPRIATE $17,991 OF FUND BALANCE IN THE FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS TRUST FUND TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MUSED/~S FY 2003-2004 OPERATING BUDGET FOR A DONATION TO THE FRANCIS LA/TD HOUSE MUSEUMFOUNDATION WHEREAS, the Francis Land House Board of Governors is 12 a Council-appointed citizen body that solicits cash donations 13 from corporations, civic organizations, and individuals; 14 WHEREAS, these funds are maintained by the City of 15 Virginia Beach in the Francis Land House Board of Governors 16 Trust Fund; and 17 WHEREAS, members of the Francis Land House Board of 18 Governors have created the Francis Land Historical Museum 19 Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, to facilitate 20 fund raising activities that will benefit the Francis Land 21 House. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 23 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 That $17,991 of the Fund Balance in the Francis Land 25 House Board of Governors Trust Fund is hereby appropriated to 26 the Department of Museums' FY 2003-2004 Operating Budget for the 27 purpose of providing a donation to the Francis Land Historical 28 Museum Foundation. 29 3O Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 31 Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9083 ORDIN\NONCODEkFranclsLandord. doc R2 December 22, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorn~fs Of{i/ce ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM A Resolution Requesting that the Commonwealth and the Federal Government Refrain From Passing Under-Funded and Unfunded Mandates on Local Governments MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 · Background: The City Council and the School Board created a joint task force, the Unfunded Mandates Task Force, to study unfunded and under-funded mandates and to make recommendations for addressing such mandates. Unfunded and under- funded mandates often impose egregious requirements on local governments and school boards without prov~dmng the funding necessary to comply with the programs' requirements. For example, the cost to comply with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act are likely to exceed, by a factor of 20 to 30 times, the amount of funding prowded by the federal government for the program At the)r most recent meeting, the task force concluded that the C~ty Council should request that Congress and the Virginia General Assembly discontinue passing unfunded and under-funded mandates and also that the legmslatures rewew exisbng mandates, such as the "No Ch)Id Left Behind" and specmal education programs. · Considerations: The resolution requests that Congress and the General Assembly refrain from passing additional unfunded or under-funded mandates on local governments and school boards, and ~t requests that Congress and the General Assembly review exisbng programs to reduce the requirements imposed by such mandates. · Public Information: The resolution will be advertised as a normal agenda item. · Attachments: Resolution. Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Councmlmembers Wilson & Villanueva City Manager: F:\Data~ty\Ord[n\Noncode\Mandates Agenda doc Requested by Councilmembers Wilson and Villanueva 1 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH 2 AND THE FEDERAJ~ GOVERNMENT REFRAIN FROM PASSING 3 UNDER-FUNDED AND UNFUNDED MANDATES ON LOCAL 4 GOVERNMENTS § WHEREAS, both the Commonwealth and the Federal Government have, for a number of 6 years, adopted legislation creating required activities, performance standards, and other measures 7 that require tremendous outlays of dollars from local governments and school boards; 8 WHEREAS, many of these programs and requirements are insufficiently funded, or not 9 funded at all, by the federal or state governments; l0 WHEREAS, these programs have come to be known as unfunded or under-funded 11 mandates; 12 WHEREAS, such unfunded or under-funded mandates include the recent federal "No 13 Child Left Beband" program for schools, special education programs, mmnstreamlng programs ~n 14 the public school system, and various standards for local schools concerning guidance 15 counselors, nurses, and maximum class s~ze; and 16 WHEREAS, local governments are compelled to comply with such unfunded or under- ~ 7 funded mandates, because lack of compliance generally will result in a loss of state or federal ~ 8 funding; ~9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 20 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 21 1. That the City Council hereby requests the Umted States Congress and the Virgima 22 General Assembly refrain from passing additional unfunded or under-funded mandates on local 23 governments and school boards; and 24 2. That the C~ty Council requests that Congress and the General Assembly review 25 ex~st~ng programs, such as those mentioned above, and reduce the egregious requirements placed 2{3 on local governments and school boards by these mandates. 27 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on day of 28 ,2004. CA-9089 Ordin/Noncode/mandates Resolution.doc R-1 January 6, 2003 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: C~ty Attorney's office i i i i i i i Jo PLANNING 1. Apphcat~ons of SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA: (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Dlscont~nuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Stumpy Lake Lane west of Harris Creek Court Change of Zomng D~stnct Classfficat~on from R-10 Reszdentzal Dzstrtct to R-5D Reszdentzal Duplex Dzstrtct at (1) Indian Paver Road and West Stumpy Lake Lane (2) South s~de of Stumpy Lake Lane . Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Or&nance that reqmres all newly created lots meet all the reqmrements of the City Zomng Ordinance (CZO) for MARY E. FULCHER, to subdivide the property ~nto four (4) s~ngle family dwellings at 4116 Duncannon Lane (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) . Apphcat~ons of SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) at 1989 Jake Sears Road: (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) ao Change of Zomng D~strict Classfficat~on from R-5D and R-7 5 Reszdentzal Dtstrtcts and B-2 Communtty Business Dtstrtct to 1-2 Heavy Industrtal Dtstrtct b. Conditional Use Permit for solid waste management o Apphcat~on of HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE for a Conditional Use Permit for child care at Foundry Umted Methodist Church at 2801 Virgima Beach Boulevard and Foundry Lane (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) . Ordinance to AMEND § 905 of the City Zomng Ordinance (CZO) re signs ~n the B-3A Pembroke Central Bus~ness D~stnct. i i i i i i i i i i i i THE BEACON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2003 SUNDAY, JANUARY 4, 2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING V~rglnla Beach City Council will meet ~n the Chamber at C~ty Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 6 O0 p m The following apphcat~ons will be heard DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Harbour Tugboats Day Care Apphcat~on Conditional Use Perm~ for ch;~d care at 2801 Vtrgm~a Beach Boulevard DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers ~n regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance, SubdNislon for Mary E Fulcher at 4116 Duncannon Lane DISTRICT 1- CENTERVILLE 3. Sudhakar J Lawngla & Geeta S Lavlngla Application Change. of ~on- ~ng D~str~ct Classification from R-lO Residential to R-SD Residential Duplex at the southeast Intersection of Indian River Road and West Stumpy Lake Lane The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this site for residential uses at or below'3 5 dwelling units per acre 4. Sudhakar J Lavlngla & Geeta S Lavmgla Application ChanP. e of Zon- ing District Classification from R-lO Residential to R-5D Residential Duplex on the south side of Stumpy Lake Lane The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of th~s site for residential uses at or below 3 5 dwelling units per acre 5. Sudhakar J Lavmgla Application D~scontmuance, closure and aban- donment of a port,on of Stumpy Lake Lane 6. Southeastem Public Service Authority Application Change of Zoning D~strlct Cla~s~flcat~o.n from R-5D and R-7 5 Residential and 13-2 Com- munity Business to I-2 Heavy Industnal at 1989 Jake Sears Road The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this site for a variety of employment uses including business parks, offices, appropriately located mdustnal and employment support uses 7. Southeastern Public Service Authority Application Conditional Use Permit for a solid waste management facility at 1989 Jake Sears Road AMENDMENT 8. Ordinance to amend Section 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertain- mg to signs in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business D~stnct Al! interested parties are invited to attend Ruth Hodges Smith. MMCA City Clerk BEACON DECEMBER 28, 2003 and JANUARY 4, 2004 10964927 NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING V~rgmla Beach City Council will meet m the Chamber at City Hall Mumc~pal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, TuesOay, January 13. 2004. at 6 O0 p m The following apphcat~ons well be heard DISTRICT 6- BEACH Harbour Tugboats Day Care Apphcat~on Cond~tsonal Use Permst for child care at 2801 V~rgmla Beach Boulevard DISTRICT $ - LYNNHAVEN 2. Appeal to DSClSIOflS of Administrative Off,cars in regard to certain ale ments of the Subdw~s~on Ordinance, Subd~ws~on for Man~ E Fulcher at 4116 Duncannon Lane DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVlLLE 3. Sudhakar J Lav~ng~a & Geeta S Lavlngla Application ~ in~ District Classlflcat~o.n from R-lO Residential to R-SD Residential Duplex at the southeast ~ntersect~on of indian River Road and West Stumpy Lake Lane The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of thcs srte for res~lent~al uses at or below 3 5 dwelhng un,ts per acre 4. Sudhakar J Lawng~a & Geeta S Lavmgla Application Change of Zon- ~ng DiStrK:t Classdlc, al;ion from R 10 Resldenbal to R-SD Reslc~ent~at Duplex on the south s~de of Stumpy Lake Lane The Comprehenswe Plan recommends use of th~s srte for reslclent~al uses at or below 3 5 dwelhng umts per acre 5. Sudhakar J Lawn$1a Apphcatton D~scontmuance, closure and aban donment of a port,on of Stumpy Lake Lane 6. Southeastern Publ~ Service Authonty Apphcat~on Chan~.e of Zompg Dis~nct Class~_flcatlo. n from R 50 and R-7 5 Residential and B-2 Com- munity Business to F2 Heavy Industnal at 1989 Jake Sears Road The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of th~s srte for a varmty of employment uses including business parks, offices, appropriately located industrial and employment support uses 7. Southeastern Pubhc Service Authonty Apphcat~on Condltjonal Use Permit for a sohd waste management facd~ty at 1989 Jake Sears Road AMENDMENT 8. Ordinance to amend Section 905 of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance pert, am mg to signs ~n tl~e B 3A Pembroke Central Business D~str~ct All ~nterested part,es are invited to atten(~ Ruth Hodges Smith, MMCA (,ltv Clerk BEACON DECEMBER 28 2003 a~d JANUAR'~ 4, 2004 ~0964927 Supplemental informahon % Zonin_~ Historv Map E-11 Map Not. ':o Scale Sudhaker Lavin PD-H2 (P-I) Street Closure DATE I REQUEST I ACTION I 06/11/02 2 O2/25/85 02/26/91 3 07/09/90 Rezoning from R-10 to PDH2(R-10) Rezoning from R-5 to PDH2 (R-10) Reconsideration of Cond~hons Rezomng from PDH2 to PDH2 (P-l) Granted Granted Granted Granted SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 6 I I iii ii i ii i i ii ii ii i ii I I I I I I I IIII .-. ,,~- ...- .z,j, '",..¼,~.~? CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ~ I I III I I I I II I I I ITEM: Sudhaker J. Lavingia - Street Closure (portion of Stumpy Lake Lane) MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 [] Background: Applicabon of Sudhakar J. Lav~ng~a for the disconbnuance, closure and abandonment of a porbon of Stumpy Lake Lane beginning at a point 103 08 feet west of Harris Creek Court and running ~n a westerly d~recbon a distance of 137.46 feet DISTRICT I - CENTERVILLE Considerations: The applicant ~s requesbng closure of the cul-de-sac porbon of Stumpy Lake Lane The roadway has existed as a narrow, substandard roadway that ended approximately 300 feet west of the cul-de-sac proposed for closure. When the surrounding Glenwood Planned Community was developed dunng the 1980's, additional right-of-way was dedicated to create a 50 foot w~de standard neighborhood street w~th a cul-de-sac. Stumpy Lake Lane was not ~mproved to C~ty standard as planned by the developer of Glenwood. The neighborhood to the east was subsequently developed as a separate project and new right-of-way was dedicated to extend Stumpy Lake Lane to Round H~II Drive The port~on of Stumpy Lake Lane east of the subject s~te is developed to C~ty standard for a neighborhood street. The apphcant has purchased several undeveloped properties along Stumpy Lake Lane and is now proposing to ~mprove Stumpy Lake Lane to its western terminus w~th Indian River Road to serve the new res~denbal lots that are being developed. The new ~mproved roadway wdl funcbon as a through road and the cul-de-sac will not be necessary Construcbon plans for the new roadway show that the new roadway w~ll connect to the existing roadway east of this s~te These construction plans are currently under rewew by the Development Services Center As part of the construcbon plans, the Departments of Public Works and Public Utilities will be entering ~nto a Cost Part~c~pabon Agr(~ement w~th the apphcant to complete the roadway. The C~ty does not have a need for th~s cul-de-sac portion of right-of-way The ~mprovements to Stumpy Lake Lane proposed by the applicant w, II help to complete the roadway network in th~s area as originally planned w~th the excepbon of the cul-de-sac. The Staff concludes the el~minabon of the cul-de- sac and the creation of a through street ~s an improvement to the original roadway plan. The Planning Commission placed th~s ~tem on the consent agenda recommended approval. There was no opposlbon. Staff · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a mobon by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following cond~bons The City Attorney's Office wdl make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee The purchase price to be pa~d to the C~ty shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of C~ty's Interest ~n Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Councd. Cop~es of the pohcy are available ~n the Planning Department. In addlbon, cons~derabon may be g~ven to cred~bng the purchase price to the C~ty's share of cost based on the Cost Parbc~pat~on Agreement for the ~mprovements to Stumpy Lake Lane. The apphcant ~s required to resubd~vide the property and vacate ~nternal lot lines to incorporate the closed area ~nto the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant ~s required to verify that no private ubhties ex~st w~thin the right-of-way proposed for closure. Prehminary comments from the ublity companies ~nd~cate that there are no private utihbes w~th~n the right-of-way proposed for closure If private ubhties do ex~st, easements sabsfactory to the ublity company, must be prowded 4 Closure of the right-of-way shall be conbngent upon comphance w~th the above stated condibons within 365 days of approval by C~ty Council If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat ~s not approved w~th~n one year of the C~ty Council vote to close the right-of-way th~s approval shall be considered null and void. · Attachments: Locabon Map Ordinance Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department Planning Commission recommends Map E-Ii PO-H2 (P-I) GL Sudhaker Lavin Street Closure NOTE: The history of zon)ng activity ~n the )mmed)ate area of th)s request ~s prov)ded )n the staff report. ,"'~;~';> E11-000-STC-2003 · .¢ -,~, SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA '~~,~' Agenda Item # 6 ...,.., December 10, 2003 Pubhc Heanng Staff Planner. Barbara Duke The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, /nformat/on, and professional land use recommendations to the Planmng Commission and the C/ty Council to assist them /n making a decision regarding th/s apphcat/on. , . ,'~; '. ~ ~ .~, Location and General Information REQUEST: Street Closure for a porbon of Stumpy Lake Lane LOCATION: Property ~s located 103 feet west of Harris Creek Court on the south s~de of Stumpy Lake Lane Sudhaker ], 3osure COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SIZE. 1 - CENTERVILLE 4,131 square feet SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN AS STUMPY LAKE LANE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING A PORTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED ADJACENT TO PROPERTY OF SUDHAKER J. LAVINGIA & GEETA S. LAVINGIA (INSTR. #200307160109052) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA": WHEREAS, Sudhaker J. Lavingia and Geeta S. Lavingia applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: SECTION I That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: GPIN: 1474-48-0397, 1474-48-5525 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "PORTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED" and further described as "AREA OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED - 4,131 SQUARE FEET/0.095 ACRE" shown as the cross-hatched area on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING A PORTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED ADJACENT TO PROPERTY OF SUDHAKER J. LAVINGIA & GEETA S. LAVINGIA (INSTR. #200307160109052) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", Scale: 1" -- 30', dated July 29, 2003, prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION II The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Department. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within one year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void. SECTION III 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before January 12, 2005, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 2. If all conditions are met on or before January 12, 2005, the date of final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are approved by the City Attorney' s Office. SECTION IV A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and SUDHAKER J. LAVINGIA and GEETA S. LAVINGIA as "Grantee." of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this __ ,20 day CA-9023 December 29, 2003 F:~Data\ATY~Forms\Street Closure\WORKING\CA9023.ORD doc "V~lS~ni~ D~partment APPROVED AS TO .LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney II I I' I II IIIII I I II I I I I I II I NoTEs: 1. THE MERIDIAN SOURCE OF THIS PLAT .IS BASED ON THE VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH ZONE, NAD 198.3/86. COORDINATE VALUES SHOWN ARE EXPRESSED IN INTERNATIONAL FEET (ONE FOOT EQUALS 0.5048 METE:ES/. 2. PORTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED: 3. AREA OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED = 4131 SQUARE FEET/O~095 ACRE. 4... THIS PLAT IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW ANY EASEMENTS OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT MAY AFFECT THIS PROPERTY. 5. ·THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION OF LAND, I-- 6. THIS PLAT PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. ! _~/ ~'::~ NOW OR FORMERLY . .~_~/ ,~/' ~ SUDHAKER J. LAVINGIA LOT 1,39 &: GEETA S. LAVINGIA c~/ CPIN 14.74..-48-4...782 (D.B. 4152, P. 1793) GPIN 1474..-48-3602 OLD...,,, / 10.24'~ ' ' ' 'I~, STUMPY LAKE N .68"25'09" E STUMPY LAKE LANE (5o' R/W) g/b.~ (6o') did N 68'25'09" E N .:3,44..8,524.801 N 5,4..4.8,575.559 659.4.8' // E 12,174,329.505 E 12,174,457.326 % /--N 68"26'41" E -- /' . .... ,,,,. ..... ,,, / / ..,.- .,..- ,/,//-..,., / ....,' ..... . & GRETA S. LAVtNGIA / I ~-' (INSTR. #200307160109052) / m i,nlwSlON BENTLEY GATE AT I . GLENWOOD SOUTH PHASE 2, PART A (M.B. 225, P. 86-89) EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING A PORTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED ADJACENT TO ' PROPERTY OF SUDHAKER J. LAVlNGIA & GEETA (INSTR. #200307160109052) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"=30' JULY 29, 2003 JOHN E. SIRINE AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. SURVEYORS ENGINEERS PLANNERS 4317 BONNEY ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 234..52 0 30 60 90 S. LAVINGIA 120 FEET EXI]IBIT A REVISED: 10/16/03 GRAPHIC SCALE SHEET 1 OF 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: North. South East. West' · S~ngle-famdy homes / PD-H2 (R-10) Planned Development · Single-family homes / PD-H2 (R-10) Planned Development · Smgle-famdy homes / R-10 Res~denbal D~stnct · Vacant property / PD-H2 (R-10) Res~denbal D~strict The site ~s wooded. The portion of Stumpy Lake Lane proposed for closure ~s not developed. Stumpy Lake Lane west of th~s s~te exists as a narrow, substandard roadway w~th ditches East of th~s s~te, Stumpy Lake Lane has been developed as a standard neighborhood street The site ~s in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Summary The apphcant ~s requesting closure of the cul-de-sac port~on of Stumpy Lake Lane. The roadway had existed as a narrow, substandard roadway that ended approximately 300 feet west of the cul-de-sac proposed for closure When the surrounding Glenwood Planned Community was developed dunng the 1980's, additional right-of-way was dedicated to create a 50 foot wide standard neighborhood street with a cul-de-sac. Stumpy Lake Lane was not ~mproved to City standard as planned by the developer of Glenwood The neighborhood to the east was subsequently developed as a separate project and new right-of-way was dedicated to extend Stumpy Lake Lane to Round Dr~ve. The portion of Stumpy Lake Lane east of the subject s~te ~s developed to C~ty standard for a neighborhood street. The applicant has purchased several undeveloped properbes along Stumpy Lake Lane and ~s now proposing to ~mprove Stumpy Lake Lane to ~ts western terminus w~th Indian R~ver Road to serve the new residential lots that are being developed. The new ~mproved roadway w~ll funcbon as a through road and the cul-de-sac will not be necessary. Construction plans for the new roadway show that the new roadway w~ll connect to the exIsting roadway east of th~s s~te These construcbon plans are currently under rewew by the Development Serwces Center. As part of the construcbon plans, the Departments of Pubhc Works and Pubhc Ublibes w~ll be ent_enng ~nto a Cost Part~cipabon Agreement w~th the applicant to complete the roadway. SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 2 ~mID .