The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJUNE 28, 2005 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Boyside - District 4 HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M. DYER, Centerville - District 1 REBA S. MCCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX,, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT, At -Large RONA. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - LESLIE L. LILLEY CiTY CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 28 JUNE 2005 CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:OOPM A. SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH HOSPITAL — Update Dr. Raymond Trioano, Medical Director Mr. Les Donahue, Administrator B. TOWING ADIVSORY BOARD — Status Report Mr. Louie Ochave, Chair C. TOURISM MARKETING and ADVERTISING PROGRAM Mr. James Ricketts, Director — Convention and Visitors Bureau D. REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE — Report Mr. Tom Betz, Chair II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf 4:OOPM B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Thomas 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 June 14, 2005 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I. ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to AMEND the City Code a. § 12-43 re powers of the Fire Marshal to evacuate or limit the number of patrons in a building in the event of overcrowding, obstruction of aisles, passageways or other means of egress b. §21-317 re clarification of ordinance stating exceeding any lawfully posted speed limit is illegal 2. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into the City's right-of-way for: a. ROBERT H. and DEBORAH A. TIETJEN at 1 Caribbean Avenue re pier, bulkhead and retaining wall (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) b. GARY WAYNE ROBINSON at 606 Goldsboro Avenue re existing ramp, pier, pilings and bulkhead (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) MARY C. FLOYD at 2856 Bluebill Drive re dock, floating dock, lift piles and stone revetment (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of four (4) contiguous parcels of real property from the Overton Family and four (4) parcels from the heirs of C. V. Creech and APPROPRIATE $2,035,000 from CIP 9-302 Rudee Loop Development — Phase 1 therefore. 4. Ordinances to APPROPRIATE funds as follows: a. $70,000 in estimated revenue from the Motor Carrier Safety Unit to the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget of the Police Department re purchase of scales to monitor overweight vehicles b. $18,100 in revenue from Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance violations to the FY 2004-05 Agriculture Department Operating Budget re Wetlands and coastal sand dune restoration and enhancement projects 5. Ordinances to TRANSFER funds as follows: a. $209,000 within the FY 2004-05 Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund re provision of state mandated special education and foster care services b. $18,000 from the FY 2005-06 Council Donations account to the Virginia Beach School Education Foundation as authorized by the Virginia Code c. $50,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Regional Participation FY 2005-06 Operating Budget and DIRECT the City Manager to execute a Cost Participation Agreement with Hampton Roads Squadron, Association of Naval Aviation, Inc. (HRANA) re costs to refinish existing retaining walls adjacent to the Monument to Naval Aviation J. PLANNING — NO ACTION 1. Applications of CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: a. AMEND §§105 and 502 of the Zoning Ordinance re establishing restrictions on development of nonconforming lots in Residential Zoning Districts b. AMEND §4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance re resubdivision of nonconforming lots in residential zoning districts (The Planning Commission deferred these matters indefinitely) ra i M. I►1 n PLANNING 1. Application of TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit re multi- family dwellings on property bounded by Independence Boulevard, Commerce Street, Market Street and Columbus Street. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. Application of MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re placement of two room modular office trailer at 1486 Holland Road. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of G and A PROPERTIES, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales and rental at 4933 and 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of SHORE DRIVE AUTO SALES for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales at 4510 Shore Drive. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION: APPOINTMENTS ARTS and HUMANITIES BEACHES and WATERWAYS HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF VOTES —PRIMARY ELECTION —June 14, 2005 ADJOURNMENT IA U ' • fi�l:�il If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: Virginia Relay Center at 1-800-828-1120 Agenda 6/28/05st www.vbgov.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00PM A. SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH HOSPITAL — Update Dr. Raymond Trioano, Medical Director Mr. Les Donahue, Administrator B. TOWING ADIVSORY BOARD — Status Report Mr. Louie Ochave, Chair C. TOURISM MARKETING and ADVERTISING PROGRAM Mr. James Ricketts, Director — Convention and Visitors Bureau D. REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE — Report Mr. Tom Betz, Chair II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - Conference Room - 4:OOPM V. FORMAL SESSION I1 C. C E. rl G. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf INVOCATION: Reverend Thomas Britton Pastor, Retired 6:00PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION June 14, 2005 Op OUR NATIOIry i�r�nlutinn CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to AMEND the City Code a. § 12-43 re powers of the Fire Marshal to evacuate or limit the number of patrons in a building in the event of overcrowding, obstruction of aisles, passageways or other means of egress b. §21-317 re clarification of ordinance stating exceeding any lawfully posted speed limit is illegal 2. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into the City's right-of-way for: a. ROBERT H. and DEBORAH A. TIETJEN at 1 Caribbean Avenue re pier, bulkhead and retaining wall (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) b. GARY WAYNE ROBINSON at 606 Goldsboro Avenue re existing ramp, pier, pilings and bulkhead (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) MARY C. FLOYD at 2856 Bluebill Drive re dock, floating dock, lift piles and stone revetment (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of four (4) contiguous parcels of real property from the Overton Family and four (4) parcels from the heirs of C. V. Creech and APPROPRIATE $2,035,000 from CIP 9-302 Rudee Loop Development — Phase 1 therefore. 4. Ordinances to APPROPRIATE funds as follows: a. $70,000 in estimated revenue from the Motor Carrier Safety Unit to the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget of the Police Department re purchase of scales to monitor overweight vehicles b. $18,100 in revenue from Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance violations to the FY 2004-05 Agriculture Department Operating Budget re Wetlands and coastal sand dune restoration and enhancement projects 5. Ordinances to TRANSFER funds as follows: a. $209,000 within the FY 2004-05 Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund re. provision of state mandated special education and foster care services b. $18,000 from the FY 2005-06 Council Donations account to the Virginia Beach School Education Foundation as authorized by the Virginia Code $50,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Regional Participation FY 2005-06 Operating Budget and DIRECT the City Manager to execute a Cost Participation Agreement with Hampton Roads Squadron, Association of Naval Aviation, Inc. (HRANA) re costs to refinish existing retaining walls adjacent to the Monument to Naval Aviation y J t CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend City Code Section 12-43 Pertaining to Overcrowding MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: Provisions of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code are included in the City Code, with certain amendments. One such provision addresses the overcrowding of buildings. ■ Considerations: The proposed ordinance provides that it shall be unlawful to permit the obstruction of aisles, passageways, or other means of egress, regardless of whether the obstruction is caused by the presence of objects or people. If the Fire Marshall finds that a building is overcrowded or that aisles, passageways, or means of egress are obstructed, the ordinance grants the Fire Marshall the authority either to evacuate the building or to prohibit the entry of additional people until the problem has been rectified. ■ Public Information: This Ordinance will be advertised in the same manner as other agenda items. ■ Recommendations: Adoption. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Fire City Manage tL- , -zz-33 mil_ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND § 12-43 PERTAINING TO 2 OVERCROWDING 3 4 SECTION AMENDED: § 12-43 5 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 7 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 8 That Section 12-43 of the City Code is hereby amended and 9 reordained, to read as follows: 10 Sec. 12-43. Amendments. 11 (a) As authorized by Code of Virginia, section 27-97, the 12 following provisions of the 2000 Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention 13 Code are hereby adopted and amended. 14 (b) Section F-403.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 15 Section F-403.1. Open Burning: Open burning shall be conducted in 16 accordance with the laws and regulations set forth by the 17 department of environmental quality (air division), the department 18 of forestry, and sections 12-3 through 12-5 of this chapter. 19 (c) Section 1003.2.2.5 is hereby amended and made more 20 restrictive to include: 21 (1) Section 1003.2.2.5.1. Overcrowding: It shall be 22 unlaw a Class I misdemeanor for any person to permit 23 (i) overcrowding; (ii) the obstruction of aisles, 24 passageways or other means of egress, including 25 obstruction caused by people standing in aisles, 26 passageway or other means of egress; or (iii) admittance 27 of any person beyond the approved occupant load. In 1 28 addition thereto, the code official, upon finding 29 overcrowded conditions or obstruction in aisles, 30 passageways or other means of egress, or upon finding any 31 condition which constitutes a hazard to life and safety, 32 shall cause the occupancy, performance, presentation, 33 spectacle or entertainment to be stopped until such a 34 condition or obstruction is corrected. The structure 35 may be evacuated or the addition of any further occupants 36 prohibited until the approved occupant load is 37 reestablished or the obstruction has been removed. 38 (2) Section 1003.2.2.5.2. Operator responsibility: The 39 operator or the person responsible for the operation of 40 an assembly or educational occupancy shall check egress 41 facilities before such building is occupied to determine 42 compliance with this section. If such inspection reveals 43 that any element of the required means of egress cannot 44 be accessed, is obstructed, locked, fastened or otherwise 45 unsuited for immediate utilization, admittance to the 46 building shall not be permitted until necessary 47 corrective action has been completed. 49 This amendment makes it unlawful for a business owner to allow his customers to block the 50 aisles, passageways or other means of egress. It also provides that if a building is overcrowded or the 51 aisles, passageways or means of egress are obstructed, the Fire Marshall may either evacuate the 52 building or prohibit the entry of additional people until the problem is rectified. 2 53 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 54 Virginia, on this day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS oe e �� c11oe l� Fire Departmen CA-9507 ORDRES/PROPOSED/12-43 ord R-7 May 26, 2005 2005. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 3 4111 w • • •o sro �110 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend City Code Section 21-317 Pertaining to Maximum Speed Limits Generally MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: The City is authorized by the State to regulate the speeds of vehicles traveling on highways located within its boundaries. City Code § 21-317 parallels the provisions of Code of Virginia §§ 46.2-870, 46.2-871, 46.2-872, 46.2-874, 46.2-875, 46.2-876 and 46.2-878. Code of Virginia § 46.2-878 [paralleled in City Code § 21-317. (b)] gives the City Manager the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit set forth in 46.2-878 [paralleled in City Code § 21-317. (a) (7)] which reads: The maximum speed limit shall be thirty-five miles per hour on highways in any city or town, except on interstate or other limited access highways with divided roadways and in business or residence districts. As authorized, there are many streets in the City where the maximum speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Defense attorneys have successfully argued that City ordinances do not prohibit a car from exceeding the posted speed limit if that posted limit is 45 miles per hour. The first defense argument is the only specific references to a 45 miles per hour speed zone found City Code § 21-317 are subsections (a) (3) — (5), and because these subsection only regulate the speed of trucks, road tractors, motor vehicles towing another vehicle, school busses and vehicles operating under a special permit, these subsections do not prohibit cars from exceeding the posted 45 mile per hour speed limit. The second argument is that speeding in a 45 mile per hour zone cannot be violation of subsection (a) (7), because this subsection only refers to a 35 mile an hour speed zone. To counter these arguments, the Judge needs to be directed to read subsection (a) (7) in conjunction with 21-317 (b) which gives the City Manager the authority to increase or decrease the maximum speed limits set in § 21-317 (a) (7). Then the Court must conclude the 45 mile an hour speed zone is lawful and that any motor vehicle speeding in that 45 mile an hour speed zone has violated City Code § 21-317. Because there is no attorney present to represent the City and because police officers may present a traffic case but may not argue the law, the City Code should be revised to clearly state that exceeding any lawfully posted speed limit is unlawful. ■ Considerations: Amending § 21-317 of the City Code will provide police, citizens and the courts with an ordinance that clearly states exceeding any lawfully posted speed limit is illegal. ■ Public Information: This item will be advertised in the same manner as other items on City Council's agenda. ■ Recommendations: Adopt Ordinance ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Police City Manager: V- &->-I 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 21- 2 317 PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS 3 GENERALLY 4 Section Amended 21-317 5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 6 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 7 That Section 21-317 of the City Code is hereby amended and 8 reordained to read as follows: 9 Sec. 21-317. Maximum speed limits generally. 10 (a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway 11 of this City at a speed in excess of any maximum speed limit 12 posted under the authority of the City Manager or his designee. 13 4,a} (b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a 14 highway of this City at a speed in excess of the following 15 maximum speed limits or in excess of any other maximum speed 16 limit posted in accordance with subsection {b} (c) below: 17 (1) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour on the interstate 18 system of highways or other limited access highways 19 with divided roadways. 20 (2) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour on nonlimited 21 access highways having four (4) or more lanes and on 22 all state primary highways. 23 (3) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour on highways not 24 included in (1) or (2) above, if the vehicle is a 25 passenger motor vehicle, passenger bus, United States 26 post office bus, pickup or panel truck or a 27 motorcycle; and forty-five (45) miles per hour on such 28 highways, if the vehicle is a truck, road tractor, 29 tractor truck or combination of vehicles designed to 30 transport property, or is a motor vehicle being used 31 to tow a vehicle designed for self -propulsion, or a 32 house trailer. 33 (4) Thirty-five (35) miles per hour or the minimum 34 speed allowable, whichever is greater, on any highway 35 other than an interstate highway, if the vehicle is 36 being used as a school bus carrying children, and 37 forty-five (45) miles per hour on interstate highways; 38 provided, however, that for any such vehicle which 39 neither takes on nor discharges children between its 40 point of origin and point of destination, the speed 41 limit shall be forty-five (45) miles per hour. 42 (5) Forty-five (45) miles per hour on any highway, if 43 the vehicle or combination of vehicles is operating 44 under a special permit issued by the commonwealth 45 transportation board in accordance with Code of 46 Virginia, section 46.2-1139. The commonwealth 47 transportation board may, however, prescribe a speed 48 limit of less than forty-five (45) miles per hour on 49 any such permit issued by it. 2 50 (6) Twenty-five (25) miles per hour on highways in a 51 business or residential district, except upon 52 interstate or other limited access highways with 53 divided roadways. 