~LAI UtJir. b NOT CONST'TUTE A SUBDIV~S:ON OF LAND THIS PLAT PREPARED VqTHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT N 68'25'09" E NOW OR ¢'ORMERLY SUDHAKER J LAVINGtA & GEETA S LAVlNGtA (DB 4152, P 179.3) GPIN 1474-48-3602 N 68'25'09" E OL~ PIN '~ 24'-----~~ STUMPY(5o,LAKE LANE ~-~, R/W) m/~3o (60') (ua 73, P 38) .~l,o.L:' 89i N 3.448,575 359 ~ ~-E g ZW~'m ,~o, LOT 139 GP1N 147~-48-4782 S~MPY LAKE ~ LANE 659 4.8' // E 12,'74.529 505 E 12,17,,t,457 326 \ ; mN 68'26'41" E A ~ N, 68'25'09" E 137 4-6' ~L A / - 103 08' -v ,,,_ ¼0 ;,.",.. - , /. // -' /=- t; ' ~z~ , PROPERTY ~ TO ~E VAC~ I i ~ " SU~AKE~" :*V~A ~ I ~ ~ GEETA S LA~NGIA ~ I ~ (INSTR f200307160109052) / SUBDI~SION ~ ~ BEN%EY GA~ AT I . GLENWOOD SOUTH PHASE 2, PART A (M B 225, P 86-89) EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING A POR'~ON OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED ADJACENT TO PROPERTY OF SUDHAKER J. LAVINGIA &: GEETA S. LAV1NG1A 0NSTR #200307160109052) VIRGINIA BEACH, VlRGINIA SCALE' 1"=30' JULY 29, 2003 JOHN E. SIRINE AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. _ SURVEYOC~S ENGINEERS PLANNERS 4317 BONNEY ROAD VIRCdNIA RFACH VIDP..INIA O'~.m'~ Plat of Area of Closure SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 3 ....... - .;, Major Issues The roi~owing represent the sign/f/cant issues identified by the staff concerning this request Staff's eva/uat/on of the request/s/arge/y based on the degree to which these issues are adequate/y addressed Current and/or future need for the right-of-way The proposed development for the property ~s in conformance w~th the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes th~s area as a stable residential community plan further states that for those areas ~n the Kempsv~lle Planning Area yet to be developed, we must establish and adhere to h~gh standards of appearance and funcbon The The Viewers Committee and Planmng Staff recommend approval of this request Staff's evaluation of th~s request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' ~denbfled at the beginning of th~s report. The proposars strengths ~n addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The City does not have a need for this cul-de-sac port~on of right-of-way The ~mprovements to Stumpy Lake Lane proposed by the applicant will help to complete the roadway network ~n th~s area as originally planned with the SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 4 exception of the cul-de-sac The Staff concludes the el~m~nabon of the cul-de- sac and the creabon of a through street ~s an ~mprovement to the original roadway plan (2) The development of the vacant properties along th~s roadway ~nto s~ngle-famdy residenbal lots ~s tn conformance w~th the Comprehensive Plan Staff, therefore, recommends approval of th~s request. Conditions . The C~ty Attorney's Office w~ll make the final determ~nabon regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be pa~d to the C~ty shall be determined according to the "Pohcy Regarding Purchase of C~ty's Interest ~n Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by C~ty Council Cop~es of the policy are available ~n the Planning Department In add~bon, cons~derabon may be g~ven to cred~bng the purchase price to the C~ty's share of cost based on the Cost Participation Agreement for the ~mprovements to Stumpy Lake Lane The applicant is required to resubd~v~de the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoIning parcels The plat must be submitted and approved for recordabon prior to final street closure approval. The apphcant ~s required to verify that no private ut~hbes ex~st within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Prehm~nary comments from the utdity companies ~nd~cate that there are no private ut~hbes w~th~n the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private ut~l~bes do ex~st, easements satisfactory to the ubhty company, must be provided. Closure of the right-of-way shall be conbngent upon compliance with the above stated condibons w~thm 365 days of approval by C~ty Council If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat ~s not approved w~th~n one year of the C~ty Council vote to close the right-of-way th~s approval shall be considered null and void NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the ~ administration of applicable C, it~/ Ordinan, ces. I SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 5 Public A ency Com,rnents Pub#c Works There are no exisbng drainage or other public ~mprovements ~n the area proposed for closure Public Utilities Water I There are no water lines ~n the area proposed for closure L Sewer,- I There are no sewer I~nes ~n the area proposed for closure Private Utility Comments Preliminary comments from V~rginia Natural Gas, Dominion Virginia Power and Hampton Roads Sanitation D~stnct reveal there are no private ublibes w~thm the area proposed for closure. SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 7 Exhibits ::',. Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 8 ,,m~ r'LAI L)U~.b NU1 CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION OF LAND ~-3::: '"' ~tS PLAT PREPARED WITHOUT ~E BENEFIT O~ A ~TLE REPORT / ~ ~<~ ~ / ~ / NOW OR FORMERLY ~ -~ SUDHAKER J LAVtNG!A LOT 139 ~ GEETA S LAVINGtA ~/ GPIN 1474-48-4782 (DB 4152, P 1793) 9PIN 1474-48-3602 10 ~ LANE LAKE LANE S~MP~5o' ~/w) gl (~o') (MB 73. P 38) 68'25'09" E N 3,448,524 831 N 3.4&8,575 359 659 48' / E t2,17z,329 505 E :2'74 457 328 kc ; N 68"26'41" E = 2a aT' ~/Y,:,, ,' , ,' ,~ I LOT 138 I PRetTY OF To ~ VAOA~D ] SUDHAKER J LA%qNGIA / & GEETA S LA'~NGIA / / (INS~ ¢200307160109052) J m BENTLEY GATE AT GLENWOOD SOUTH PHASE 2, PART A (M.B 225. P 86-89) EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING A PORTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO BE CLOSED ADJACENT TO PROPERTY OF SUDHAKER J. LAVINGIA & GEETA S. LAVlNGIA (INSTR #200307160109052) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SCALE I*=30' JULY 29, 2003 JOHN E. SIRINE AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. SURVEYORS ENGINEERS PLANNERS 4317 BONNE¥ ROAD VIRGINIA RFA¢I.-I vll~C.l'kl~, o'~,t~o Exhibit E Survey of Area t< be Close¢ SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Item # 6 Page 9 -Z APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, bus~ness, or other unincorporated organization, complete the follow~ng. 1 L~st the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc below (Attach list ~f necessary) Sudhaker J. Lav~ngma & Geeta S. Lav~ng~a, husband and w~fe 2 L~st all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affd~ated bus~ness entity2 relabonship w~th the applicant (Attach list ~f necessary) Check here ~f the applicant ~s NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organizabon PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only ¢f property owner ~s d¢fferent from appflcant If the property owner ~s a corporabon, partnership, firm, bus~ness, or other unincorporated organ~zabon, complete the following I List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below (Attach hst ¢fnecessary) 2. L~st all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated bus~ness enbty2 relabonship w~th the applicant (Attach list ¢f necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organ~zabon I & 2 See next page for footnotes Street Closure Apphcabon Page 13 of 14 Rewsed 10/1/2003 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES L~st all known contractors or businesses that have or w~ll provide services with respect to the requested property use, ~ncludmg but not hmited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services (Attach i~st if necessary) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern& Levy, P.C. John E. S~rzne & Assoczates ~ "Parent-subsidiary relabonship" means "a relabonship that exists when one corporabon directly or ~nd~rectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation" See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va Code § 2 2-3101 2 "Affiliated business enbty relabonsh~p" means "a relabonsh~p, other than parent-subsidiary relabonsh~p, that exists when (0 one business enbty has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (~0 a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the bus,ness ent~bes. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship ~nclude that the same person or substanbally the same person own or manage the two ent~bes, there are common or commmgled funds or assets, the busmess enbbes share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share acbwties, resources or personnel on a regular bas~s, or there is otherwise a close working relabonsh~p between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va Code § 2 2-3101 CERTIFICATION: I certify that the reformation contained herein ~s true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of not~flcabon (postcard) that the appl~cabon has been scheduled for public heanng, I am responsible for obta~mng and postmg the required s~gn on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled pubhc heanng accord~r~ to the instructians/~. ~- ,~n tla~s package.. ~c~¢~_~,~__~ .,~ ~¢',~q~C~ , // Geeta S. Lavlngza Ap~cant's S~gnature ~ Pnnt Name Property Owner's S~gnature (~f different than applicant) Pnnt Name Street Closure Apphcabon Page 14 of 14 Rewsed 10/1/2003 Item #6 Sudhaker J. Lavmgla Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Stumpy Lake Lane District 1 Centervllle December 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood. The next item is Item #6 Sudhaker Lavlngla. Sorry, Mr. Bourdon It's an application for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Stumpy Lake Lane with four conditions This is in the Centervllle District Mr. Bourdon, have you read the conditions sir? Eddie Bourdon Thank you and I have. He is in agreement with the four conditions Dorothy Wood Thank you. Is there any opposition to Mr Lavlngla's appllcanon for a closure~ Heanng none, Barry would you please tell us about tlus one? Barry Knight: This is also a request for a street closure. This is for a portion of Stumpy Lake Lane The applicant is requesting closure of the cul-de-sac portion of Stumpy Lake Lane. When the surrounding Glen Wood Planned Community was developed ~n the 80's, additional right-of-way was dedicated to create 50-foot wide standard neighborhood street with a cul-de-sac. Stumpy Lake Lane was not ~mproved to the c~ty standard as planned by the developer of Glen Wood The neighborhood to the east was substantially developed as a separate project and new right-of-way was dedicated to extend Stumpy Lake Lane to Round Hill Drive. The portion of Stumpy Lake Lane east of the subject site is developed to city standard for a neighborhood street. We have two streets here as seen on the project there. The cul-de-sac portion when it is all developed and the streets are connected together this need for this httle cul-de-sac area won't be needed so we're recommending approval on the consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. I would move to approve Item #6 with four conditions. Ronald Pdpley: Okay. That's the motion to approve the item so cited. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kathy Katslas. Is there any discussion? Heanng none, we'll call for the question AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE Item #6 Sudhaker J Lav~ngxa Page 2 KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Pdpley: By a vote to 11-0, the motion carries. Supplemental Information Map E-11 M~p N~t ~c Se~!e Sudhakar & 'x,R-10 \ PD-H2 ~ STUMPY LAKE~ Condfoonal Zoning from R-10 to Condft~ona[ RS-D Zonin_q History Geeta Lavin ' DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 12/10/02 07/06/93 06/11/02 02/25/85 02/26/91 07/O9/90 11/14/88 Rezonlng from R-10 to PDH2(R-10) Subdivision Variance Rezomng from R-10 to PDH2(R-10) Rezonlng from R-5 to PDH2 (R-10) Reconslderabon of Conditions Rezomng from PDH2 to PDH2 (P-l) Conditional Use Permit (church) Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM I II ITEM: Sukhakar J. Lavingia & Geeta S. Lavingia - Change of Zoning District Classifications (R-10 Residential District to Conditional R-5D Residential Duplex District) MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Sudhakar J. Lav~ng~a & Geeta S Lavlngla for a Change of Zon~nq District Classification from R-10 Residenbal D~str~ct to Cond~bonal R-5D Residenbal Duplex D,str~ct on property located at the southeast ,ntersectlon of Indian River Road and West Stumpy Lake Lane (GPIN 14741794550000). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this site for residential uses at or below 3 5 dwelhng un~ts per acre. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE An Ordinance upon Application of Sudhakar J Lawng~a & Geeta S Lavingia for a Change of Zon~nq District Class~flcabon from R-10 Res~denbal Distnct to Condibonal R-5D Res~denbal Duplex D~stnct on property located on the south side of Stumpy Lake Lane, approximately 1250 feet east of Indian R~ver Road (GPIN 1474275741 ). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of th~s s~te for res~denbal uses at or below 3.5 dwelhng units per acre. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE Considerations: The applicant ~s proposing to subd~wde the two subject parcels ~nto 36 single- family residenbal lots. The lots range in s~ze between 6,200 square feet and 13,081 square feet. The layout and lot sizes shown on the proposed plan are similar to the surrounding Glenwood neighborhood, where m,n~mum lot s~zes are 6,000 square feet. The applicant wdl be w~denmg and reconstructing Stumpy Lake Lane to C~ty standards and w~ll be building four cul-de-sacs off of Stumpy Lake Lane to access some of the home lots The proposed relocabon of Indian River Road b~sects the s~te The plan shows an adequate reservabon area for th~s new roadway The plan has been designed with larger lots platted next to the planned roadway and shows a landscape buffer to be planted along the new alignment There will also be some open space prowded at the ends of Stumpy Lake Lane to separate th~s residential collector from the planned Indian R~ver Road corridor No access to the new roadway from Stumpy Lake Lane ~s proposed w~th th~s plan. The 17 lots on the west side of the new roadway w~ll have access to ex~sbng Indian R~ver Road. The 19 lots on the east s~de of the new roadway w~ll have access through the Glenwood neighborhood. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the requests Recommendations' The Planning Commission passed a mobon by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request, as proffered Attachments: Locabon Map Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Recommended Action' Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manager: ~~~.~ ~ .~ ~ Map E-II ~ Not t~ Sca~e Sudhakar & R-lO \, \ PO-H2" STUMPY LAKE ~ rr Geeta Lavin PO-H2 oR-lO ~ ~ (P-I) 0 Conditional Zomng from R-lO to Conditional RS-D NOTE' The history of zoning activity in the immediate area of this request is provided in the staff report E11-210-CRZ-2003 AND GEETA LAVINGIA enda Items 14 & 15 December 10, 2003 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke The following report /s prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, /nformat/on, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commmsion and the City Council to assist them /n making a dec/s/on regarding th/s application Location and General Information REQUEST: 14 15. LOCATION' 14. 15 Change of Zoning D~stnct Class~flcabon from R-10 Res~denbal D~strict to Cond~bonal R-5D Residenbal Duplex District Change of Zoning D~stnct Class~flcabon from R-10 Residential D~strict to Conditional R-5D Residential Duplex District Southeast mtersecbon of Indian River Road and West Stumpy Lake Lane South side of Stumpy Lake Lane, approximately 1250 feet east of Indian R~ver Road GPIN: 14741794550000 and 14742757410000 _ SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 1 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: APPLICATION HISTORY: I -- CENTERVILLE 9 76 acres The property ~s wooded and there are two ex~sting res~denbal structures. The property fronts on Stumpy Lake Lane, which ~s a substandard, narrow roadway w~th d~tches. North South: East. West · S~ngle-family homes / PDH2 (R-10) Planned Development · Church and s~ngle-fam~ly homes / R-10 Res~denbal and PDH2 (R-10) Planned Development · Neighborhood park / PDH2 (R-10) Planned Development · Indian R~ver Road The s~te is heawly wooded. The s,te ,s ~n an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana These requests were deferred at the November 12 heanng to allow bme to address outstanding issues The apphcant ~s proposing to subdivide the two subject parcels ,nto 36 single-famdy residential lots The lots range ~n s~ze between 6,200 square feet and 13,081 square feet. The layout and lot s~zes shown on the proposed plan are s~milar to the surrounding Glenwood neighborhood, where minimum lot s~zes are 6,000 square feet. The apphcant w~ll be w~denmg and reconstrucbng Stumpy Lake Lane to c~ty standards and will be building four cul-de-sacs off of Stumpy Lake Lane to access some of the home lots The proposed relocation of Indian River Road b~se6ts the sIte The plan shows an adequate reservabon area for th~s new roadway The plan has been SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 2 designed w~th larger lots platted next to the planned roadway and shows a landscape buffer to be planted along the new alignment There wdl also be some open space prowded at the ends of Stumpy Lake Lane to separate th~s res~denbal collector from the planned Indian R~ver Road corridor No access to the new roadway from Stumpy Lake Lane ~s proposed w~th th~s plan. The 17 lots on the west s~de of the new roadway w~ll have access to ex~sbng Indian River Road. The 19 lots on the east s~de of the new roadway w~ll have access through the Glenwood neighborhood. ¢ | .,~ . .i| ! I .1~ i i 1 Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concermng this request Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these /ssues are adequately addressed. · Degree to which the proposal meets the recommendabons and policies of the Comprehensive Plan · Degree to which the proposal ~s compatible w~th the surrounding area i! SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 3 The Comprehensive Plan recognizes th~s area as a stable res~denbal community. The plan further states that for those areas in the Kempsville planning area yet to be developed, we must establish and adhere to h~gh standards of appearance and function. Proffers The following are proffers submitted by the apphcant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent w~th Secbon 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers ~n an attempt to "offset ~dent~fled problems to the extent that the proposed rezon~ng ~s acceptable," (§107(h)(1)) Should th~s appl~cabon be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the C~rcuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with th~s change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 When the Property ~s developed, ~t shall be developed as no more than thirty-six (36) single famdy residenbal building lots substanbally in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "LAND USE PLAN FOR SUDHAKAR J LAVINGIA," dated January 9, 2003, prepared by John E. S~nne and Associates, Ltd, which has been exhibited to the V~rg~n~a Beach C~ty Council and is on file w~th the V~rgin~a Beach Department of Planning ("Lot Plan") PROFFER # 2 All residenbal dwelhngs constructed on the Property shall have a m~n~mum of 2200 square feet of enclosed hwng area. PROFFER # 3 When the Property ~s subdivided, the Grantors agree to participate w~th the Grantee in the cost of construcbng that section of Stumpy lake Lane east of the Property to ~ts SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 4 PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation of Proffers: ~ntersection with Archdale Drive, ~nclud~ng the intersecbon w~th Archdale Drive. Further cond~bons may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of apphcable C~ty Codes by all cognizant C~ty agencies and departments to meet all applicable C~ty Code requirements. The proposed proffers address the major land use issues described above In add~tzon, proffer #3 ensures that Stumpy Lake Lane to the east of the s¢te w~fl be ~mproved to city standards to prowde access to th¢s s~te from the Glenwood neighborhood and not from proposed Indian R~ver Road relocated City Attorney's Office: The C~ty Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated May 25, 2003, and found ~t to be legally sufficient and ~n acceptable legal form. · ---- .:- ............ Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluabon of th~s request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' ~denbfled at the beginning of th~s report The proposal's strengths ~n addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The density of the proposed project ~s 3 6 umts per acre and is m keeping with the Comprehensive Plan density recommendations for th~s area. (2) The proffered plan shows that the subd~ws~on wdl contain s~ngle-fam~ly homes on lots that are 6,000 square feet or greater The unit type and layout are compabble w~th the surrounding Glenwood neighborhood Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 5 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,,Cod, es., SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGI,~ Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 6 Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportabon Plan (MTP) Indian R~ver Road ~n the v~c~nity of th~s application ~s currently a two lane undivided m~nor suburban roadway. The fac~hty ~s designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 120 foot right of way, d~wded by a median, w~th access control and a scenic easement. There ~s a current project in the Capital Improvement Program (Indian R~ver Road - Phase VII ) to improve th~s facility to a 147 foot w~dth to provide for construcbon of a four lane d~wded arterial h~ghway from Lynnhaven Parkway to Elbow Road Extended, a d~stance of approximately 2 2 miles Traffic Calculations Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex~sbng Land Use z Indian R~ver - 300 Road 9,000 15,000 Proposed Land Use 3_ 372 · Average Da~ly Tnps 2 as defined by R-10 res~denbal 3 as defined by proposal I Water Public Utilities I C~ty water does not front th~s property. Sewer C~ty sewer does not front this property The developer wdl be responsible for extending public water and sewer to the property to serve the new res~denbal lots Public Schools School Current Capacity Generation ~ Change 2 Enrollment _ Newcastle 718 810 5 2 SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda "Items 14 & 15 Page 8 Elementary Salem M~ddle SchoOl 1297 1460 3 1 'Salem H~gh School 1991 1996 2 1 ' "generabon" represents the number of students that the development wdl add to the school under the proposed zoning 2 "change" represents the d~fference between generated students under the ex~stmg zoning and under the proposed zoning The number can be pos~bve (addfbonal students) or negabve (fewer students) Public Safety Police The apphcant is encouraged to contact and work w~th the Crime Prevention Office w~th~n the Pohce Department for crime prevenbon techniques and Cr~me Prevenbon Through Enwronmental Design (CPTED)concepts and strategies as they pertain to th~s s~te IF~re and Rescue: F~re requirements w~ll be addressed dunng detailed subd~ws~on review SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda-items 14 & 15 Page 9 Exhibits '. 3: Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location SUDHAKAR AND GEEq-A LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 10 Exhibit Proposed Sit Pla~ SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 &.15 Page 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Exhibit C Disclosure Statement Z APPLICANT DISCLOSURE if the applicant is a corporat,3n, partnership, firm, business, or other umncorporated orgamzabon, complete the following' 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below' (Attach list ¢f necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subs~dtary~ or affiliated business entity2 relabonship with the apphcant: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other umncorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this secbon only if property owner is drfferent from applicant If the property owner ts a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. L~st the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc below. (Attach bst if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business enbty2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here rf the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & 2 See next page for footnotes Cond{tx)na] P~ezonmg Apphc~bc,~ Page 12 of '3 Revrsed 10.' 1,'2003 SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 12 DISCLOSURE STATEM ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not hm~ted to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services' (Attach list if necessary) S'~KES, BOURDO~, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. JOHN g. SIRINE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. : "Parent-submdlary relationship" means "a relabonshlp that exmts when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation" See State and Local Government Conflmt of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entry relationship" means "a relabonship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner m one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there ~s shared management or control between the business entities Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two enMies; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business ent~tles share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwme share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there ~s otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Confl~ct of Interests Act, Va Code § 2 2-3101. ICERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, ! am responsible for obtaining and posting the required s~gn on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according tq th/? mstr~.c'tion.~ in this package. 2&ppl',Cant s S;~jnatu~'~ .... L/ Pnnt Name Property Owner's Signature (if different lhan applicant) Print Name Exhibit C Disclosure Statement Z SUDHAKAR AND GEETA LAVINGIA Agenda Items 14 & 15 Page 13 Items #14 & 15 Sudhakar J Lavlngla & Geeta S. Lavlngla Change of Zoning District Classification (2) Southeast intersection of Indian Pdver Road and West Stumpy Lake Lane District 1 Centervllle December 10, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Items #14 & 15 Sudhakar J. Lavlngla & Geeta S Lavlng~a Eddie Bourdon: For the record Mr. Chairman, my name IS Eddie Bourdon, a Vlrg~ma Beach attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Lavmg~a. This apphcatlon was very well reviewed this mormng in the informal so I will try to be brief The property is actually two pieces that is the subject of this application To give you another view, Mr Lavlngsa along with a couple of other individuals have over the last 4-5 years have been assembling these properties along Stumpy Lake Lane Tins is the existing Indian Raver Road easterly all the way up to where we saw the street closure tins morning. Most of these properties, those along the north side of Stumpy Lake Lane are already a part of the PD-H2 for Glenwood. These properties are not about a year ago we rezoned some properties to the east along that section that we dealt with this morning with the street closure PD-H2 one side was and one side wasn't so that it would all be developed in accordance with the same similar lots sizes in almost every case a little larger lot sizes than those that are adjoining us in the Glenwood We have a consistent form of development. This particular application unlike the one that was approved about a year ago, we are doing it as an R-5 as opposed PD-H2 dealing with basically who gets the money for the park site in lieu of because there is a ton of open space in Glenwood, more than even with these few added parcels is necessary. So, the determination was that this was the best way to do it. We don't argue with that We've worked with the c~ty staff and I think it's an excellent plan. It's a proffered plan for large lots that are all single- family homes It's proffered that they will be s~ngle family I think the one young lady that came to the informal this morning and who I've spoke to who saw duplex and thought that was being proposed and when she found that they were single family. She lives in this house right here. She said that was great. She had no problem whatsoever. That was a concern that she had. Glenwood Community Association, which I had the pleasure of representing this application and they have for a long t~me wanted to see Stumpy Lake Lane cleaned up, developed and connected to the roads that adjoin it. They don't have any opposition to this. It was under consent agenda It's a good application It's an applicant who is working with the city to clean up this area and finish it off and I believe there may be one speaker here who signed up in opposlt~on So I will sit down and wait to see what she has to say. Ronald lhpley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr Bourdon? Thank you Robert Miller: Nancy Garslk Nancy Garslk: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen First of all, there is not a lot of property in Glenwood to develop. Ronald Pdpley: Would you state your name please? Nancy Garskl: Nancy Garslk. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you. Nancy Garslk: I live on Inglewood Lane, if I can do this correctly? Ronald Pdpley: Just pick it up. Pick the whole thing up. Nancy Garslk: I hve approximately right here on Inglewood Lane And every single day when I look out my backyard I see structures. I see abandoned sheds. And, then we have the people cutting through our neighborhood constantly We have to construct a privacy fence or rebuild a privacy fence because of the destruction In fact, dunng Humcane Isabel, the growth was so bad betund my home that the power company, the cable company, the telephone company could not get back there to that area. My husband and another neighbor had to go betund the home to clean up the brush that had overgrown so bad to just get to the cable boxes. For them to build th~s type of development directly behind us we would lose all the little of privacy that we have even though there ~s a lot growth there, we would lose the little bit of privacy that we have. That area behind us, I can't see how in the world it is large enough to build these number of homes They would almost have to move Stumpy Lane. I mean, I just don't see it. So, basically these homes are going to be right up on our backyard I'm really concerned because the property owners are not taking care of the property now What's going to happen in the future? We've lived there for five years and I can tell you that Glenwood Association has not talked to any of us on that side of the Inglewood Lane with reference to building up Stumpy Lake and I really have a problem with Glenwood in not voicing their opinions to us. And yes, we do pay to the housing association. That's all that I have to say at this point. Thank you very much. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you for coming down. Are there any questmns? Thank you Robert Mdler: What size ~s your lot? Nancy Garslk' Sir, I really can't be certain. It's at 2769 if that would help out any. It is a small home. It is a three-bedroom home and we have an upstairs Robert Miller: Okay. Thank you Wllham Din: Just one comment I guess our write up indicates that the lots in this proposed area is 6,200-13,000 square feet and the minimal lot size in the Glenwood area is 6,000 square feet. So, I think the lot sizes are compable Ronald Rlpley: I think so to Mr. Bourdon, would you readdress? I don't think we have any other speakers. Robert Miller: No we don't. Eddie Bourdon: She hit the nail on the head The lots that adjoin us to the south side with the exception of the one that I talked to lady about this morning, those lots are essential 6,000 square foot lots And, the lots that we will be developing on this piece of property, they will be larger than the lots that adj oln us on the other side We showed the entire area. These lots are very large because of their depth These lots, again, they vary in size but they are larger lots in terms of their and its kind of hard because this line here is not a lot line, that's a setback line. So, the lot lines are way out here so it kind of makes it look like it's small but it's not. These lots are larger than the lots along here The houses will be substantial I did want to mention what was brought up this morning. There are a couple of these lots that will we will need to revise the proffers. The living area including garage and they will all have garages would be 2,000 square feet versus the 2,200 square feet because of the increase setback from both Stumpy Lake Lane and from the court that we will be putting in there. The houses will be compatible and actually they will be larger and more expensive then most of the houses that adjoin us. Again, it's a situation where the commumty for a long time and I appreciate this. This lady did raise concern but the community has recognized that this area is a problem and a detriment and wanted to see it developed. Again, you got these lots that are already part of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) on the north side They are not part of your application but they're part of what will pay for putting the road in and cleaning this area up and developing it and providing this future right-of-way for Indian Puver Road. It's the right type of development and staff clearly recognizes that the community as a whole has recognized that this is a compatible type of development for this property. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you very much. Any questions? William Din: Mr. Bourdon, will there be any buffers back there between your residential area and the exlsnng? I know it's not required Eddie Bourdon: I think its part of the same. It's really part of the same neighborhood for all intents and purposes. The people who will be living here will be and while technically it can't be annexed because of the voting requirement, we certainly can look at trying to maintain some trees along the back of the property. I don't know how drainage is going to be handled when we get detail in engmeenng but I'm a little bit reticent to say to provide a certain strip of trees that will remain If we can malntmn trees, we want to maintain trees It helps the property values. Wllham Din: You have a proffer in here that states the minimal square footage of each residence is going to be 2,200 square feet? Eddie Bourdon: Living area William Din: Living area. Eddie Bourdon Heated living area The garage is above that but again we recognize unfortunately at the 1 lth hour there was a couple of comer lots and probably two other lots that could be somewhat difficult to achieve and meet the setbacks We will be looking at probably tweaking that to specifically two or three lots so we can reduce that to 2,000 square feet again of living area. William Din: Thank you. Ronald Pdpley We would like to open this up now for discussion among the Planning Commissioners. Does anybody wish to discuss it? Will Din? William Din: I don't see a big conflict here. As a matter of fact, wasn't this on consent? Ronald Pdpley' I beheve it was. William Din: I didn't know there was going to be opposition here. Thirty six lots, single family residential lots in here does seem like a lot but when you look at th~s and as Mr Bourdon has indicated the lots are all the same size as the Glenwood area. It's very compatible with that. I don't really see a problem with this. So, I'm in favor of the approving this apphcatlon. Ronald Pdpley Was that a motion? William Din: When it comes it I'll be glad to make a motion. Ronald Pdpley: Charhe? Charhe Salle': I agree with Wall. I will support the application and it seems to me that the development of this subdivision ~s completely compatible with the surrounding properties The lot sizes are probably larger and just looking at the eastern two cul-de- sacs where the lots back up It looks like the rear lot lines is almost the s~ze of two lots on the nelghbonng properties So, it looks to me that all of these lots are in excess of the ones, square footage size that they butt up against. So, I th~nk it's appropriate and I'll support it - Ronald Pdpley: Joe Strange? Joseph Strange. Yes. This is ~n the Centervllle district here and having gone out and look at it I, of course I wasn't aware of any opposition before I came here today to the project To me it looked very compatible with the neighborhood Maybe the neighbors would welcome the oppormmty to have a development back there to kind of keep that area up a little bit and to keep it looking nice Ronald Rapley: Is there anybody else° Dorothy Wood: I agree with Mr Strange I think the lady who spoke today would be very happy really once it's developed because she was saying that the property behind her has not been maintained and it's been a problem. So, this probably will be a benefit once it's finished. Ronald P~pley' Alnght Can we get a motion here? William Din: I'd like to move that we approve this application Ronald Rapley: We got a motion by Will Din and a second by Joe Strange to approve the application. We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Rlpley. By a vote of 11-0, the motion cames. ~O~M NO ~ $ 1~ City o£ Virginia Beach I~r£~-OE~JcE ¢O~ESPO~ENCE In Reply Refer To Our Ftc No. DF-5753 DATE: January 5, 2004 TO: Leslie L. Lilley ~ DEPT: City Attorney B. Kay Wilson~ FROM: DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Sudhakar J. and Geeta S. Lavingia The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 13, 2004. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 25, 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 ~'~,.4,~ & LGS' I:' C SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA and GEETA S LAVINGIA, husband and wife TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a mumc~pal corporation of the Commonwealth of V~rgima THIS AGREEMENT, made thzs 25th day of May, 2003, by and between SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA and GEETA S LAVINGIA, husband and w~fe, Grantors, parties of the first part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a mumc~pal corporation of the Commonwealth of V~rg~ma, GRANTEE, party of the second part WITNESSETH' WHEREAS, the partzes of the first part are the owners of two (2) parcels of property located ~n the Centervllle Dzstnct of the C~ty of V~rg~ma Beach, contmmng apprommately 9.769 acres which are more particularly described as Parcels 1 and 2 ~n Exhzbzt "A" attached hereto "Property"), and WHEREAS, the parties and zncorporated herein by th~s reference (the of the first part have zmtiated a condzt~onal amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Vzrglma Beach, V~rglnla, by petat~on addressed to the GRANTEE so as to change the Zoning Classificataon of the Property from R-10 Res~dentaal D~stnct to R-5D Resldentaal D~stnct, and WHEREAS, the Grantee's pohcy ~s to provide only for the orderly development of land for varzous purposes through zomng and other land development leguslataon, and [GPIN: 1474-17-9455 1474-27-5741 -1- PREPARED BY SYI<[S. POURDON WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and somettmes incompatible uses confhct and that ~n order to permit d~ffenng uses on and ~n the area of the Property and at the same t~me to recogmze the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certmn reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protectaon of the commumty that are not generally apphcable to land mmzlarly zoned are needed to cope w~th the mtuataon to which the Grantor's rezomng apphcataon guves rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, m wrmng, ~n advance of and prior to the public heanng before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, ~n addition to the regulations provided for the R-SD Zomng D~strict by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable condmons related to the phymcal development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of smd amendment to the Zoning Map relatave and apphcable to the Property, which has a reasonable relabon to the rezonmg and the need for which ~s generated by the rezonmg. NOW, THEREFORR, the Grantors, for themselves, thmr successors, personal representataves, asmgns, grantee, and other successors m t~tle or ~nterest, voluntarily and w~thout any reqmrement by or exaction from the Grantee or ~ts govermng body and w~thout any element of compulmon or qu.~d pro .q.uo for zomng, rezomng, rote plan, buzlding permit, or subd~wmon approval, hereby make the follov~ung declarabon of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that th~s declaration shall constatute covenants running xanth the Property, whmh shall be binding upon the Property and upon all part~es and persons clmm~ng under or through the Grantors, thmr successors, personal representatives, asmgns, grantee, and other successors m ~nterest or tatle: 1 When the Property ~s developed, ~t shall be developed as no more than thirty-six (36) single family remdentaal bmld~ng lots substantmlly zn conformance w~th the Exhibit entatled "LAND USE PLAN FOR SUDHAKAR J LAVINGIA," dated danuary 9, 2003, prepared by John E S~rine & Assocmtes, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the V~rgm~a Beach C~ty Council and ~s on file w~th the Virg~ma Beach Department of Planning ("Lot Plan") -2- PREPARED BY ~1'~ SY!Lr=S ]~OURDON ~l[I rS_I-IliON & LIVY P C . mzmmum of 3. the Grantee All res~denttal dwelhngs constructed on the Property shall have a 2200 square feet of enclosed hying area. When the Property zs subdivided, the Grantors agree to partzc~pate v~th ~n the cost of constructing that sectaon of Stumpy Lake Lane east of the Property to zts zntersectnon wath Archdale Drive, ~ncluding the zntersectaon w~th Archdale Drive 4. Further cond~taons may be reqmred by the Grantee dunng detmled S~te Plan review and admm~strataon of apphcable City Codes by all cogmzant C~ty agenczes and departments to meet all apphcable C~ty Code reqmrements. The above condmons, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue m full force and effect untal a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specffically repeals such condmons. Such condmons shall conttnue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even ff the subsequent amendment zs part of a comprehensive ~mplementat~on of a new or substantially revased Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed The conditaons, however, may be repealed, amended, or vaned by written instrument recorded ~n the Clerk's Office of the C~rcmt Court of the C~ty of Virgania Beach, V~rgama, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the t~me of recordataon of such instrument, provided that smd instrument zs consented to by the Grantee ~n writing as emdenced by a certtfied copy of an ordinance or a resolutton adopted by the govermng body of the Grantee, after a pubhc hearing before the Grantee which was advertased pursuant to the prommons of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of V~rgtnm, 1950, as amended Smd ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along w~th smd ~nstrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and ff not so recorded, smd instrument shall be vmd. The Grantors covenant and agree that (1) The Zoning Adm~mstrator of the C~ty of V~rgama Beach, V~rg~ma, shall be vested w~th all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of ~V~rg~ma Beach, V~rg~ma, to admmzster and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, znclud~ng the authority (a) to order, ~n wrmng, that any noncomphance w~th such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or stat to ~nsure compliance w~th such cond~txons, ~ncludmg mandatory or proh:b~tory ~njunctmn, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, stat, or proceeding; (2) The fmlure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the ~ssuance of any of the reqmred bmld~ng or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any demmon of the Zoning Adm~mstrator, made pursuant to these prov~mons, the Grantors shall petmon the govermng body for the revmw thereof prior to ~nst~tutmg proceedings m court; and (4) The Zomng Map may show by an approprmte symbol on the map the emstence of condxt~ons attachxng to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily avmlable and accessible for pubhc inspection ~n the office of the Zoning Administrator and ~n the Planmng Department, and they shall be recorded m the Clerk's Office of the Circmt Court of the C~ty of V~rg~ma Beach, Virg~ma, and indexed m the name of the Grantors and the Grantee. WITNESS the following mgnatures and seals' Grantors. ? / % · ~:-~---~EAL) Sudhakar d. Lav~ng~a --J Geeta S. Lav~ngm (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-xant' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me th~s Z~ ~ day of May, 2003, by Sudhakar J. Lavmgm and Geeta S. Lavingia, husband and wife, Grantors. Notary Public My Commismon Expires: August 31, 2006 -5- PREPARED BY ,.