54 (7) Thirty-five (35) miles per hour on highways in 55 the city, except upon interstate or other limited 56 access highways with divided roadways and except in 57 business or residence districts. 58 (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions 59 (1), (2) and (3) of this subsection, the speed limits 60 for passenger motor vehicles, while towing utility, 61 camping or boat trailers not exceeding an actual gross 62 weight of twenty-five hundred (2500) pounds, shall be 63 the same as that for passenger motor vehicles. 64 44))- (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the 65 state highway and transportation commissioner or the director of 66 public works or any other authority having jurisdiction over 67 highways may decrease the speed limits set forth in subsections 68 -�a�(b) (1) and 4-}}-(b) (3) of this section and may increase or 69 decrease speed limits set forth in subsections 4-a�(b)(6) and 70 -(,a+(b) (7) of this section. Differentiated speed limits for 71 daytime and nighttime may also be established by decreasing for 72 nighttime driving the speed limits set forth in subsections 73 4-a- (b) (1) through 4-a+(b) (3) of this section and by increasing 3 74 for daytime or decreasing for nighttime the speed limits set 75 forth in subsections -(-e) (b) (6) and -{. (b) (7) of this section. 76 Such increased or decreased speed limits and such differentiated 77 speed limits for daytime and nighttime driving shall be 78 effective only when prescribed after a traffic engineering and 79 traffic investigation and when indicated upon the highway by 80 signs; provided, the increased or decreased speed limits over 81 highways under the control of the state highway and 82 transportation commissioner shall be effective only when 83 prescribed in writing by the highway and transportation 84 commissioner and kept on file in the central office of the 85 department of highways. Whenever the speed limit on any highway 86 has been increased or decreased, or a differential speed limit 87 has been established and such speed limit is properly posted, 88 there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the change in speed 89 was properly established in accordance with this section and 90 Code of Virginia, semen Section 46.2-878. 91 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 92 Virginia on this day of 2005. CA9559 Ordres/Proposed/21-317 ORD.doc R-1 March 29, 2005 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: AP ED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Police Department City torn y's fice 4 UJ/ U0/ LUUU UPI 1J, 00 MA 101 4lO %44 M1 MIN 4002/002 CHANNEL LINES AND-1 ORIGINAL NAD27.j.j.S/ AND ROTATING AND-.;$ VIA CORPSCOItF .y5.11.0 WHEN COMPAREDyNI TH O1N•TS WITHIN THIS DRAWING WERE ROTATED/TRANSLATED FROM THE ,URVEY...FOOT ORIENTATION TO NAD83 INT. FT. HOLDING PT-351 (0+00) \ RETCHIN 1 TO FIT TO PT.358 (41+00). COORDINATES WERE TRANSLATED 6, ES TING INTERMEDIATE STATIONS COORDS CHECK WITHIN 0.001" `ram P CON CONVERTED VALUES \Fob � \F � O 00 a PROPERTY LINE TABLE L1: S 48'09'48" W 16,73 L2: S 76'06'05" W 10.00' L3: S 32`10'45" W 28.77' L4: S 42'54'56" W 32.20' , L5: S 56'52'13" W 58.97' L 6: S 73'13'25" W 19.37' �Ws L 7: S 29'33'59" W 6.78' o LB: S 29'17"11" W 9.07' m 1-9: S 73'41'26" W 6.31' g a N/F JAMES ANDERSEN 3 9� In O 0� O� ^nti N 13'53'55 W Z 35.00' PIN 40.00' a CARBBEAN AVENUE (50' R/W) REF:1 ffo SMHU WA TER FRON T CONSULTING, INC 1112 JENSEN DRIVE, STE. 206 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 PHONE: (757) 425-8244 FAX: (757) 313-9788 y 11- g0 6 PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED FIXED PIER r• PROPOSED DWELLING CAR I I' LAKE RUDEE N/F CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PLAN VIEW SCALE 1 " = 30' EXHIBIT A ENCROACHMENT REQUEST PRIVATE PIER, BULKHEAD, RETAININGWALL FOR ROBERT H. AND DEBORAH A. TIETJEN LOT D RESUB. LOTS 1 THRU 5, BLK, 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS BEACH DISTRICT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (INST. NO. 200211223068923) DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2004 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment request for Robert H. and Deborah A. Tietjen, Applicants, for a Pier, bulkhead and retaining wall in Lake Rudee MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: Mr. and Mrs. Tietjen requested permission to construct and maintain temporary encroachments for a proposed pier, bulkhead and retaining wall at the rear of 1 Carribean Avenue in Lake Rudee. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. There are similar encroachments in Lake Rudee. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat and Pictures Recommended Action: Approval of ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate City Manager. � x:\projects\encroachments\applicants\Tietjen I Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO 5 A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY 6 LOCATED AT LAKE RUDEE BY 7 ROBERT H. TIETJEN AND DEBORAH 8 A. TIETJEN, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS 9 AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE 10 11 WHEREAS, Robert H. Tietjen and Deborah A. Tietjen desire to construct and maintain a 12 pier, bulkhead and retaining wall upon and into the City's property located at the rear of 1 13 Carribean Avenue and known as Lake Rudee. 