~. [RN & [Pa' PC EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL ONE: ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the bmldmgs and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being known, numbered and designated as Part of Parcel B, as shown on that certmn plat entitled, "SUBDIVISION OF J.D. LARGE FARM, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" which smd plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of V~rginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 57, at Page 30 Beginning at a point in the east right-of-way line of Indian Paver Road at its intersection with the southern right-of-way line of Stumpy Lake; thence with the southern hne of Stumpy Lake Lane, N 76° 44' 30" E, 681 00 feet to a point; thence N 76© 35' 50" E, 260.11 feet to a point; thence N 78© 46' 50" E, 138 99 feet to a point; thence N 76° 47' 28" E, 167.32 feet to a point; thence leaving Stumpy Lake Lane S 13© 12'32"E, 222 15 feet to a point, thence S71 ©42'15"w, 11609 feet toapolnt; thence S 72° 18' 30" W, 353.67 feet to a point, thence S 72© 18' 30" W, 476.50 feet to a point; thence S 73° 25' 30" W, 235.19 feet to a point in the eastern right-of-way line of Indian Paver Road; thence along the said right-of-way line of Indian River Road; thence along the smd right-of-way with a curve to the left hamng a radius of 95~72 feet a length of 88 41 feet, thence N 26° 19' 30" W, 233 70 feet to the place and point of beginning. GPIN: 1474-17-9455 PARCEL 2 ALL that certmn lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buddings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being known, numbered and demgnated as Parcel B-2, as shown on that certmn plat entitled, "SUBDIVISION OF d.D LARGE FARM, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" whmh smd plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Czrcmt Court of the City of Vzrgima Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 282, at Page 41. GPIN 1474-27-5741 CONDREZONE/LAVINGIA/STUMPYLAKE/PROFFER4 -6- Supplemental Information Zonin~ History Ma~ F-6 Me Not to Scele Fulcher '" OBA Subdivision Variance J#J DATE J REQUEST J ACTION I 3-25-03 Subdivision Variance Approved MARY E FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 6 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ,_ AGENDA ITEM II I I I I II II II I II I I I I ITEM: Mary E. Fulcher- Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 · Background: Appeal to Decisions of Adm~nistrabve Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subd~wsion Ordinance, Subdivision for Mary E Fulcher. Property ~s located at 4116 Duncannon Lane (GPIN 14870721280000) DISTRICT 5-LYNNHAVEN Considerations: The ex~sting lot is 45,601 square feet. It ~s the ~ntent of the apphcant to subdIvide the ex~sting lot into four (4)lots to be developed w~th smgle-fam~ly dwellings. One of the proposed lots wdl not meet the required 75-foot lot width. Staff's evaluation of th~s request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, does not provide evidence of a hardship justifying the granting of a variance to the requirements of the Subd~wsion Ordinance (1) (2) (3) Strict apphcabon of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will not produce an undue hardship on the developer of the property. It wdl s~mply reduce the number of proposed lots from four to three in a configuration typical of the surrounding neighborhood The physical character of the site ~s not usual ~n dimension or topography. The site is s~mply larger than those ex~sbng w~th~n the immediate area. The applicant can subd~wde the s~te ~nto three conforming lots that closely replicate the dimensions and size of exlsbng lots that are adjacent to and d~rectly across the street from the s~te. There are no "flag" lots within the immediate area. Approval of a variance for a lot that does not meet the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances' minimum requirements would change the character of th~s porbon of the Thaha Manor neighborhood Several lots in the immediate area are also deep, s~m~lar to the subject site. Approving a variance to lot w~dth for th~s site in order to create an additional lot would ~nvite further variance request applications from nearby property owners to create addibonal "flag" lots w~thin the neighborhood. Staff recommended den~al. There was opposition to the proposal. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a mobon by a recorded vote of 10-1 to deny th~s request. Attachments: Locabon Map Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission M~nutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends den~al Planning Commission recommends den~al Submitting Department/Agency: Planmng Department City Manage :r~ [~' '~ ~ Map F-6 H~ Not to Fulcher Subdivision Variance NOTE: The h~story of zoning activity ~n the ~mmed~ate area of this request ~s provided in the staff report F06-211-SVR-2003 MARY E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 December 10, 2003 Public Heanng Staff Planner: Faith Chnsbe The foflow/ng report is prepared by the staff of the Virgima Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this appficatlon. . ~, · Location and General Information REQUEST: LOCATION: Subdivision Variance to Secbon 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance Property located at 4116 Duncannon Lane GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 14870721280000 5- LYNNHAVEN · MARY E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page I SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 45,601 square feet A single-famdy dwelhng occupies the s~te North: South East West · S~ngle-fam~ly dwelhngs / R-7.5 Res~denbal · Dunoannon Lane · Across Duncannon Lane are s~ngle-fam~ly dwellings / R-7 5 Residenbal · Bryan Lane · Across Bryan Lane are s~ngle-famdy dwellings / R- 7 5 Res~denbal · S~ngle-famdy dwelhngs / R-7.5 Res~denbal The s~te ~s wooded and ex~sbng landscaping ~s unkempt There are no s~gn~flcant natural resources or known cultural features associated with th~s s~te The s~te is ~n an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Summary of i :oposal Existing Lot: The ex~sbng lot ~s 45,601 square feet Proposed Lots: It is the ~ntent of the apphcant to subdivide the ex~st~ng lot into four (4) lots to be developed w~th smgle-famdy dwellings One of the proposed lots will not meet the required 75-foot lot w~dth Item Lot W~dth ~n feet Lot Area ~n square feet 7,500 ~ 12,700 I Reouired I Lot A I ~ t 75/85^ t 20 5* *Variance required for lot w~dth ^Required Corner lot w~dth MARY E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 2 I l I I IIII I MARYE FUL _CHER Agenda Item # 13 Page3 Comprehensive The Comprehensive Plan Map designates th~s s~te as appropriate for Suburban Residential/Medium and H~gh Density residential uses at a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre and above Staff Evaluation Staff recommends den~al of th~s request. Section 9 3 of the Subd~ws~on Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Councd unless ~t finds that A, C, D Strict apphcat~on of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorizabon of the variance wdl not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood wdl not be adversely affected The problem ~nvolved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship ~s created by the physical character of the property, including d~mens~ons and topography, or by other extraordinary s~tuabon or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property ~mmed~ately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-infhcted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the ~ssuance of a variance The hardship ~s created by the requirements of the zoning d~strict ~n which the property ~s located at the t~me the variance ~s authorized whenever such variance pertains to prows~ons of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance MAR"( E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 4 Staff's evaluation of th~s request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, does not provide ewdence of a hardship jusbfy~ng the granbng of a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship (1) Strict appl~cabon of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will not produce an undue hardship on the developer of the property. It w~ll s~mply reduce the number of proposed lots from four to three ~n a configurabon typical of the surrounding neighborhood (2) The physical character of the s~te ~s not usual in d~mens~on or topography The site is s~mply larger than those ex~st~ng w~th~n the immediate area The apphcant can subdivide the s~te into three conforming lots that closely rephcate the d~mensions and s~ze of ex~sbng lots that are adjacent to and d~rectly across the street from the s~te There are no "flag" lots w~thin the ~mmed~ate area. Approval of a variance for a lot that does not meet the C~ty Zoning and Subd~ws~on Ordinances' m~n~mum requirements would change the character of th~s porbon of the Thalia Manor neighborhood. (3) Several lots ~n the immediate area also deep s~m~lar to the subject s~te Approwng a variance to lot w~dth for th~s s~te ~n order to create an add~bonal lot would ~nwte further variance request applicabons from nearby property owners to create add~bonal "flag" lots w~thin the neighborhood. Therefore staff recommends den~al of the variance request, ~n keeping with the reasons outhned above INOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of, applicable City Ordinances. MARY E FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 5 ,Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP) Both Duncannon Lane and Bryan Lane are local res~denbal streets. Public Utilities IWater' IThere ~s a s~x (6)-inch water I~ne in Duncannon Lane ~n front of the site The proposed lots must connect to City water. Sewer. There ~s an e~ght (8)-~nch gravity sanitary sewer ma~n in both Duncannon Lane and Bryan Lane, ~n front of the s~te. Upgrades to Pump Station 241 w~ll be required The proposed lots must connect to City sewer. Public Safety Police. The applicant ~s encouraged to contact and work w~th the Crime Prevenbon Office w,thin the Pohce Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Enwronmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this s~te. F~re and Rescue' Structures must be located within 200 feet of the road surface for fire department access A fire hydrant must be located w~thm 500 feet of res~denbal structures. MARY E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 7 Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location MARY E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 8 Exhibit E Proposed Sit~ PIm ii MARY E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 9 APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the apphcant is a corporabon, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following. I List the apphcant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc below- (Attach list ~f necessary) BISHARD D~'ELOPMENT CORPORA/ION: S%e~e Blskard, President, __John Bzsrard. Secrekar; 2 L~st all businesses that have a that have a parent-submdlary~ or affihated business ent~? relationship with the applicant (Attach hst r/necessary) [] Check here if the applicant ks NOT a corporabon, partnership, firm, business, or other umncorporated orgamzabon. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if proped~ owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporabon, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1 List the property owner name followed by the names of ali officers, members, trustees, partners, etc below. (Attach l~st xfnecessary) 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business enbty2 relationship w~th the apphcant' (Attach list zf necessary) [] Check here ~f the property owner ~s NOTa corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated orgamzation ~ "&'"2 See next page for footnotes S~,x~v~on Var~3ce Appac~t~m P-aGue li o¢12 Revised 10/1/2003 Z Exhibit C Disclosure Statement ,, MARY-E FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 10 Exhibit C-2 Disclosure Statement Z DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 'L-~ · ,, ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or wilt provide services w~th respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services (Attach hst if necessary) EELLAH-GER¢iTZ ENGINEbR[NC, I~C. ~ "Parent-subsldlary relationship" means "a relabonship that exists when one corporation d~rectly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101 ? "Affiliated business entity relationship" means 'a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relabonsh~p, that exists when (i) one bus,ness entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business enb-ty, 0i) a controihn§ owner in one ent~, is also a controthng owner in the other entity, or (il0 there is shared management or control between the bus,ness enbbes Factors that should be considered m determining the existence of an affiliated bus,ness entrty relabonship include that the same person or substantzatly the same person own or manage the two entrties; there are common or commingled funds or assets, the business entibes share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis, or there is otherwise a close work~ng relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va Code § 2 2-3101 CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained harem is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notrfication (postcard) that the appt~cabon has been scheduled for pubhc hearing, t am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days pnor to the scheduled public heanng accordmgto the mstruc~ons in this package B~shard ,t)ev~opme~t Cbrporat~on ~LL~.~L,'~ /~ ~ Appt~nt's S~jnature Pr~nl Name Property Owner s S;gnature (~f different tha~ applicant) Print Name ~ Var~a'~e App~cat~on MARY~E. FULCHER Agenda Item # 13 Page 11 Item #13 Mary E. Fulcher Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in Regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 4116 Duncannon Lane District 5 Lynnhaven December 10, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item 1s Item #13 Mary E Fulcher Eddie Bourdon. For the record Mr Chairman, my name is Eddie Bourdon, and I'm a Virginia Beach attorney, and I'm representing Ms. Fulcher, who is here on this application. Ms Fulcher filed this application many months ago, and then later came to see me The piece of property is located in the Thaha section of the City It is a property that her family has owned for a very long time. It's a little over 45,000 square feet in size The variance involves an effort to create four single-family residential building lots, all of which will significantly exceed the square footage requirements in the zoning district, which is R-7 5. As you can tell these lots are all 11,000-12,000 square feet in size as depicted. The configuration you see there shows very large building envelope for the construction of homes on these lots that will exceed the size of the homes on the lots that adjoin it. The lots that adjoin it to the north are about 75,000 square foot lots, and which this configuration will provide four lots, which are far larger similar to the lots across the street on the south side, are also smaller lots than what are proposed here. Also, we have elevations, which I'll pass around on the homes that would be built on these lots. The property IS under contract with a developer. We also have a petition that has been signed by some of the adjoxmng property owners who are not in opposition and support the application. It is a difficult situation but the developer who is proposing to build the homes on these four lots has met with the civic league and has actually indicated that it was a very warm reception and a number of people at the civic league meeting, back two months ago, expressed their support for what he was trying to do to upgrade this particular piece of property and to build very attractive homes that would certainly not negatively impact anyone's property value, but probably the opposite can be true I do recognize that staff fully accepts there is no hardship present here, and that's a demslon that you all will have to make. The size of the property and the fact that that it has not been developed like anything else around it has been developed over the course of the last half-century is what we consider to be a hardship The proposal we do not believe In any way, shape or form would be detrimental to the character of that neighborhood We ask for your consideration in this application. Thank you very much Ronald Rlpley: Are there questions of Mr Bourdon? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, I think most of the lots in that area are larger. Item #13 Mary E Fulcher Page 2 Eddie Bourdon. In the entire neighborhood I would have to agree with you. In this particular section if you look closely at the composite map you will see to the west, the north, there are areas where these lots would actually be m keeping with those. In the immediate vicinity, it's a hodge-podge. Mr. Jones lot, which is actually a compilation of three different pieces of property, is certainly a large lot No disagreement whatsoever there And certainly you have some large, although it's large because of their depth, lots across the street But then, you look at Duncannon and you look at Edinburgh, these lots are not, and they may be slightly above 7,500, and I actually believe that the three that are adjoining on the north are above 7,500. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other flag lots? Eddie Bourdon: There's a flag lot which was created right here. Dorothy Wood: Is that the one that your client? Eddie Bourdon. Not to long ago. Again, you got this long parcel here that created a flag lot That is the only one that I'm aware of. Some of the waterfront, but in this general area, there are not. Robert Miller: We have another speaker in opposition Juhe Cousin. Juhe Cousin: Hi. Thank you for your time. I'm a little nervous. I'm never done anything like this before I live directly across Bryan Lane at 4112 Duncannon. I've lived there for 11 years now. When my husband and I first bought in this area our main attraction to this area was the large treed lots, and I do think it would have a negative effect on the property values. Anyone in construction knows that if someone is going to come in and build houses nowadays, they're going to cut down the trees. There is no way to save and to put four houses on that property and save any amount of trees that are in there. My father was in construction all the time I was growing up so I do know a little bit about that And, I think building houses on a smaller lot, and this is an area where people stay along time We don't have a high turnover in this neighborhood And, I think building this type of housing in there your going to have a higher turnover. It's going to be detrimental to the neighborhood, and the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and will eventually affect property values. That's all I have to say. Ronald Pdpley: Ms Cousin, could you point to where your house is? There's a pointer right there You just lift it up Push the little button. Juhe Cousin. I am right here. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you very much. Juhe Cousin: Thank you. Item # 13 Mary E. Fulcher Page 3 Robert M~ller: I just got a note that Ms. Fulcher ~s here and would hke to speak. Ronald R~pley. Ms. Fulcher? Mary Fulcher: I've never done this before. I'm very emotional about th~s Ronald Pupley: Would you state your name please Mary Fulcher: Mary Fulcher. Ronald R~pley: Thank you. Mary Fulcher' My family moved on th~s p~ece of property when there was no runmng water or electricity. Nothing It was the boon docks. The p~eces of property over here to your right where ~t's a httle blt b~gger, my granddad and grandmother hved on that p~ece of property We were the only people. We had chickens and roosters and everything you can ~mag~ne Nobody wanted to hve there when we moved there. It was the boomes. So, I was five years old and I am now 60. That's how long I've been on this p~ece of property. It's a beautiful, beautiful neighborhood It's a lovely neighborhood It grew ~nto something that everyone loves ~nclud~ng me. My soul ~s on that p~ece of property. I'm now 60. I have bad knees, bad arms. It's very d~fficult to keep up w~th that piece of property this s~ze My soul wants to stay there. And, ~t's gmng to be very d~fficult for me to try to keep up the b~g p~ece that I would have to keep. And, I don't know how th~s could harm anything because the little lot that I'm want nobody would even see me. Th~s gentleman wants to bmld beautiful homes there. It's an old neighborhood that they bmlt the houses ~n 1957 It's an old neighborhood, and ~t's e~ther people who have been there forever or new couples mowng ~n. And, new couples move ~n and they have more children than the houses w~ll allow. They don't want to move, but they have to because the houses are small And, I was hoping that by me dmng th~s then their houses values would go up, and these people ~nstead of moving would say "hey. I could put another story on my house or I could fix the front of ~t up" and be w~lhng to put money ~nto the homes because the value was more now because more expensive homes were bmld~ng bmlt on my lot I would never do anything that would harm Thaha My parents started Thaha Methodist Church. They started the F~re Department along w~th Wall and Kenny, and when we were the only people there There was nobody there, but my granddad and my grandma, and my mom's best friend W~ll and Kenny That was ~t They got busy and started ~t. I just physically cannot ,which ~s the only reason that I wanted ~t, because I physically w~ll have a very d~fficult t~me. The lady that was m opposition today, her cluld tried to start fires ~n my lot. So, I would th~nk she would want the trees down, but I don't know whether there ~s anything that says I have to keep the trees there or not. I thought you were allowed to cut trees down on your property. But th~ gentleman that I've been deahng w~th he loves the p~ece of property because it has trees. Th~s ~s the reason why he wanted ~t And th~s gentleman went through w~th me and my brother, who was very dl for a year and he d~ed last year, actually the beg~nmng of th~s year. The gentleman loves my p~ece of property so much that he went through the ~llness of my Item #13 Mary E Fulcher Page 4 brother with and would call me and said he loved it. In the spnng, the Azaleas are beautiful. My daddy planted 500 azaleas when we first moved in there There are still a whole bunch of them still alive. Ronald Rapley: Ms Fulcher, you exceeded your time. Mary Fulcher: Oh, I didn't know there was a time limit. Ronald Rlpley: That was the purpose of the instructions at the beginning. Mary Fulcher: I'm sorry Ronald P~pley: That's okay. You need to wrap it up. We appreciate it. Mary Fulcher: I guess what I'm saying is please try to see my side of this because it is my soul I love it I have to not put anything on that other lot if I can't move forward. And, she is wrong I will have to cut the trees down because I'm too old to rake them now. Ronald Pdpley: Okay Mary Fulcher: And thank you so much for listening to me. I apologize for taking more time than I should have. Ronald Rapley. Thank you very much. Yes, Kathy? Kathy Katslas: Ms. Fulcher, could you not make the numbers work with just three lots and three houses on that piece of property. Mary Fulcher: It would be very hard. No. Kathy Katslas: Why not? You have two for sale and one you would reside in. Mary Fulcher: Well, unfommately because the way my house is on tins piece of property. Ronald Pdpley: Ms. Fulcher, would you speak into the mlc~ Mary Fulcher: Oh, I apologize. Unfortunately, because of the way that my house is on the piece of property I couldn't divide it, so I had to go buy something else that I owe everything on, so I owe a bunch of money on what I had to buy, something to live, so I could tear this house down. So, I'm not in a place where I can do this. I'm not a wealthy person like I said. We moved out there when it was the boon docks. Kathy Katslas. Thank you. Item #13 Mary E. Fulcher Page 5 Mary Fulcher: Thank you Dorothy Wood' Ms Fulcher, did you say to Ms Katslas that you don't live there now? Mary Fulcher: No, I don't I had to move out because the house and the way it's located on the piece of property Dorothy Wood: We've visited it Mary Fulcher. I couldn't divide it until I moved out so that I could tear the house down. It can't be because the tap of it IS on the end, so I had to find someplace else to live before I could do tins. Dorothy Wood' Thank you Mary Fulcher: Thank you Ronald Pdpley' Are there any other speakers? Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: One thing I forgot to mention IS that Mr. Jones is here, who IS the neighbonng property owner to the west You heard this morning some conversation w~th Froth about the property lane, and that IS the situation that Mr. Bischard, who will be developing the property, will and Mr. Jones son, Gary is a good friend of mane, and that hne will be established correctly per their previous subdivision by deed between Mr Jones and Ms Fulcher's parents, which as totally irrelevant to what's before you, but I just wanted to clarify that, and that's an issue we have resolved with Mr. Jones. And, the only other tinng that I want to add the value of these lots with the trees on them far exceeds the value of lots without them, although even after Isabel has properly diminished some people's infinity for trees. The market I don't think has changed dramatically, and Mr. Blschard would be trying to preserve as many trees as possible. We would not be clear-cutting. There would be no road put an winch generally is one of the precipitating factors for having to take down a lot of trees. Ronald Pupley: Kathy Katslas has a question. Kathy Katslas: Mr. Bom:don, what ~s the price range of these homes9 Eddie Bourdon. I would anticipate, but candidly but I haven't done a market analys~s, and have Mr. Blschard do some, but I would anticipate they would easily be $300,000. Kathy Katslas: And the area warrants $300,000 homes? Eddie Bourdon. That's going to be an issue. Clearly, it's going to be an appraisal Issue, but g~ven the marketplace that we're seeing today, and the prime location that this neighborhood is in terms of its proximity to the Town Center, etc, it's just a quesnon of Item # 13 Mary E. Fulcher Page 6 what the appraiser is going to ascertain But finding someone willing to purchase m that neighborhood for that price I don't think is a problem. It's just simply a question if there's a ceiling that's been created by the existing homes in that community It is whatever the appraisal would substantiate I don't think the market is going to have a problem Kathy Katslas: Thank you Ronald Pupley: Barry, and then Dot. Barry Knight. I see a proposal for four lots. And, generally maybe not in this neighborhood, but generally if you were to take the same square footage and create three lots you would have larger lots. And generally you can command a little bit more money. Not much but a little bit so it isn't quite as bad as you might first perceive. Eddie Bourdon: It's a difficult situation Mr. Knight, and I certainly recognize that, and I can appreciate their good arguments on both sides I do think though there's really minimal if any, realization of additional value that would take place on three lots versus four in this particular area because of the ceiling that you have by the development that is around it. And, that is any way intended to diminished or put down the development that is around lt. These are homes that were constructed 40 plus years ago It's a wonderful neighborhood. Ronald Pupley: Dot, did you have a question? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, I was interested in your comment about the civic league. That night I was not at the civic league, and I do live in Thaha I had many phone calls. People in the civic league were very upset about it as we can see by the number of letters that we received, and these are not all the people that called us The civic league, I don't believe were supportive of it I had some calls that the people thought it had already passed because the date on the sign was August 15th. They were concerned that they didn't know about when it was heard I don't think the neighborhood does support it because it would be the first flag lots. Eddie Bourdon: First of all, I don't believe that I lnchcated that the neighborhood had taken a position, but all I indicated was that I actually, and I didn't go to the meetings, I had two clients at the meeting with two separate applications, and both of them contacted me the following day and both of them commented that the perception for this particular subject lot was very favorable as contrasted with the other It came from two different sources, but again I don't think they took a vote Dorothy Wood: I don't think so either, but they were concerned Eddie Bourdon: But I was just sayung that the tenor of the comments and the discussion was on this was favorable. That was what both of them recorded to me but I was not Item #13 Mary E Fulcher Page 7 there. Again, I'm not representing to this Com/IllSSlOn that the civic league took a position Dorothy Wood. Thank you Ronald Pdpley: Are there any other speakers? Let's open it up for discussion? Kathy? Kathy Katsias: As Lynnhaven representative, I concur w~th staff's recommendation. I don't really think there's a hardship here and I can't support this apphcatlon. Ronald Pdpley. Thank you. Is them anybody else for comment? Mr. Mdler~ Robert Miller. I have a comment. One of the things that always fascinates me about resubdlvlslon of properties is that are amongst other properties ~s the question of frontage. And, what happens here, and what I'm thinking about is there could there be a cul-de-sac put in this, and I don't know whether this was studied or not, and Eddie, maybe I should ask you that. Is that something you all looked at9 Eddie Bourdon: I actually and I'm not an engineer, but I actually made that suggestion to Mr Blschard. And, Mr. Blschard indicated that he could probably do, and he had an engineer look at but he didn't gnve me any plans. You probably could do a little bubble so to speak. His position was to do it would cause you to wind up with lots that were more crammed together and it would not be a betterment. He wasn't willing to try to do that. He felt like that would dlm~msh the value of the end product. He told me and I believe from doing some sketches that you probably could do it, but it would be a configuration that would not be pretty. I would obviously like to see this application be recommended for approval but I really and that is a fall back. That IS not a situation that anyone including Ms. Fulcher wants to have happen. So, I don't want to represent ~t in terms of it either or, which obviously he was willing to do that we would present It that way and then you would have an either or but this is not an either or. Robert Miller' I think from my point of view and I'm not a lawyer as you're not an engineer. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not an engineer. Robert Miller: One of the things that I need to keep reminding myself of is that what we get sometimes is what we ask for and that is a cul-de-sac could be done here If you look at 7,500 square foot lots and that's the size lots that they would end up being instead of the 10,000, 11,000 or 12,000 square foot lots being proposed. I actually think you could end up with five lots and you w~ll of course have to pay for the cost of the road and then we would have to maintain the road All of that could be done In my opinion and I haven't stud~ed the final design or anything without a variance request at all. So, sometimes we get what were asking for and maybe that's what I'm concerned about here. Itjust came to me a minute ago that we go a 45,000 square foot p~ece of property and Item #13 Mary E. Fulcher Page 8 when you start dividing it into 7,500 square foot lots even though the frontages don't work on the existing roads if you create a cul-de-sac suddenly the frontages do work and even if we ended up with perhaps they would end up with four lots. They would be smaller lots and we would have an additional piece of road in there and again, that could be done without a variance. It kind of changes the way I look at this request for the flag lot. And I heard what Dot said and I think the community is not in favor of this at all. But, I'm telling you right now that the community may not be in favor of it and we may end up with four 7,500 square foot lots and a cul-de-sac in there by v~rtue of the fact of evidentially you already made another financial commitment and need to sell this property So, it looks hke that may be what will happen. I think that's just a fact that needs to be put on the table even though it may not be an option to this particular developer. It may have to be an option to Ms. Fulcher Ronald thpley. Good comment Is there anybody else? Jano Jamce Anderson I think with any variances subdivision you pretty much go back to the rules and the guidelines. Is it umque9 Is ~t an individual hardship that's not reoccurnng throughout the neighborhood° Those are our gu~dehnes, so it's what we need to review when we approve a hardship or not, or approve a variance. This is a square piece of property. It can be divided into three nice lots A variance is not granted only for economic gain. You can divide the four, and yes make more money, but it doesn't abide by the zoning that's in there or the requirements of the code So, prior economic factors shouldn't be driven that it could be divided up and you can make more money. This can be divided up The prior use of this property can be three race lots I'm agreeing with the letters that came ~n from the neighborhood that it would change the character of the neighborhood, and I think in our Comprehensive Plan, that's one of our mmn concerns is to preserve the character of these well established neighborhoods And, I th~nk putting a house in the middle with a flag lot and you got four or five backdoor neighbors that look at each others back door is not preserving the character of that neighborhood It doesn't have flag lots all around it. There is one unique one but that was specific On that one that's further up that Mr Bourdon talked about, that's thirteen acres I believe, and it's very long. It had a umque characteristics and that ~s why we approved that one. But, I do not see anything from this apphcatlon that would afford it to be approved for a variance under those terms. I think you're just making it more crowded in that one comer. Ronald P~pley Are there any other comments° Does somebody want to make a motion? Dorothy Wood: I'll be glad to. I'd like to make a motion that we deny the apphcat~on Jamce Anderson: I'll second it. Ronald Pdpley: A motion to deny Seconded by Jan Anderson to deny. Item #13 Mary E. Fulcher Page 9 AYE 10 NAY 1 ABS 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY Ronald Pupley By a vote of 10-1, the motion carries. ABSENT 0 Page 1 of 1 Stephen White -Mary E. Fulcher (#F06-211-SVR-2003) From: To: Date: Subject: "Rothwell, Stacy" <Stacy. Rothwell@bankofamenca com> <planadm@vbgov com> 12/10/2003 7:27 AM Mary E Fulcher (#F06-211-SVR-2003) Attn Faith Christie I w~sh to express my op~mon regarding the request that ~s being made to have the property at 4116 Duncannon Lane subd~wded ~nto 4 lots w~th 4 new houses I feel that the request ~s totally unacceptable and 4 new houses would not fit appropriately into our older neighborhood Our Thaha neighborhood ~s quaint and most of the houses are brick and approximately 50 years old I do not w~sh to look at brand new houses when I open my front door and feel that the request should be demed No matter what happens w~th th~s subdivision variance the property does need to be cleaned up and maintained I have had to look at leaves and debas on the ground now for over a year Since hurricane Isabel came there are even more leaves, downed trees and hnes of some sort just laying on the ground The gutters are even falhng off of the house It's ridiculous and embarrassing to live across the street from such messll As a resident of Wrglma Beach, tax paying citizen and someone who maintains our property I do not feel that ~t ~s too much to ask to have that property cleaned up It appears that ever since the homeowner vacated the property she has just abandoned ~t and neglected ~t's appearance Someone from the c~ty needs to make her clean ~t up and ENFORCE the request this time Sincerely, Larry and Stacy Rothwell 0 O 0 file://C'~Documents ¼20and ¼20Sett~ngs\swhite\Local Vo20Setungs\Temp\GW} 00012.HTM 12/10/2003 Page 1 of 1 Stephen White - Mary E. Fulcher (#F06-211-SVR-2003) .~:..¢,,~;~ ..... ~=~. .... ,.~:s,.,.,~.:~.,d~-a:.--c ~: :~:~ ~'m'a-asatlr~---------~;~---..----,~xa::~ '"" -~-:'-'---~.-,, ----;~ :;~ · -~-'-~er-~ ~:,. ~ ',i:;~_,;G~~;~d....,,~.~,~;3,~;.~-~,.--~---~_~--- --: ...... ~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Rothwell, Stacy" <Stacy Rothwell@bankofamerica com> <planadm@vbgov com> 12/10/2003 7'27 AM Mary E. Fulcher (#F06-211-SVR-2003) Attn Faith Christie I w~sh to express my op~n~on regarding the request that ~s being made to have the property at 4116 Duncannon Lane subdivided into 4 lots w~th 4 new houses I feel that the request ~s totally unacceptable and 4 new houses would not fit appropriately ~nto our older neighborhood Our Thaha neighborhood ~s quaint and most of the houses are brick and approximately 50 years old I do not w~sh to look at brand new houses when I open my front door and feel that the request should be den~ed No matter what happens w~th th~s subd~ws~on variance the property does need to be cleaned up and maintained I have had to look at leaves and debris on the ground now for over a year Since humcane Isabel came there are even more leaves, downed trees and hnes of some sort just laying on the ground The gutters are even falhng off of the house It's r~d~culous and embarrassing to hve across the street from such mess~ As a resident of V~rgm~a Beach, tax paying c~bzen and someone who maintains our property I do not feel that ~t ~s too much to ask to have that property cleaned up It appears that ever since the homeowner vacated the property she has just abandoned ~t and neglected ~t's appearance Someone from the c~ty needs to make her clean ~t up and ENFORCE the request th~s bme S~ncerely, Larry and Stacy Rothwell file://C:~Documents%20and%20Sett~ngs\swh~te\Local%20Sett~ngs\Temp\GW}00012.HTM 12/10/2003 December ~/zoo3 Planning Commission c/o Current Planning Division Bldg. ~/Koom xx5 24o5 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach/VA 23456-9040 Dear Sir: This letter is in reference to the variance application fo~' the property 4xx6 Duncannon Lane/ hearring set for December xot~ zoo3. I am opposed to this variance application. Having to be a property owner at 4x33 Edinburgh Drive~ adjacent to 4x~6 Duncannon Lane since April x'~ x958/l cannot believe that there is a proposed plot for four lots. Is the fourth lot to store the junk on that Ts there now or to build a house? It would be poor planning for the Thalia Manor homeowners. I am requesting that this variance application be denied. Thanking you in advance/l am yours tru[y/ Frances 5. Downes October 25, 2003 TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE VA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WE ARE RESIDENTS OF THE THALIA NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE SUPPORT THE SUBDIVISION VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRYAN LANE AND DUNCHANON LANE BELONGING TO MARY FULCHER WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE A STARK IMPROVEMENT TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE SITE, AND WILL ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NAME ADDRESS PHONE Supplemental Information'" Map B-10,11 Ha No ~o S~'~ie Southeastern Public Service / // lq- / // / R~ R-SD ,'/ Landfill Pha~e 2-A A-24 R -50 Zoning Change from R qD R-~ ~, 8-2 to I-2 CUP for Sohd Waste 'vfa,~agement FaohP/ Zonin History DATE [REQUEST I ACTION 12-8-69 9-28-99 1 - 12-99 1-22-90 8-28-89 12-19-88 2-13-84 5-18-81 Cond~bonal Use Permit (garbage dump) Mod~flcabon of Cond~bons of rezon~ng granted 1-12-99 Rezon~ng (R-5D Res~denbal Duplex to PDH-2 (R-5D) Planned Unit Development with density no greater than 6 un~ts/acre) Cond~bonal Use Permit (tower) Condlbonal Use Permit (two towers) Rezonlng (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit) Condlbonal Use Permit (communication tower & accessory facihbes) - Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted W~thdrawn Granted Granted i i SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 7 I I I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM II I I I ITEM: Southeastern Public Service Authority- (a) Change of Zoning District Classification (R-5D & R-7.5 Residential Districts and B-2 Community Business District to I-2 Heavy Industrial District) and (b) Conditional Use Permit (solid waste management facility) MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 · Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of Southeastern Public Service Authority for a Chanqe of Zonlnq District Classification from R-5D and R-7.5 Residential D~stricts and B-2 Community Business D~strlct to I-2 Heavy Industrial D~stnct on property located at 1989 Jake Sears Road (portions of GPINS 14555036820000; 14556019060000; 14557019350000; 14553576950000; 14546936500000; 14546918540000, 14556088900000) The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of thIs s,te for a variety of employment uses including bus,ness parks, offices, appropriately located ~ndustrial and employment support uses DISTRICT I - CENTERVILLE (b) An Ordinance upon Application of Southeastern Pubhc Service Authority for a Condibonal Use Permit for a sohd waste management facility on property located at 1989 Jake Sears Road (portions of GPINS 14555036820000; 14556019060000, 14557019350000; 14553576950000; 14546936500000, 14546918540000; 14556088900000). DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE Considerations: The Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) currently operates a Yard Waste Processing and Mulching Operabon at the C~ty's Landfill 2. Th~s fac~hty has been ~n operabon since December of 1990. Another s~m~lar operation is located in Suffolk. W~th the proposed new Iocabon at Landfill 2, the two ex~stmg facilibes wdl be closed and consohdated ~nto one Iocabon. On August 12, 2003, C~ty Council authorized the City Manager to execute a lease opbon w~th SPSA for the operabon of the proposed facility - The proposed Iocabon ~s southeast of the ex~sbng operabng area for the landfill The lease lines will be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the adjacent res~denbal properties to the south. Th~s 100-foot buffer ~s heawly wooded with a m~x of evergreen and deciduous trees The pubhc park s~te to the south also has a wooded buffer extending across most of the abutbng area. The gap w~ll be landscaped ~n a manner acceptable to the C~ty's Department of Parks and Recreabon The proposed fac~hty w~ll receive m~xed loads of yard waste from transfer stabons, yard debns traders, and yard waste collecbon trucks The facility only accepts green waste such as grass cl~pp~ngs, leaves, and woody ~tems such as tree and brush tnmm~ngs, pallets, and boards No painted, varnished, or treated wood, root balls, stumps, so~l, sand, d~rt, rocks, or hazardous waste ~s accepted Unacceptable materials or loads are sent to the landfill for d~sposal. Incoming loads are separated ~nto three categories compostable materials, mulch materials, and firewood. Compostable material (mostly leaves and grasses) ~s processed through a gnndedde-bagger The ground material ~s then passed through a trommel screener to remove oversized material, ~ncluding the majority of the plasbc Processed compost material ~s sent to the compost pad for compostmg Water ~s added to the compost, which ~s spread into a "w~ndrow" Windrows are turned regularly to advance the composbng process, m~bgate odor, and d~sperse "hot spots." The compost must advance through approximately nme w~ndrows before the composbng process ~s complete, which takes four to five months The Planning Commission placed these items on the consent agenda because the proposed use w~ll have adequate buffenng from adjacent properties and ~t ~s the expansion of an ex~sbng industrial use. Staff recommended approval There was no oppos~bon to the requests Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 w~th 1 abstention to approve the requests w~th the following conditions: . The lease area shall be set back a m~n~mum of 100 feet from the condominium property southwest of the subject s~te All trees shall be preserved w~th~n th~s buffer area. . The site shall be developed and operated as depicted on the site plan enbtled, "SPSA Consohdated Compost Facd~ty" dated 11/17/2003 by Sohd Waste Services LLC 3. Equipment noise shall be minimized through the use of muffler systems on the equipment. . Vehicular traffic associated with the mulching operation shall be d~rected to the northwest s~de of the leased area until such brfie that landfill operabons beg~n on Phase 2A of the Landfill 2 s~te After that bme, vehicles shall be d~rected to enter the site from the eastern corner of the leased area, just southwest of the Phase 2A site . The applicant shall submit a s~te plan to the Development Services Center for detailed plan rewew Other ~ssues related to drainage, dust control, odor control, etc. shall be addressed during detailed plan rewew. The applicant shall meet w~th Department of Parks and Recreabon prior to or during the detailed plan review process to determine landscape buffer spec~flcabons ~n the area adjacent to C~ty View Park Hours of operabon shall be hm~ted to 7'00 am to 7'00 pm Monday thru Saturday Attachments: Location Map Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City M anager~ ~-- ,~~'z. Map B-lO,11 t~ Sc~-le Southeastern Public Service A R-SO Land~ll ~ha~e 2-A / / // /// , / A-24 R-SD Zomr~ C/'a'~gc from - R-~D, R-7 3, B-2 fo ]-2 CUP - fur ~oi,d Waste 'vlaq. L~ement Facd~/ NOTE: The history of zoning activity in the Immediate area of this request IS provided in the staff report. Bll - 212 - REZ - 2003 Bll - 211 - CUP - 2003 SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 December 10, 2003 Pubhc Hearing i Staff Planner' Ashby Moss The follow/ng report /s prepared by the staff of the V/rgin/a Beach Department of Planning to provide data, /nformat/on, and profess/onal land use recommendations to the Plann/ng Comm/ssion and the C/ty Council to ass/st them in making a dec/sion regarding th/s appl/cat/on Location and General Information REQUEST: 21 LOCATION: Change of Zonmq District Classificabon from R-5D and R-7.5 Residenbal Districts and B-2 Community Bus~ness District to I-2 Heavy Industrial D~stnct. 