14 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of 15 Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's right-of-way 16 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 17 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 18 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 19 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in § § 15.2-2009 and 20 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Robert H. Tietjen and Deborah A. Tietjen, their 21 heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain temporary 22 encroachments for a pier, bulkhead and retaining wall in the City's property as shown on the 23 map entitled: "ENCROACHMENT REQUEST PRIVATE PIER, BULKHEAD, 24 RETAININGWALL FOR ROBERT H. AND DEBORAH A. TIETJEN LOT D RESUB. LOTS 25 1 THRU 5, BLK. 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS BEACH DISTRICT VIRGINIA BEACH, 26 VA (INST. NO. 200211223068923)," Scale 1" = 30', dated November 30, 2004, prepared by 27 Waterfront Consulting, Inc., a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to 28 which reference is made for a more particular description; and 29 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject 30 to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia 31 Beach and Robert H. Tietjen and Deborah A. Tietjen (the "Agreement"), which is attached 32 hereto and incorporated by reference; and 33 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is 34 hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 35 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time 36 as Robert H. Tietjen and Deborah A. Tietjen and the City Manager or his authorized designee 37 execute the Agreement. 38 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 39 of , 2005. 41 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS 42 qa �S c . AAA46„ 43 (WREAL ESTATE 44 45 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 46 S I IENCY AND FORM 47 mi4�� 48 CIYAT 49 50 PREPARED:3/31/05 51 X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Tietjen 52 F;IDataIATYIOrdinINONCODEIPW ORDINICA9537 Tiejen.doc PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(c) (3) THIS AGREEMENT, made thisA day of , 2005, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and ROBERT H. AND DEBORAH A. TIETJEN, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as " Lot D, Block 40, Shadow Lawn Heights" and being further designated and described as 1 Carribean Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a pier, bulkhead and retaining wall, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City property known as Lake Rudee "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and GPIN 2427-00-2892 maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be I constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT REQUEST PRIVATE PIER, BULKHEAD, RETAININGWALL FOR ROBERT H. AND DEBORAH A. TIETJEN LOT D RESUB. LOTS 1 THRU 5, BLK. 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS BEACH VIRGINIA BEACH VA DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2004" a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment from The Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment 3 sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Robert H. Tietjen and Deborah A. Tietjen, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager Robert H. Tietj6n Deborah A. Tiefien/ STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit. - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of —, 2005, by I CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Public MY Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ) 2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires. STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Wit' day of 2005, by Robert H. Tietjen. Notary Public MY Commission Expires: res: STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF.,/,'�4 to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by Deborah A. Tietjen, My Commission Expires: X "71/L-?/ APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT L4 Notary Public APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM Re, O U) I O� C O O J I 'i -� t. 1 r r per.,! - noJ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachments requested into City Property located in Lake Rudee at the rear 606 Goldsboro Avenue, from the adjacent property owner, Gary Wayne Robinson. MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: Mr. Robinson requested permission to maintain temporary encroachments for existing ramp, pier, pilings and bulkhead at the rear of 606 Goldsboro Avenue in Lake Rudee. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. There are similar encroachments in Lake Rudee, which is where Mr. Robinson has requested to encroach. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments, or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/real Estate Drfx s/a/ City Manag • —. XAPro'ectsTncroach nts licants�Robinson, G 7 udee BoaRAMAgendaYnn.doc J PP �'Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY LOCATED IN LAKE RUDEE BY GARY WAYNE ROBINSON, HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Gary Wayne Robinson desires to maintain existing ramp, pier, pilings and bulkhead upon and into the City's property located at the rear of 606 Goldsboro Avenue and 12 known as Lake Rudee. 13 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of 14 Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's property 15 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 16 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in § § 15.2-2009 and 19 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Gary Wayne Robinson, his heirs, assigns and 20 successors in title are authorized to maintain existing ramp, pier, pilings and bulkhead in the 21 City's property as shown on the map entitled: "LOTS 9 & 10 & EASTERN %2 OF LOT 8, 22 BLOCK 28 GPIN: 2427-01-7641 SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS (M.B. 7,PG.14)," Scale 1" _ 23 24 25 26 27 28 40', dated October 14, 2004, prepared by Wpl, a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Gary Wayne Robinson (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 29 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is 30 hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 31 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time 32 as Gary Wayne Robinson and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the 33 Agreement. 34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 35 of 52005. 36 37 PROVED AS TO CONTENTS 38 39 W/REAL ESTATE 40 41 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 42 SUFFICIENCY AND FORM 43 &WOR&W 44 CITY ATTORNEY 45 CA-9533 46 PREPARED:5/31/05 47 X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Robinson, Gary - Lake T'-dee Boatlift RAB\Ordinance Encroachment.Frm.doc 48 F:'DataIATYIOrdinINONCODEIPW ORDINICA9533 Robinson.doc PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(c) (3) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of Mqy , 2005, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and GARY WAYNE ROBINSON, HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as Lot 9, Lot 10 and the Eastern one-half of Lot 8, in Block 28 as shown on "MAP OF SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS VIRGINIA BEACH PRINCESS ANNE CO" (Map Book 7, page 14), and being further designated and described as 606 Goldsboro Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to maintain existing ramp, pier, pilings, and bulkhead, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and/or maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of existing City property known as Lake Rudee at the rear of 606 Goldsboro Avenue "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN: NO GPIN ASSIGNED FOR LAKE RUDEE 2427-01-7641 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "LOTS 9 & 10 & EASTERN '/Z OF LOT 8, BLOCK 28 GPIN: 2427-01-7641 SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS (M.B. 7,PG.14)," Scale 1" = 40', dated October 14, 2004, prepared by Wpl, which plat is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such rernoval. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a pennit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Gary Wayne Robinson, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by his signature. further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. M (SEAL) ATTEST: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk nary Wayne Robins n STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: BEACH. CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA My Commission Expires: Notary Public 5 STATE OF tflrei>�> CITY/COUNTY OF _ j/h,L,j12"'�'1 eif9d) 9 to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this t dO - ib day of 2005, by Gary Wayne Robinson. Notary ublic My Commission Expires: I'S11-A 7 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED Notary Public APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFIECIENCY AND FORM X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Robinson, Gary - LakeGary Robinson 606 Goldsboro AvenueVirginia Beach, VA 23451 Rudee Boadift RAB\Agreement Encroachment.Frm.doc rel 1 L A KE RUDEE Coo mU. �a y b GOL,L�SBORO Exhibit "A" b n LOT- 1 LOT-2 LOT-3 J `-so oo' A V FAIL jH APPROXIMATE LOCA T/ON OF FLOOD ZONE SEPARAT/ON L/NE AS PER PANEL (TYP.) date: 10/14/2004 tech: EAG file: 204-1062.dwg praj.man.: EAG proj, no. 204-1062 project: LOTS 9 & 10 & EASTERN 1/2 OF LOT 8, BLOCK 28 GPIN: 2427-01-7641 ..,.,, ",y ��J /5/.431.1041 SI-i�®®VV L� V1l N f IEIGfi 1 Land Surveyors - Landscape wplsite.com (M.8.7,PG.14) Architects scale: drawing title: 242 Mustang Trail, Suite 8 ��, �® ummum Virginia Beach, VA 23452 ' I ENCROACHMEN-t- GREEPVIENT PLAT "rya ! 1� .4 h e� � S p _ r .. vy ,� ._ -- c - "^s . x . _ ` �✓. `a �-_ 6 �.. � .. ,_�� „��; -`" ,. 4 �, w. _, ^t+r : r: � �, ..,art ..- -' ��N. ��• ti � ��: �,, FLOYD.DGN M.J.S. PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADD DEPT. MARCH 9, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment request into City property known as Bass Inlet — East adjacent to 2856 Bluebill Drive, by Mary C. Floyd MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: Ms. Floyd requests permission to construct and maintain a dock, a floating dock, lift piles and stone revetment (shoreline rip rap) at the rear of her property located at 2856 Bluebill Drive, Virginia Beach, VA. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. There are similar encroachments in Bass Inlet - East, of the Sandbridge Shores subdivision, which is the location of the proposed encroachments. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Plat and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estatey,(A V City Manage .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY KNOWN AS BASS INLET - EAST LOCATED BEHIND 2856 BLUEBILL DRIVE BY MARY C. FLOYD, HER HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Mary C. Floyd desires to construct and maintain a dock, a floating dock, lift piles and stone revetment within the City property located behind 2856 Bluebill Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 19 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Mary C. Floyd, her heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a dock, a floating dock, lift piles and stone revetment in the City property as shown on the map entitled: "PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Bass Inlet — East Trib. To N. Back Bay Location: Virginia Beach, VA Applicant: Mary C. Floyd May 13, 2005 REVISED" a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the 29 City of Virginia Beach and Mary C. Floyd (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto 30 and incorporated by reference; and 31 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee 32 is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 33 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such 34 time as Mary C. Floyd and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the 35 Agreement. 