22. Cond~bonal Use Permit for sol~d waste management facihty. Property located on southern corner of landfill site at 1989 Jake Sears Road i, SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 1 GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: Porbons of 14555036820000; 14556019060000; 14557019350000, 14553576950000; 14546918540000, 14546936500000; 14556088900000 1 - CENTERVILLE 39 acres The area proposed for lease by SPSA ~s part of the C~ty's Landfill 2 property located at the terminus of Jake Sears Road. The subject area ~s currently vacant and parbally wooded. Most of the subject area ~s zoned R-5D Res~denbal Duplex District A smaller area on the northwest s~de ~s zoned R-7 5 Res~denbal D~stnct, and a very small porbon is zoned B-2 Community Bus,ness D~stnct North South. East: West · Landfill area (Phase 2A) / R-5D Res~denbal D~strict · A 100-foot strip of vacant, wooded land exists between the subject area and the adjacent condom~mum development / PD-H2 (A-12) Planned Development with maximum density of 12 units per acre · C~ty View D~stnct Park / R-5D Res~denbal Duplex D~stnct · Tallwood Elementary School/R-5D Residenbal Duplex D~strict · Ex~sting landfill area / R-5D and R-7.5 Res~denbal D~stncts The southwestern porbon of the site abutbng the Tarleton Oaks at Tallwood condominiums ~s wooded A small area of wetlands ~s located within the wooded area on the western s~de. The Army Corps of Engineers ~s the permitting agency responsible for review of requests to disturb these wetlands. The s~te ~s ~n an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 2 APPLICATION HISTORY: This application was deferred at the November 12, 2003 Planning Commission hearing at the request of the Planning Commission. C~ty staff has since met w~th the developer of the Tarleton Oaks Condominiums to d~scuss the proposal Summary of Propos SPSA currently operates a Yard Waste Processing and Mulching Operation at the C~ty's Landfill 2. Th~s facility has been ~n operation since December of 1990 Another s~m~lar operahon ~s located ~n Suffolk With the proposed new Iocahon at Landfill 2, the two ex~st~ng facd~t~es wdl be closed and consohdated ~nto one locatIon. The proposed Iocahon ~s southeast of the existing operating area for the landfill. The lease lines will be set back a m~nimum of 100 feet from the adjacent residential properties to the south. Th~s 100-foot buffer ~s heavily wooded w~th a m~x of evergreen and deciduous trees. The public park s~te to the south also has a wooded buffer extending across most of the abutting area The gap w~ll be landscaped ~n a manner acceptable to the City's Department of Parks and Recreahon. The proposed facility will receive m~xed loads of yard waste from transfer statIons, yard debris traders, and yard waste collection trucks. The facility only accepts green waste such as grass clippings, leaves, and woody ~tems such as tree and brush trimmings, pallets, and boards. No painted, varnished, or treated wood, root balls, stumps, soil, sand, d~rt, rocks, or hazardous waste ~s accepted Unacceptable materials or loads are sent to the landfill for d~sposal Incoming loads are separated ~nto three categories' compostable materials, mulch materials, and firewood. Compostable material (mostly leaves and grasses) is processed through a gnndedde-bagger. The ground material is then passed through a trommel screener to remove oversized material, including the majority of the plastic. Processed compost material is sent to the compost pad for composhng Water ~s added to the compost, which ~s spread into a "windrow." W~ndrows are turned regularly to advance the compost~ng process, mitigate odor, and d~sperse "hot spots." The compost must advance through approximately n~ne w~ndrows before the composhng process ~s complete, which takes four to five months. SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 3 Mulch materials (mostly brush and woody debris) are run through a tub gnnder and then w~ndrowed to beg~n the aging process After one month, the material ~s ground again through a smaller screen and then w~ndrowed for a second aging per~od. The fln~shed compost and mulch products are sold both on-site and through deliveries The facility will be open from 7.00 am to 7'00 pm, Monday through Saturday Security w~ll be present on s~te from 4'00 pm to 8.00 am and all day on Sunday All stormwater and runoff from watenng the materials ~s captured on s~te The Department of Environmental Quahty ~s the permitting agency responsible for regulating captured water associated w~th th~s type of facility. Vehicles wdl access the s~te through the ex~st~ng landfill entrance at the terminus of Jake Sears Road. Initially, vehicles wdl be d~rected to enter the new SPSA facd~ty from the northern corner, which ~s on the ~ntenor of the landfill s~te and away from adjacent properties Once landfill operations beg~n on Phase 2A of the landfill north of the leased area (currently estimated ~n 2012), vehicles w~ll c~rcle around the Phase 2A area and enter from the eastern corner of the leased area adjacent to a wooded area of the C~ty park All stationary equipment such as the tub gnnder and heavy actw~ty such as the staging, screening, and processing areas will be located on the landfill s~de of the leased area at least 350 feet from any adjacent properties. The area w~th~n 350 feet of adjacent properties wdl be used solely for w~ndrows and water storage ponds. Very I~ttle act~wty w~ll occur ~n the 350-foot area adjacent to the residential property. The applicant estimates windrows w~ll be turned one to three times per week at th~s end of the s~te. In addition, a 1.1-acre wooded wetland area w~ll remain undisturbed w~th~n the leased area between the residential property and the heaviest actiwty on the site Major Issues The foflow/ng represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 4 · Substantial buffenng between proposed mulching operabon and adjacent residential dwellings and C~ty park · Mitigation of no~se, dust, and odor generated by proposed mulching operation Comprehensive Plan The Comprehenswe Plan Map recommends industrial uses for the subject area Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' ~dent~fied at the beginning of th~s report The proposal's strengths ~n addressing the 'Major Issues' are (2) The mulching operation will be buffered on both sides to abutting properties other than the landfill. A 100-foot natural wooded buffer will be preserved adjacent to the residential property to the south. Another 1 1-acre wooded wetland area will be preserved south of the more active area on the s~te. The natural buffer adjacent to the park wdl be supplemented where necessary to fill the gap. No~se w~ll be m~tigated both by the wooded buffers and by locating the noisiest equipment and activities to the interior of the leased area VehIcular traffic will also be d~rected to the northern s~de of the leased area, away from the adjacent residential property Odors, dust, and other w~nd-blown debris will be m~t~gated by locating the staging, screening, and processing areas on the interior of the leased area. Substantial wooded buffers also protect neighboring properties from these nuisances. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of th~s request subject to the recommended conditions below. - SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (Si~._, A) Agenda Items 21 and:22 Page 5 Conditions 1. The lease area shall be set back a m~n~mum of 100 feet from the condominium property southwest of the subject s~te All trees shall be preserved w~th~n th~s buffer area The s~te shall be developed and operated as depicted on the site plan entitled, "SPSA Consolidated Compost Facility" dated 11/17/2003 by Solid Waste Services LLC 3. Equipment no~se shall be minimized through the use of muffler systems on the equipment Vehicular traffic associated with the mulching operation shall be directed to the northwest s~de of the leased area until such t~me that landfill operations beg~n on Phase 2A of the Landfill 2 s~te After that hme, vehicles shall be d~rected to enter the s~te from the eastern corner of the leased area, just southwest of the Phase 2A s~te . The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Development Services Center for detailed plan review. Other ~ssues related to drainage, dust control, odor control, etc. shall be addressed dunng detailed plan review. , The applicant shall meet w~th Department of Parks and Recreation prior to or dunng the detailed plan rewew process to determine landscape buffer specifications in the area adjacent to C~ty V~ew Park 7. Hours of operahon shall be I~m~ted to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday thru Saturday NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of appficable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable Cit~/ Codes. SOUTHEASTERN PUBL~IC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 6 3 9-26-95 Modification of Condlbons of Use Permit granted 3-26-Granted 90) Cond~bonal Use Permit (fill borrow p~t) Rezon~ng (B-2 Business to cond~bonal A-24 Apartments) 1-14-97 Modificabon of Cond~bons Withdrawn 11-12-96 Mod~flcabon of Conditions Granted 2-23-93 Cond~bonal Use Permit (borrow p~t) Granted 3-18-85 Rezonlng (R-8 Residenbal to B-2 Bus,ness) Granted 3-13-01 Rezoning (R-5D Res~denbal Duplex to PD-H2 (A-12) Granted Planned Unit Development w~th density no greater than 12 units/acre) 3-26-90 Granted 4 7-1-03 Granted Public Agency Comments Public Works No change in traffic generation is anbc~pated, as the ex~sting mulching fac~hty on the landfill s~te will be closed when the new facd~ty ~s opened. Public Utilities Water and sewer ~s not required for the proposed operabon Public Safety I Poli.ce: I No comments F~re and Rescue F~re concerns wdl be addressed during detailed plan rewew However, SPSA's estabhshed procedures incorporate fire prevenbon methods to m~bgate potenbal for spontaneous fires. These procedures include watenng the ~ncommg materials and periodically watenng the stockpdes, turning the materials regularly, and lim~bng the stockple heights to 15 to 25 feet In a-dd~tion, s~te SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 8 personnel and security performs roubne checks 24 hours a day. In the event of an outbreak of fire or smoke, fire response procedures w~ll be followed. The landfill water truck w~ll be brought to the fire Iocabon and will saturate the area Loader or excavator equipment w~ll d~g out the area unbl the hot spot ~s removed and doused The effort w~ll conbnue unbl all of the hot area has been saturated, m,xed, and spread out to exbngu~sh the fire Parks and Recreation The subject site is immediately adjacent to C~ty V~ew Park, which had an annual attendance of 114,306 people ~n 2002. The proposed mulch,ng operabon has the potential to adversely affect park patrons w~th dust, no~se, and odor Buffers should be prowded where not already present ~n the area adjacent to City View Park It ~s recommended that the applicant meet with the Department of Parks and Recreabon to develop a collaborabve plan to address buffer ~ssues. SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 9 Exhibit~"3~ Exhibit Aerial of Sit~ Locatio~ SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 10 · -- g Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 11 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement Z . .='= .. .... I I I II IIIIII :: ........ ' APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If ~e appilc~n~ is a corpo~l~on, partnership, ~Tn, Dullness, or other umncorpo~l~d organization, compiete the follow~r~l '1 L~! the applicant nan. e foltowecl ~y the n~rnes of ~1! off:ers, member, trustees, partners, ere below* (Att~..A lis~ifneces~.~ry) 2 L~st att businesses that have a Il'tat have a parent-subsidiary' or atfihated ~us~ness en~l'~ relabon~p w~ the appll~a~ (Att~c~ t~s~ ff necessary) ,,~ Check here if the apptK:ant ~s NOTa corporation, parb~.mhlp, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete fha section only if property owner ~s d~fferent from apphcant the property owner ~s a corporalzon, partnersh¥, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members trustees, partners, etc. below (Attach li~t rfnece.~sary) 2. L~st all bu.~nesses that have a that have a parent-subsa:llary' or affill&ted t~usiness entft~ relat~nship with, the appl~ (Attach fisfffnece~ary) ~ Check here ~f the property owner is NOT a ccrporat~on pa,'tnershtp, firm, business, ! or other unlncoq~mted organization See r, ext page for footnmes i I .... 1.11. ig, l,I SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 12 [ DIscLos ri STATEMENT I I '1 I -- I II IIIII · · I1 IIIIIII _ ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all Known contractom or I:~st~s that have or wilt =royale serwce$ w~th respect to the requested property use, mclud~g but not hmited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial servK~s, and legal services' (Attach I~st if necessary) ~ "Parent-subs~iary relationship" means "a relationsmp that exists when one corporabon dYed:¥ or indirectly owns shares possess~g more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporaaon." See State and Local Government Conflic~ of Interests Act, Va Code § 2 2-3101. 2 'Affihated business entL'y retabonsh~p' means 'a retabonship, other than parent-subsidiary rela~onsh~p, that exists when (0 one b~stness entity has a controlling ow~rship Interest in the Other business entity. (d) a controlling owner m one entity is also a controlling owner m the other entity, or' (iu) there · shared management or control between the business en~t~es. Factors that should be consl~lered in ~eterm~nmg the existence of an affi~ted business entity relationship ~nciude that ~ same person or substantIally the same person own or manage ~e tv~o en~ties, there are c.,orm'nc~ or cornmr~jled funds or assets; the business enfibes sham the use ofl~e s~ame offices or employees or ot~envme share act~wt~es, resources or personnel on a regular basis, or there ~s otherw~e a close wor~ng re[at~onship between the enl~Jes." See State and Local Government Confhct of Interests Act, Va Code § 2.2-3101. ~.~ L - I I__ IIIIII ! II ! JI IIII IIIII i -- · I _. · " i III IIII t u~e~ ~, ~ m~pt ~ n~~ ~rd) ~h~ ~ appl,~ h~ ~ scheduled ~r p~llc ~, i ~ ~~ for ~inmg and ~g ~e ~ulr~ sign ~ the s~ pr~ ~ ~t ~ ~ p~r 1o ~e s~u~ pubt~ h~nng Pn~ Name Pnnt Name Exhibit C Disclosure Statement Ic. nntin,m, dl SOUTHEASTERN PUBLICSERVlCE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items _2.1 and 22 Page 13 Rec,aglmg OlEo 921 ?~ofcssmn~l PI~¢ Ch.~,~..akc VA 2332~ vo~,-~,. ~ COIl List apphcaat name £otlowed by fl~c names of all officers, members, ~rustees, partners, ¢~c SPSA Officers John S. Hadfiel& P E - Execuu', e Director W. Lew~s Jordan - Deputy Execuu~ e D,rector Ronald A Angus - D~rector o£ Waste to Energy Fehma W Blov~.. APR - Director of Public Relations & MarkeUng Richard M Ch¢lu-as - D~rector o£En,,~roamentat & Sat'et) Management Larry. Davenport -Dtrector of Finance Debra Devine - D~rector of Recycling Steve Herbom - D~rector of' lnformauon Tectmology Glenn McGrath - D~rector o£ Human Resources Daniel D Miles, P E - D~rector of Operations SPSA Board of Directors SPSA's system development is ovcrseen by the Board of Directors. composed of a member and alternate representari-~ e from each of the e~t commumues SPSA serves Chmrman - Chaxlcs B x3,q:fitehurst. Sr Ci~ Councilman - Portsmouth %ce-Chatrman - Richard K. MacManus Member, Board of Supervisors - Isle of Wight Treasurer - Leroy Bennett Ci~' Councilman - Suffolk Wflham E Ward Mayor - Chesapeake Mike Barrett CEO, Rmmymede Corp - Vtr~ma Beach Dallas O. Jones Member. Board ot' Supe~'mors - Southampton County Charles A Wrenn Crt3' Cotmcilman - Franklin Donald L Wtlliams City Councilman - Norfolk Exhibit C Disclosure Statement /continue. all ~t:~eld P ~ SOUTHEASTERN PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SPSA) Agenda Items 21 and 22 Page 14 Items #21 & 22 Southeastern Public Service Authority Change of Zoning District Classfficat~on Conditional Use Permit 1989 Jake Sears Road District 1 Centervdle December 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: Our last ~tems on consent are Items #21 & 22 the Southeastern Public Service Authority Item #21 is an ordinance upon application of Southeastern Public Service Authority for a change of zoning district classification from R-5D and R-7 5 Residential and B-2 Community Business to I-2 Heavy Industrial This is located on Jake Sears Road Item #22 is an ordinance of the Southeastern Public Service Authority for a Conditional Use Permit for a solid waste management facility on property located on Jake Sears Road. They are both in the Centervllle District. I believe there are seven conditions. Warren Tlsdale: My name is Warren Tlsdale. I'm an attomey and I represent the applicant SPSA. SPSA is agreeable to the conditions. Dorothy Wood' Thank you Mr Tlsdale. Is there any opposition to Item #21 ? Eddie Bourdon. If I could? Helen Dragas asked me to express her appreciation to the Commission and to the staff members with whom she's been working with for the last 30 days for revising the conditions to protect the development to the south. She asked me to express her appreciation. Dorothy Wood: It's nice to hear Mr. Bourdon Thank you. Heanng no opposition, Items #21 & 22, Mr Horsley would you please explain this to the Commission? Donald Horsley: Yes ma'am The Comprehensive Plan recommends industrial uses in this area so we think we're in line there. SPSA currently operates a yard waste processing and mulching operation in the City's landfill #2, also, a similar operation like this in Suffolk. Once this is put into their operation these two will be consolidated into one location. We think that the adequate buffers have been established to protect the neighborhood and we think it's an excellent industrial use to put on this property as the Comprehensive Plan has recommended and were glad to hear that the adjoining property owners have met with SPSA and have agreed to make some changes in the conchtlons so the property will be protected. So, we feel like this deserves consent agenda status Dorothy Wood Thank you Mr. Horsley. I would move to approve Items #21 & 22 with seven conditions Ronald Pdpley. Okay. That's the motion to approve the ~tems so c~ted. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kathy Kats~as Is there any d~scuss~on? Heanng none, we'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Rlpley. By a vote to 10-0, the motion carries. I'm gmng to abstain on Items//21 & 22 because I'm a part owner on a p~ece property that ~s adjacent to the apphcat~on. Please note that abstention. Thank you very much - '" ~ - "' '~ .......... ~, 'i Supplemental Informabon '., Map No't '~, Sca~e Zonin.q History Harbour ;ts B_ ,IVISION OF CUP- Ch~ldcare facility ~n church ] :/:/: J DATE J REQUEST J ACTION 1. 6-23-98 2-11-60 2. 5-13-97 3. 10-14-97 12-12-88 4. 9-28-93 8-26-97 7-7-86 5. 5-28-02 Conditional Use Permit (church additions) Conditional Use Permit (church) Cond~bonal Use Permit (motor vehicle sales) Modification of Condibons (to CUP granted 12-12-88) Cond~bonal Use Permit (auto service center) Condibonal Use Permit (auto sales & repair) Cond~bonal Use Permit (motor vehicle sales) Cond~bonal Use Permit (auto maintenance) Cond~bonal Use Permit (off-site employee parking & auto storage) Granted Granted Den~ed Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page .5 IIII CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM III I ITEM: Harbour Tugboats Day Care - Conditional Use Permit (child care) MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Apphcabon of Harbour Tugboats Day Care for a Conditional Use Permit for child care on property located at 2801 V~rginla Beach Boulevard (GPINS 14974573210000, 14974555910000). DISTRICT 6- BEACH Considerations: The applicant proposes to operate a non-profit daycare center w~thin the existing faciht~es of the church. The church ~s approximately 20,000 square feet and has a parking lot ~n the rear. No budding expansion or further s~te improvements are proposed to accommodate the daycare center Hours of operation are proposed to be 7.00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In,bally, 35 to 50 students are anbc~pated w~th a full bme staff of five (5) Ulbmately, the applicant anbc~pates up to 100 students. The Planning Commission placed th~s ~tem on the consent agenda because they felt ~t was an appropriate use for the s~te and ~s compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve th~s request w~th the following cond~bon The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, ~nspecbons, and approvals from the F~re Department and the Permits and Inspections D~v~s~on of the Planning Department before occupancy of the budding. A Certificate of Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspections D~ws~on of the Planning Department. Attachments: Locabon Map Staff Review D~sclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Marlager: ~ ~- -~~'~'- ~a~ H-~ Harbour ~1~o No't. tc Scale CUP- Chtldcare facthty tn church NOTE: The h~story of zoning activity in the ~mmed~ate area of th~s request ~s prowded ~n the staff report, L~.-:~, HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE ~~? Agenda Item # 8 ,...., December 10, 2003 Public Heanng Staff Planner Ashby Moss The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this appflcatlon. ~...:-,~ ...~,~ Location and General Information REQUEST: Condibonal Use Permit for child care facdlty wRh~n a church LOCATION: Property located at 2801 Virginia Beach Boulevard Harbour Tugboats CUP- Ch~16:are faoh~F ~n church GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 14974573210000 and 14974555910000 6 - BEACH HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 1 SITE SIZE: 44,000 square feet EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: Church / B-2 Community Business District North' South & East' West · Across V~rginia Beach Boulevard, entrance to Chesopean Colony / R-15 Residenbal District · Beach Ford Auto sales and repair / B-2 Commumty Business District · S~ngle-famdy dwelhng / B-2 Community Bus~ness District The s~te contains a number of mature trees, none of these w~ll be affected by the proposal. The s~te is ~n an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn and greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Summary of Proposal The apphcant proposes to operate a non-profit daycare center wIthin the exisbng facd~ties of the church The church ~s approximately 20,000 square feet and has a parking lot ~n the rear. No building expansion or further s~te ~mprovements are proposed to accommodate the daycare center Hours of operabon are proposed to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday In,bally, 35 to 50 students are anbc~pated w~th a full time staff of five (5) Ulbmately, the applicant anticipates up to 100 students HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item #_8 Page 2 Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request/s largely based on the degree to which these ~ssues are adequately addressed · Compat~b~hty of proposed daycare w~th ex~sting church and surrounding land uses. · Vehicular accessibility to and from s~te Note: Daycare facilities are permitted m the B-2 Community Business D~strict, which the subject parcel ~s zoned However, since the daycare wdl be located w~thm a church, which requires a Conditional Use Permit, another Condibonal Use Permit ~s required. The Comprehensive Plan recommends retail, service, off~ce, and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communibes. Daycare facilities are recognized as ~mportant services for our c~t~zens. Staff recommends approval of th~s request ,! HARBOUR TUGBOA'FS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 3 Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses the 'Major Issues' identified at the beginning of th~s report The proposal's strengths ~n addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) (2) The proposed ch~ldcare center is appropriate at th~s Iocabon and compatible with the few ne~ghbonng uses. Childcare centers are often located w~th~n churches because the required facilibes are very s~milar and the hours of operabon coordinate well Vehicular access to the s~te is adequate. While there ~s no median break ~n V~rg~nia Beach Boulevard for Foundry Lane, vehicles are able to make a Uo turn at a signalized mtersecbon just a few hundred feet from Foundry Lane. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request with the following condition. Conditions . The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits, ~nspections, and approvals from the F~re Department and the Permits and Inspecbons Division of the Planning Department before occupancy of the building A Certificate of Occupancy for the use shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspecbons D~vision of the Planning Department NOTE: I 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. i i i HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 4 Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP).' VIrginia Beach Boulevard in the v~c~n~ty of this apphcabon ~s an e~ght lane divided major urban arterial. The MTP designates th~s road as a divided fac~hty w~th~n a 150-foot right-of-way. There are no projects hsted ~n the current adopted CIP to improve th~s facility Foundry Lane ~s a local dead end street serving the subject property and the Beach Ford complex. This road ~s not hsted on the MTP, and there are no projects hsted m the current adopted CIP to ~mprove th~s facility Traffic Calculations. Street Name Preser~t Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Ex~sbng Land Use 2 Weekday- 182 ADT V~rg~n~a 47,202 56,420 Sunday- 733 ADT Beach ADT ~ ADT ~ Boulevard Proposed Land Use 3 Weekday - 645 ADT Sunday - 733 ADT Average Dady Trips 2 as defined by 20,000 square foot church 3 as defined by 100 chdd daycare center and 20,000 square foot church The property ~s already served by C~ty water and sewer. Public Utilities Public Safety I Police I No comments. I F~re and Rescue The proposed add~bon of childcare to the church may require a change of use request from the Permits and Inspecbons D~v~s~on of the Planning Department. The applicant must receive approval from the Building Official efore occupan.cy. HARBOUR TUGBOAT-S DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 6 EXh'ib~s~-~ Exhibit Aerial of Sit~ Locatior HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 7 ,, Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 8 Z Exhibit C Disclosure Statement ,'_ "_- DI~cLoS[~R£ STATEMENT' · ,1 ,, ,., ~, , , ,, ,, Hi,, ,... .' , , ,, i I ,! I mi i'~ ' ' J I I' ' ' I1' , 111 . I'1 I = 'l it II I[ , ...... APPLICANT DI$ClJ3$URE If Ihe applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincoq)orated organization, complete the foflowing: 1. List the applicant name follm~ed by the names of ail officers, membem, trustees. partners, etc. below: (A~tach list if necessary) J ~: , 2. l. jst ail businesse~ that have a pareat-subsidia~? or affit~ated business entityz reiabonshlp with fl~e appl~ar~. (At~ach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant ~s NOTa corpo~, partnemhip, firm, bus,ness, or other ur~incorpora~ ol~:janizaUon. PROPER'I~ OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section on~ W p~e~ ow~r is d~t ~m appi~. If ~ pr~ o~ ~ a ~, ~n~p, fi~, business, or ~er unin~a~d o~~. ~H~e ~e fo~ow~: 1. L~t ~ pm~ ~ n~ ~ll~d by ~e names of all o~em, ~mbers, ~st~s, pa~em, e~. ~: (A~ I~ ff ne~~) 2. List all businesses tha~ have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entityz relationship with the applicant: (Af~ach £rst if necessary) [] C~eck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, See nex~ page f~¢ foot~otes _- .= ..... ., ,, ,~ ..... _,, .. _ _ i1_11 i ii i i iiii i i i ..... . .~ ii i HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 10 ~ 'Parent-m,~lrary relationship" means "a reJatlonship that exis~ when one corporafiotl directly or Indire~tty owrts shame possessing more than 150 percerrt of the votm§ power of anoth~ corpomtton.' See State ard Lc~al Govemmen! Corfl~t of interests Act., Va. Code § 2.2-3101. controlling one entity Es also e c~rolllng owner in tim other em1~, er (~i) them b shared menagemeht or control belween the ~as entltfer, FerVors that should be con~ldese~in deanna'ting the exie~ Of an ~ ~ efltity relationship include th~ the saree peraon m' a~a~rtanflally the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common et ~ funds or asset~; the buainess entlttee share the use of t~e same afftces or ernployee~ or othetw~e shem ecavttles, resouaoas or personnet on a,~egu~ar bards; or there is othere~e a close work~g relationship between tl~ efi6ties." See Stale and Local Gevemment Conflict of InIerests Act, Va. Code § CERTIFICATE:tN: I certify that ~ Infotma'aon conta~ heroin is trde and accurate, I understarid that. upon receipt of notification (postcard) mat the application has been ~eduted for ~b~¢ hearing, t am resp~ib~ for ol~talntng and post~ng tJ~e required sTgn on th~ subject ~operty at teast 30 days prior ~0 the scheduled public hearing accordb~g tO the instructions ~n this package. · Fnn~ Na/We' Print Name Exhibit C-2 Disclosure Statement HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 11 Exhibit C-3 Disclosure Statement Safe Harbour Care Center "Harbour Tugboats" 101 N Lym~haven Rd #30I Virginia ~ VA 23452 (757) 340..2564- Fax (757) 49g.6432 Applicant Disclosure Conditional Use Permit Foundry United Methodist Church Daycare Facility There are NO pa~ent-s~sbsidiary relationships. The fnlowing are nffffi~ted busine~ entity relmionships: Sharexl tnatmgean~t - Natalie Giles is seca'etaty of apphc, ant and secretary ofHarbour Crecht ~ space is slated wsth ~ Credit Counseling Servia, lnc, I-larbou~ lrumn,:iai Inc, and Amedctn Paymem Solutto~ lac Acoamung rec~xla w~l ttow through ~ Credit Coumel~ Serdc~ Inc.(a iiceam~ Vtrgin~ non-wofit entity) until sur~ time m Fexle~ non-profit sta~ is fm. li,~_ for A Safe Rarbour Ca~¢ Center if necessary A Licensed Non Profit Agency HARBOUR TUGBOATS DAY CARE Agenda Item # 8 Page 12 Item #8 Harbor Tugboats Day Care Conditional Use Permit 2801 Virginia Beach Boulevard District 6 Beach December 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: I would go to Item #8, which is the Harbor Tugboats Day Care. It's an application of the Harbor Tugboats Day Care for a Use Permit for chlldcare The Foundry Methodist Church on Virginia Beach in the Beach District with one condition Please state your name ma'am and if you read the conditions and agree with them. Shirley Noftslnger: My name is Shirley Noftslnger and yes I have read that and I do agree with the conditions Dorothy Wood: Thank you Is there any opposition to Item #8 the Harbor Tugboats Day Care? Heanng none, Mr. Din will you please? William Din: Yes Thank you Dot. This is a Conditional Use for a chlldcare center in association with a church. There is no building expansion or any further site expansion improvements in this area for this day care. The day care is an appropriate Use in this location. It is compatible with its nelghbonng uses. We've looked at the vehicular access to the s~te and it's adequate Since there is no opposition to this thing and there's a favorable staff recommendation we have placed it on consent Dorothy Wood. Thank you very much I would move to approve Item #8 with one condition. Ronald Pdpley Okay. That's the motion to approve the item so cited Do I have a second? Seconded by Kathy Katslas. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald R~pley: By a vote to 11-0, the motion carries. I I I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM I I I I I I I ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 Background: An Ordinance to amend Secbon 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to s~gns ~n the B-3A Pembroke Central Business D~str~ct. Considerations: The proposed amendments will increase the amount of s~gnage ~n the B-3A Pembroke Central Bumness Distnct for "major tenants" who occupy large areas of a building The larger signs w~ll be balanced w~th pedestrian and architectural amen~bes. The current Zoning Ordinance provisions allow 0.6 square feet of sign area for every foot of building frontage. The ordinance further provides that there be a maximum of four (4) s~gns and that no sign can be greater than 60 square feet The ong~nal version of the amendments as presented to the Planning Commission provided that a 'major tenant' could have up to 1 8 square feet of s~gn area for every foot of building frontage. The version recommended by the Planning Commission, however, reduces the 1.8 square feet to 1.2 square feet. The Commission made th~s modification after comparing the amount of signage allowed ~n the B-2 Community Business D~strict to the amount of s~gnage that would be allowed in B-3A Distnct with the omginal amendment proposal of 1.8 square feet. The Commission determined that the ratio of 1.2 square feet per foot of building footage resulted in an allowable sign area more consistent w~th what would be allowed in the B-2 Commumty Business D~strict for the equivalent frontage. Staff recommended approval There was no opposition to the request Recommendations: The Planning Commmsion passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 w~th one abstenbon to approve the amendments as modified Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance (as recommended by Planning Commission) Ordinance (as originally proposed) Planning Commission M~nutes Kempsvdle/Centervdle Associates, LLC Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency/: Planning Department City Manager:~ [/~'-~~ ~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item #10 December 10, 2003 Pubhc Hearing The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, Information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to ass/st them /n making a dec/sion regarding this appflcation. 10. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH An Ordinance to amend Secbon 905 of the C~ty Zoning Ordinance pertaining to s~gns in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business D~stnct. staff EValuati0n~ The proposed amendments will increase the amount of s~gnage ~n the B-3A Pembroke Central Bus~ness D~str~ct for "major tenants" who occupy large areas of a building but who do not have the s~gn frontage required by the ordinance The larger s~gns w~ll be balanced with pedestrian and architectural amenibes. Staff recommends approval. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item # 10 Page 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTION 905 THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIGNS IN THE B-3A PEMBROKE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION AMENDED: § 905 OF THE CZO 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 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance ms hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: ARTICLE 9. BUSINESS DISTRICTS Sec. 905 Sign regulations. · · (d) Within the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core Dlstr~ct, signs shall be permitted as follows: (3.7).. Major Tenant Siqn Option. For each foot of building footaqe, a major tenant may have a maximum of one and two-tenths (1.2) square feet of slqn area, provided that: (i) pedestrian scale features and amenities such as outdoor caf~ seating, planters, kiosk areas, fountains, d~splay w~ndows or sculptures are provided on the facade or adjacent thereto; and (ii) the Planning Director and Zoninq Administrator concur. No major tenant shall have 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 a total of more than four (4) signs., ~or .~ore than two (2) sSgns per building facade. (7) As used in this section: a. "Occupancy frontage" means the exterior length of that portion of a building occupied exclusively by a single establishment having at least one (1) exterior public access; ~ b. "Bumldmng identification sign" means a sign which displays only the name of the building on which it ms locatedr~ c... "Major tenant" means the space ~n a building occupied by a single establishment with a building wall height of at least thirty-five (35) feet and with at least one (1) continuous wall containinq a~ least eighty (8Q) feet of buzldinq frontage; and d. "Buildinq frontage" means the exterior length of that portion of a building occupied exclusively by a single establishment. COMMENT These amendments will increase the amount of signage in the Town Center for the Major Tenants who occupy large areas of stores and are not able to have the sign frontage needed under the other alternatives. The larger signs allowed will be balanced with architectural and pedestrian amenities. 51 52 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2004. CA- 9065 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/c zo 0905 ord. wpd R-4 January 2, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: P 1 an'n [n~De~ a~t n{ent APPROVED AS TO LEGAL Ci~y-A~t~orney' k office ( 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTION 905 THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIGNS IN THE B-3A PEMBROKE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION AMENDED' ~ 905 OF THE CZO 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 905 of the City Zonzng Ordinance is hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows' ARTICLE 9. BUSI~FESS DISTRICTS Sec. 905 Sign regulations. · · · · (d) Within the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District, smgns shall be permitted as follows: · · · · (3,7) Major Tenant Siqn .Option· For each foot of building footaqe, a major tenant may have a maximum of one and eight-tenths .(!..8) square feet of siqn area, provided that' (i)pedestrian scale features and amenities such as outdoor caf~ seating, plaDters,..kiosk areas, .fountains, display windows or sculptures are provided on the facade or adjacent thereto; and (iq) the Planninq Director and Zoning Administrator concur. No major tenant shall have 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O more than four (4) si,gns total, nor more than two (2) signs per building facade. (7) As used in this section: a. "Occupancy frontage" means the exterior length of that portion of a building occupied exclusively by a single establishment having at least one (1) exterior public access; ~ b. "Building identification sign" means a sign which displays only the name of the building on which it is locatedrL c. "Ma]or tenant" means the .space in a building occupied by a single establishment with a building wall height of at least thirty-five (35) feet and with at least one (1) continuous wall containing a.D least eighty (80) feet of building frontage; and "Buildinc frontage" means the exterior length of that portion of a building occupied exclusively by a single establishment. COMMENT These amendments will increase the amount of signage in the Town Center for the Major Tenants who occupy large areas of stores and are not able to have the sign frontage needed under the other alternatives. The larger signs allowed will be balanced with architectural and pedestrian amenities. 51 52 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2003. CA-9065 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/czo0905ord.wpd R2 December 2, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: ~la~ni~g ' ~p~me; APPROVED AS TO LEGAL / SUFFICIEN~CY: ~ ~/9 A~ / Cit~ )ft~o'~n~y"s Office Item # 10 City of Virginia Beach An ordinance to amend Section 905 of the C~ty Zomng Ordinance Pertaining to signs in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business District December 10, 2003 REGULAR Robert M~ller: The next ~tem ~s Item #10, the City of V~rg~ma Beach, an ordinance to amend Section 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance. Robert Scott: I th~nk our staff should take a few minutes and give you a httle run down on what we have here in a way of the proposal and other Issues. Karen Lasley gave you a presentation this mormng I th~nk It'S appropriate for maybe to have her h~t a few more h~ghhghts here just to get them on the record and go over what the issues are, and then we can talk about how to resolve ~t Karen Lasley. Let me give you a quick summary. If you want me to go back to any of the presentation we can do that. Basically, we feel that some adjustment needs to be made to our Zoning Regulations for large tenants ~n the B-3A Central Bus~ness District. That is based on requests that we've had for larger signs by some of the national retail chains that are going into the Town Center It is also based on companng our s~gn allowances w~th other central business d~stncts throughout the country. That's very broad brush, and ~f you have any specific questions for me on this proposed amendment. Ronald Rapley. I tlunk for the record, I flunk you ought to try to explmn what the current policy IS and what this policy is suggesting. Karen Lasley: I will go back through parts of the presentation again. Currently, in the B- 3A Districts the sign regulations allow .6 square feet of s~gnage for every one foot of occupancy frontage. It allows a maximum of 4 signs per establishment, and no s~gn can be greater than 60 square feet. Some of the large tenants that I was refemng to Included Galyans The regulations the way they currently read allow 120 square feet of slgnage for a store hke Galyans, w~th a maximum sign size of 150 square feet. Galyans desires to have 735 square feet of Slgnage. They have a large sign that is 211 square feet that ~s part of their standard s~gn package. I have a couple of pictures for you of what that sign looks hke that they want to have. Cheesecake Factory was the second b~g user that we worked with. They're currently allowed 124 square feet of s~gnage. Their standard sign package that they would like to have has a total of 289 square feet of s~gnage. I have a couple of pictures for you, and we feel that these don't look out of proportion. So, therefore, we decided to look at our regulations and compare them to some of the other central business districts in the country and what they would allow. I have a handout for you that will explain m detml, some of the regulations in these other areas Basically, just to summarize, the retail user w~th 100 feet of occupancy frontage m Vlrg~ma Beach would be allowed 60 square feet of sIgnage. In Reston, Virginia, they would be allowed 200 square feet sign of sign area. City Place, which is in West Palm Beach, 180 square feet would be allowed In Brea, Cahforma, they would allow 100 square feet, or larger ~f ~t met their design guidelines and was approved by the Planning Commlssmn Church Street Shops, which ~s located in Orlando, Florida, they would allow 200 square feet. So, looking at other CBDs ours is much more restrictive. The amendment that ~s before you today has a new defimt~on, a "maJor tenant", and that would be a single establishment in a large portion of a building, or a stand alone building that would have a wall height of at least 35 feet and would have frontage along one side of the bmld~ng of at least 80 feet. And, a large user like that would be allowed what we are calhng our "maJor tenant sign option." That would allow 1 8 square of s~gnage for each foot of bmlding frontage And to balance that extra slgnage they would have to also provide pedestrian scale features and amemt~es such as outdoor cafes, benches, fountmns and that type of th~ng And, to use this option you would ~t would have to be approved by both the Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator. That it ~s a good package. That ~t fits ~nto the Town Center. The amendment also for this option allows no more than four signs per estabhshment and no more than two signs per bmldlng fagade We did let you know that this proposal is not without concern on our part. That ~t ~s a lot of slgnage for the C~ty of Virginia Beach And just to compare it with our B-2 Commumty Business District s~gn regulations, under those regulations a store the s~ze of Galyans would be allowed 502.5 square feet of s~gnage ff ~t was zoned B-2, and any s~ngle bmldmg sign could not be greater than the 150 square feet. The amendment as proposed m your agenda would allow them to have 819 square feet of slgnage w~th no cap on individual sign s~ze And, we also wanted to rem~nd you that in the B-3A D~stnct these buildings are at zero setbacks, so they are right up against the roadway. In the workshop informal session we looked at what would be the impact if we changed that 1.8 factor to a 1.2 And, that would allow for Galyans 546 square feet whmh is a little bit more keeping w~th what we allow ~n the B-2 D~stnct. Ronald Pdpley. Questions of Ms. Lasley9 Charhe9 Charhe Salle'. This may be a questton for Kay. I think as we discussed in order to use this option you have to have the concurrence of the Planning D~rector and the Zoning Admlmstrator, and that concurrence can be w~thheld by either one because of an object~on to the size of the sign or the amenities or both, but this is part of the apphcat~on. I guess my next question is should there be a declsmn by one of those persons not to concur, is there an appeal process to the Board of Zoning Appeals with respect to that decision or lack there of?. Karen Lasley' Yes. It would be brought to the Board of Zomng Appeals. Charhe Salle': Okay W~ll the Board then substitute xts concurrence? I was wondenng how that was mechamcally going to work? What's the ~ssue there at that pmnt? They unreasonably d~dn't concur or what? Kay Wilson: It would be a determination of the Zoning Admlmstrator. That is how it would be done, as a detennlnat~on of a Zomng Adm~mstrator who makes those rules. Karen Lasley: If they didn't agree with myjudgrnent and Bob's judgment, not just my judgment. Charhe Salle': I'm not sure that's been thought through. Karen Lasley: Technically you're nght. It's the Zoning Administrator Kay Wilson: The determination falls on you. Karen Lasley: It's on me. Charhe Salle': You may want to give that some more thought. I guess one other comment, I guess, is 1.2 does sound hke a reasonable number although I guess, you could apply that administratively, or whatever standard you wish to, I guess, since you have to concur on both the size and amenities. I don't know whether you really want that much discretion. Karen Lasley: I personally don't. Charhe Salle': Maybe with 1.2 would be more reasonable. Ronald Rlpley: I have a question The current sign regulation as it applies to B~2 general, relative size of those signs around the city, do you feel that's a reasonable size9 I mean, is that something the City and the Planmng staff have any heartburn because it allows too much signs or not enough sign? Karen Lasley: No. I think it's about right. Once in a while we'll have a variance request to that Slgnage when you have hke a Lowe's or a big box that sits far back off, acres of parkang in the front, and you can't see the sign from the street because of all the parking, all the spacing between. Once in a while we get a variance like that, and it is a reasonable request For the most part, I think it works pretty well. Ronald Pdpley. Okay. So you don't feel like it's providing too much signs hke ~t's maybe jumping up the landscape, or that is something that proportionally seems to work and you have worked with for it a long time, and it seems reasonable9 Is that what I'm heanng you say? Karen Lasley: Yes. Ronald Pdpley: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Eugene Crabtree: Is appropriate for us to recommend that we change that 1.8 to 1.2? Ronald Pdpley. I flunk it's appropriate for us to do anything we want to do. I think. Karen Lasley: Thank you Ronald R~pley: Thank you. William Din: I've got a comment for Karen. Sign restrictions in the B-2 Business District would allow Galyans to have a 502 square foot sign but nothing greater than 150 square foot Right9 Karen Lasley. Raght William Din' Would ~t be possible to have this amendment say something to the effect of going with th~s 1.8 or whatever we decide but no more than or the B-2 District regulation, which ever is great. I mean, would that be a cap, so to speak on it? Karen Lasley: If you wanted to recommend that between now and the time it was on Council's agenda we could get it into ordinance for them William Din: That would not, I guess, and it could go with either one I guess. So the signs could vary up to the B-2 District s~ze, which is the largest restrictions that we have for signso Karen Lasley: Yes. Ronald Rapley: Other questions or comments? Thank you very much. Karen Lasley: Thank you Robert Miller: We do have another speaker. Charley Schalhol? Charley Schalhol No That's alright. Robert Miller: Thank you. Ronald Rapley: Okay There are no other speakers for or against this~ Eddie Bourdon: Can I speak? I'm sorry I didn't sign up for ttus. Ronald Pdpley: Sure Go ahead Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: I was listening this mormng to this as well. I can't tell you that I have a great deal of expertise on the sign ordinance in the Central Business District or Town Center, but I have reviewed it. I think Will's comment made the most sense to me from listening to ti'us whole discussion. I don't know why you would have the Central Business District slgnage exceed the slgnage in the B-2 District because you're dealing with a pedestrian scale in the Central Business D~stnct. To me, I don't see any reason and I don't know how you can equitably explain to the rest of the business community in the city an ordinance that allows more slgnage in terms of size. I can appreciate more small s~gns but total s~ze, I don't see how you can exceed the B-2 regulations ~n the Central Busxness D~stnct and explmn to the people ~n the other bus~ness d~stncts m the c~ty. Thank you Ronald Pdpley. Thank you for your comment Karen Lasley: Can I make one correct~on? Ronald Rlpley. Sure. Karen Lasley: I just consulted w~th two attorneys and a zomng ~nspector. In the B-2 D~stnct, first point, no s~gn can be greater than 60 square feet, ~t's 150 square feet for a wall s~gn. Okay, that's a correct~on that you need to know about. Ronald Pdpley' IS there anybody else to speak for or agmnst tins? Mr. Scott, do you w~sh to comment on th~s at tins point? Robert Scott: I see the d~fficulty. I tinnk what separates an area hke the Central Business D~stnct from your typical B-2 area ~s that you have a variety of d~fferent types of bmldmgs and businesses m the Central Bus~ness D~stnct. I tinnk to a large extent they do have a lesser s~gn because they are pedestrian oriented winch g~ven another set of bmldmgs that do need to be seen from some d~stance away. For ~nstance, the hotel, people don't walk up to a hotel. They're seeking that from some d~stance away I th~nk that a properly constructed ordinance has got to take those tinngs ~nto account when ~t's drawn. There needs to be some ab~hty to respond to a variety of challenges out there. I would urge you to not necessarily try to compare to what seems to be from your experience appropriate to Hilltop. They're not really comphable. Even though they are two different commermal areas They are two different types of commermal so be m~ndful, I tinnk of that ~s go through lt. I've seen people try to compare tins as well to say the Oceanfront. They're a lot of businesses, and that ~s somewhat adm~mstratively oriented. It's not hke the Oceanfront e~ther. There are some s~gmficant reasons why ~t's a d~fferent type of arrangement out there, and so as you tinnk through tins ~ssue I would urge you to be m~ndful of the variety of challenges that th~s ordinance has got to meet Ronald Pdpley' Okay. It's open for &scuss~on Kathy Katsms: I'm a httle confused w~th the square footage ~ssue. The max~mmn B-2 s~gn square footage ~s what~ Karen Lasley: On the bmldmg ~t's a 150 square feet. Kathy Katsxas: 150 square feet. That would be the maximum on a B-29 Karen Lasley: Pdght. Ronald Rapley: This morning we talked about 150 square feet being approximately the size of a Sears sign at Pembroke Mall~ Karen Lasley: That's correct Ronald Pdpley' WlllO I'm sorry. Kathy Katslas And the Galyans sign that is proposed on the front of the building is 211 square feet? Karen Lasley. 211. Yes William Din: If the maximum sign could go up to the B-2 regulations and there was still an appeal process where the Planning Director or the Zoning Director could approve a larger sign for what's needed for certain buildings in that area that would allow an avenue for having a larger sign, if you needed to have a sign for the hotel or something like that, but I think the majority of the signs that we see in th~s district should probably be no more than what's allowed the B-2 district I see that as an opportumty here to maybe compromise. I'm not sure. Ronald Pdpley. Are there other comments? Charhe Salle'. I have a comment, a square footage issue. I guess if we apply the B-2 standards there is a total square footage allowance and then there is a maximum size allowance. Is that correct? Are we talking about applying a B-2 maximum sign square footage or the total maximum single size square footage? If we go to 1.2 I think we come out about the same as the total sign allowance for B-2 Is that correct9 Karen Lasley: That's close It's hard to word it. I mean, B-2 is based on road frontage. If you want to recommend to the Council that signs for large tenants basically be the same as in the B-2 district we'll get that in good shape by the time it gets on their agenda. Charhe Salle': What I'm not sure is that I think we do have some agreement that this is not a standard B-2 district, and whether or not the standard B-2 hmltatlons are in fact the best limitations for th~s district I just wondered ~fthe 1.2 gets us to a comfortable total square footage that we better go ~n with changung that number and just staying with the ordinance as you presented xt. Karen Lasley: Not to make ~t more complicated for you but the 1.2 actually comes out a little bit more than if it was zoned B-2 Charhe Salle': I guess the issue I'm getting at, and maybe we need to address, is do we feel as a Commission that it would be alnght that this ordinance would allow a sign 211 square feet versus 150 square feet which would be the maximum allowed in the B-2, with the understanding that based on tins ordinance to get there you're going to have to get through the approval process of the Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator. Dorothy Wood: I think I would like to stay with this ordinance as you said and just change the numbers. Ronald Pupley. So what would you change the numbers to the 1.2? Dorothy Wood. 1.2. Eugene Crabtree: 1.2 Dorothy Wood I think it's a httle less comphcated. Is anybody ready for a motlonV Can I make a motion? Ronald Rlpley' Sure. Dorothy Wood How about Mr Salle'° Charhe Salle'. I'd move approval of the ordinance changing the square footage allowance from 1 8 square feet of sign area on line number 20 to 1 2. Dorothy Wood. Second Ronald Pdpley: We have a motion to approve the ordinance with the change on line 20 from 1.8 square feet to 1 2. We have a second by Dot Wood. Do we have any other d~scusslon? Robert Miller: I need to abstain My firm ~s working on the project Donald Horsley: I got a question for Bob Bob, how do you see this affecting the difference in the Central Business District in the B-2 now. How do you see thatV Robert Scott: I'm okay with the fact that we treat them differently. I think they are two different types of settings The fact that one allows signs to be a little bigger or raises the allowance a little blt differently is not a problem for me because I see them being &fferent situations Donald Horsley: Do you think this is jeopardlmng anything by lowenng this? Robert Scott: No. Obviously, it doesn't fulfill the wishes of everyone that has desires of locating in that area I rather have it be right I rather have the Planning Commission be comfortable with it. I think that as Karen and I started out descnblng to you today I frankly think that some of their desires are just too big It's very clear that two things are true, that what they wanted was too great and what we allowed was too small, and that there was something in the middle that we had to find. And, I think, and I don't want to speak for Karen, but I think we're pretty comfortable with your search process here for finding that point, and we seem to maybe have something that you're comfortable w~th and that's pretty ~mportant Ronald R~pley Okay, then we're ready to vote. Let's call for the questmn. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald R~pley: By a vote of 10-0, w~th one abstennon the motion cames APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS - PlumNng/Mechamcal CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA BOARD COMMUNITY POLICY and MANAGEMENT TEAM - CSA AT=RISK YOUTH COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD - CSB FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA- SEVAMP TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -VBCDC L UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS 1 ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - December 2003 N ADJOURNMENT CIVIL LAWSUITS RESOLVED DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2003 Virginia Beach Circuit Court Bruce B. Mills v. City of Virginia Beach - Inverse condemnation. The suit, which was filed in January 2003 and alleges the "inverse condemnation" of four contiguous platted lots seaward of the primary dune at Chesapeake Beach, was tried Monday, December 1, 2003. In the suit the landowner, Mills, contends the refusal to allow development of the lots in accordance with the City's Coastal Primary Sand Dune Ordinance is a "regulatory taking" by the City, entitling him to compensation for the property. Mills paid $1460 for the four lots in 1975, and now claims they are worth $450,000. After Mills presented his evidence, the court granted our motion to strike the evidence and dismissed the case. The court specifically concluded that Mills had not shown that there was a "taking" of the property. City of Virginia Beach v. BGJ, LLC Challenge to municipal authority. In September 2002 BGJ, LLC, the owner of 2.8 acres originally platted in 1977 as a "recreation area" in The Lakes subdivision, posted the property with "No Trespassing" signs. When the subdivision was created, the property was reserved for open space/recreational purposes as required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. BGJ, LLC acquired the property following a sale by the Commonwealth after the homeowner's association dissolved. Residents of the neighborhood, who have for many years, used this property for recreauon, reported the posting of the property to the City. In response, we filed suit ~n October 2002 to enforce the City Code and enjoin BGJ from restricting or limiting access to the property for recreational use. The court granted our motion for a preliminary injunction in October 2002, and ordered the owner to make the property available for recreational use by the residents pending thai on the merits of a permanent injunction On December 16, 2003, after a day of evidence, the court granted the City a permanent injunction, and ordered that the property only be used as recreational open space. Also, the owner's counterclaim agmnst the City for trespass was dismissed. Virginia Beach General District Court Rebecca Misenas v. Detective Kriegger - Negligence. In October 2003, a Warrant ~n Debt was filed for $6,000 for clothing clmmed to have been left in a stolen car and not returned after the car was recovered. The clothes, in four garbage bags, were donated to charity before any claim was made. At trial on December 10, 2003, the court dismissed the stat. CITY OF FTRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L C E S L DATE January 6, 2004 D C M R C A W PAGE I I J L A N R H N I E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D 0 E I E S 0 AGENDA E R E A 0 R V D V 0 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D I BRIEFING Dawd VBTV Enchancements Sullivan, Chief Information Officer II/111/ CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSIOI~, CERTIFIED 104 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y IV/WI VI/E- A F MINUTES - APPROVED 94) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y B A Y S INFORMAL/FORMAL SESSIONS T DECEMBER9, 2003 A I N E D ADDED AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION ADDED 1043 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y A Y Resolunon re cernficate of need for Bon Secours at Pnncess Anne/Plaza Trial H/1 Government PRESENTATION Finance Cathryn Whaesell - Director Offimers (GFOA) Award Departr~nt of Management Ser~qces lJl PUBLIC HEARING: Two Speakers Semor Cmzen Tax Rehef (proposed) K/I Resolutmn committing the C~ty to ADOPTED, 8-2 Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y A Y PARTICIPATE uath the U S Economm Alternate No Adjustment m a JOINT LAND USE STUDY One re zoning ~ssues ~n the AICUZ 2 Resolutmn re a C~ty Council Pohcy addressing Deferred 1043 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC NEED requests Indefimtely re medmal care By Consent/ council Liaisons to study / recommend 3 Resolutmn SUPPORTING the development of ADOPTED 104) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y a HEALTH CAMPUS at Pnncess Anne Commons/Cernficate of need for Ambulatory Surgery Center [SENTARA C E S L D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I E E 0 A D D E M U L W Z U N N D 0 E I E S 0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS DATE January 6, 2004 PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE ADOPTED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y ADDED Resolunon suppomng Bon Secour's Certificate Of Need at Princess Anne / Plaza Trial 4 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $2,619,243 re ADOPTED, BY 104) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y various School projects/Revenue Sharing CONSENT Formula a $250,000 to eqmpment/veNcle replacement re &stance learning for two middle schools b $369,243 School Wellness Trust Fund re Cardm4L~fe c $1,000,000 re one-time new Academy proposals d $1,000,000 to the School Reserve 5 Or&nance to APPROPRIATE / ADOPTED, BY 104) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y TRANSFER $1.077,385 to FY 20034)4 CONSENT Conventmn / Vmtors Bureau expans~m on C~ty's Tourism Advertising/fund capital ~mprovements/provMe emergency funds 6 Ordinances re MH/MR/SA FY 2003-2004 ADOPTED, BY 104) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y operating budget CONSENT a APPROPRIATE $239,574 from the Commonwealth of %rg~ma re ad&t~mal semces b TRANSFER $351,899 re new posmons to staNhze thmr workforce L/1 Or&nance re CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EXTENDED 104) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y RICHMOND extendmgthe ttme to July 8, TIME FOR COMPAINCE 2004, to comply for cl. osure.of a port;on of TO 7/8/04, BY ArcUc Crescent at Arctic C~rcle/14~ Street CONSENT (DISTRI.CT 6- BEACH.) M APPOINTMENTS RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS - Plumbmg/Mechamcal COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD - CSB RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S GOVERNORS CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS v 0 I M B L C E S L DATE January 6, 2004 D C M lq. C A W PAGE 3 I J L A N R H N I E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D O E I E S O AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O O ITEM # SUrBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D . HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S DE'VEI.OPMENT ALLIANCE MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL RESCI-IEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S PLANNING COMMISSION RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S SENIOR SERVICES OF SOUTHEASTERN KESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S VIRGINIA - SEVAMP TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S COMMISSION VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -VBCDC "$ NEW BUSINESS ABSTRACT OF C~ty. B Y C O N S E N S U S CWIL CASES Clerk RESOLVED - November 2003 to Record ,,, O ADJOURNMENT 7 26 P M · ,