36 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 37 day of , 2005. 38 39 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS 40 QWMEC C. CA- 41 GNApTURE y� 42 T W /�f�l� & 43 DEPARTMENT 44 45 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 46 SUFFICIENCY AND FORM 47 Wtak 4 1 mmy 48 CITY A TORNEY 49 50 cA-cmzo 51 PREPARED:4/21/05 52 F:IDataIATYIOrdin'NONCODEIPW ORDINICA9530 Floyd.doc PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(c) (3) THIS AGREEMENT, made this A/Ocday of , 2005, by and r between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and MARY C. FLOYD, HER HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Lot 16" as shown on that plat identified as "SANDBRIDGE SHORES SECTION IA - SOUTH AREA PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.", Scale-1"=100', dated February 14, 1966, revised March 13, 1967, and being further designated and described as 2856 Bluebill Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a dock, a floating dock, lift piles and stone revetment (shoreline rip rap), "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of City property known as Bass Inlet - East "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN 2433-35-0181-0000 1 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Bass Inlet — East Trib. To N. Back Bay Location: Virginia Beach, VA Applicant: Mary C. Floyd May 13, 2005 REVISED" a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment from The Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses 2 and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge 3 the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mary C. Floyd, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by his/her/their signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (SEAL) ATTEST: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk Mary C. Floy El STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: BEACH. CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF l ll1 f2 " kele wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � 11- day of 2005, by Mary C. Floyd. My Commission Expires: Notary Public 5 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS sAcmnct C. &asp.. SIGNATURE PLO 61 & DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM E.xk*) ) "All bl't FLOOD Across - J & J Sheehan EBB 6o tH� Encroachment - Proposed Lift Piles (4), ; BASS INLET -EAST Encroachment -PropasedStone Revetment Distance Across (MLW — MLW) 95, Southern End Shoreline Rip Rap T 4. RELD�AIE 12' I'�-'12'--°-1 Pin to toe 9' �_f-�' I P/L ,Lg - _ - - -4 y¢ S 10'4 00" ;E - +•�- ' NLINE ® 145.00' -:,..,? ':';"1...,;• :. 1D, ;.6 Propo 1.0' MLW-0.4'' ,;.•r� .. ed Dock 10°x•�4• " PROPOSED STONE REVETMENT ; P ;.Encrogchrrient 3' beyond'Eastern P/LI ' MHW 2.4, 20' 1 B 15' .. 29'� 15'' FIN\ (F) Relocation of Existing Floating Dock 12�Xr16' I x P/L I ONLINE ® 130.35, Encroichment — a' Beyond Eastern ' o.s' P/L,,, • 15 — -- - -A7 ,16' 17 I' Adjacent - R & F Easton ! Adjacent - D. Shaw/ D. Johnson I. I 4' WOOD 6' PLASTIC FENCE I INGROUND FENCE POOL I. o 6 ^' I. FENCE 2ND FLOOR 2Z ONE Af ' I I Nf ONLINE DECK 4' PLASTIC 28.1' '° 26.4' �15.95' b.5' FENCE I I 2 STORY FRAME b I _ ►` 1.7' w 12.0' `~. HOUSE #2856 :,• w 'o FRAME. 15.2' rn °' 29.3' SHED �f I I T- .2ND FLOORM. Z OVERHANG rn •'t''.;-r ,� r Ij 2ND FLOOR DECK ,.•' _�; . 't: I= ,' '• '' 4 Note: Applicant has applied for c'' �•';' = '' I Municipal Encroachment Approval. ,� t' ''' `' UT 1 As noted above, this approval will '; ; :;�:••'�'y: r; •'• i Q Include the floating dock, a small section : ! �;•`, :.: Z I of riprap, a portion of the 10' x 24' dock, and:!;;: 4 seaward lift piles. PIN (F) 1435.07' To N 10*43'00' W 100,00' PIN (F) TUNA LANE BLUEBILL DRIVE (50' R/W) SCALE 1" = 25' - Adjacent Property Owners PLAN VIEW PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - D. Shaw & D. Johnson Bass Inlet - East - Richard & Frances Easton PROPOSED STONE REVETMENT Trib. To N. Back Bay - John & Jane Sheehan DOCK and BOAT LIFT Location: Virginia Reach, VA Applicant: Mary C. Floyd Page 2 of 4 May 13, 2005 REVISED 7� /pl ca a� A/ �Q� O�574 q y c� rle-d (5u,&V CI- PROP,' T Y 2856 %3/ue�6.1/4ri✓c- . �e .' �i�c�in e��o/rya �� o�i�1a-Y ��wz ,77 �O yG� ,�/e� �� ?�� Yea t t y eU CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance to Approve and Authorize the Acquisition of (A) Four (4) Contiguous Parcels of Real Property at Rudee Loop for $2,000,000 from the Overton Family and (B) All Residual Interest in the 4 Parcels from the Heirs of C.V. Creech for $35,000 MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: Working under the concept plan developed under City Council direction and with public input, the City has been assembling property and acquiring options for public and private development at Rudee Loop. The City staff has negotiated with the Overton family and the heirs of C.V. Creech for four remaining parcels for a total purchase price of $2,035,000. Funding has been appropriated and is available for these acquisitions under CIP 9-302 Rudee Loop Development — Phase I. ■ Considerations: In this area the City has, to date, purchased properties from the Beach Quarters Inn, the Caton Family, This & That Ltd., and Herman, Inc. The purchase of these remaining 4 parcels completes the assemblage of property on this block of Rudee Loop. ■ Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda advertisement process. ■ Alternatives: Should the City not purchase the property, the property could be sold off separately, resulting in less than desirable projects, not consistent with the City's vision for the oceanfront resort area. ■ Recommendations: Adopt the ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute the Purchase Agreement and take all appropriate actions with respect thereto. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: O'er d• "�" "' City Manager: F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\Commercial Projects\Rudee Loop\Overton\Rudee Loop Acquisition ARP.DOC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF (A) FOUR (4) CONTIGUOUS PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY AT RUDEE LOOP FOR $2,000,000 FROM THE OVERTON FAMILY AND (B) ALL RESIDUAL INTEREST IN THE 4 PARCELS FROM THE HEIRS OF C.V. CREECH FOR $35,000. WHEREAS, Rudee Loop has been identified as a prime location for development at the Oceanfront, and the development of Rudee Loop would complement the major Pavilion expansion and is consistent with the Oceanfront Resort Concept Plan; WHEREAS, the Estate of Audrey Overton (GPIN 2427-32-0193), Keith W. Overton (GPIN ?427-32-0057), Ward A. Goodrich (GPIN 2427-22-9184), and W. S. Overton (GPIN 2427-32-0006) (collectively, "Overton") own four (4) contiguous parcels of real estate at Rudee Loop aggregating approximately .4211 acres of real property (collectively, the "Property"); WHEREAS Overton desires to sell the Property to the City of Virginia Beach (the "City"), WHEREAS, the heirs of C. V. Creech may be vested with an interest in and to portions of the Property; WHEREAS, the heirs of C. V. Creech are willing to relinquish to the City any interest they may have in the Property; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City Council") is of the opinion that the acquisition of the Property would be in the best interest of the City; WHEREAS, Overton and City staff have worked with the City Attorney to draft a Purchase Agreement which sets forth the responsibilities and obligations of the parties upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to all parties; and 30 WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available and has been appropriated in the CIP 31 Project 9-302 Rudee Loop Development — Phase I. 32 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 311 3 VIRGINIA: 34 1. That the City Council approves and authorizes the acquisition of four (4) parcels of 35 real estate from The Estate of Audrey Overton (GPIN 2427-32-0193), Keith W. Overton (GPIN )6 2427-32-0057), Ward A. Goodrich (2427-22-9184), and W. S. Overton (GPIN 2427-32-0006) 37 (collectively, "Overton") at Rudee Loop (the "Property") by purchase pursuant to § 15.2-1800 of the 38 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which Property is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. 39 2. That the City Council further approves and authorizes the acquisition of any interest 40 the heirs of C. V. Creech may have in the Property (the "Creech Interest") for a purchase price of 41 $35,000. 42 3. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute on behalf of the City 43 of Virginia Beach, a Purchase Agreement for the Property and the Creech Interest for the aggregate 44 sum and payment of $2,035,000 and in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto. 45 4. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute all documents 46 that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the purchase of the Property, so long as such 47 documents are acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. 48 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 49 52005. 50 51 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 52 53 54 55 Lcononuc Development 56 APPROVED AS TO 57 LEGAL SUFFICIENCY 51 PIWU�U 59 I.aw Department 60 61 CA-9649 62 PREPARED: June 23, 2005 63 R -1 64 I :\I)ata\ATY\OIMREAL ESTATE\Commercial Projects\Rudee Loop\Overton\acquisition ordinancel.doc 65 66 67 FIT A of Virginia Beam eMappin 1 2 Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of these maps and associated data. The City of Virginia Beach assumes no liability arising from use of these maps or data. THE MAPS ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: Any resale of this information is prohibited, except in accordance with a sublicensing agreement. http://www.vbgov.com/e-gov/emapping/access/printMap.asp?REQUEST=MAP&BBOX=... 6/21 /2005 SUMMARY OF TERMS PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FOUR (4) PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON RUDEE LOOP OWNERS: Parcel 1: The Estate of Audrey Overton (GPIN 2427-32-0193) Parcel 2: Keith W. Overton (GPIN 2427-32-0057) Parcel 3: Ward A. Goodrich (GPIN 2427-22-0184) Parcel 4: W. S. Overton (GPIN 2427-32-0006) BUYER: City of Virginia Beach SALE PRICE: $2,000,000 payable at Settlement as follows: $579,600 to the Estate of Audrey Overton $547,600 to Keith W. Overton $545,200 to Ward A. Goodrich $327,600 to W. S. Overton SETTLEMENT DATE: On or before June 30, 2005 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: • Resolution of any interest of C. V. Creech (deceased) in the 4 Parcels. Payment of a $35,000 Title Clearing Payment to the heirs of C. V. Creech in exchange for any residual interest they may own. • Possession of Parcel 2 by Keith W. Overton for 120 days after closing. F:\Data\ATY\01D\REAL ESTATE\Commercial Projects\Rudee Loop\Overton\summary.doc �``Jq5` s M64a=�pP/1;1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance To Appropriate $70,000 In Estimated Revenue From The Motor Carrier Safety Unit To The Police Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget For The Purchase Of Scales MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: The Police Department's Motor Carrier Safety Unit was formed in 1991. The unit conducts roadside inspections of commercial motor vehicles to enforce traffic safety ordinances and locate equipment defects, log book violations, hauling permit violations, and hazardous materials violations. The unit works in conjunction with counterparts in the Virginia State Police and other local police departments. The unit uses scales to weigh suspected overweight vehicles. The last scales were purchased in 1999. There is a need to purchase 22 additional scales to weigh newer trucks and to provide an additional member of the unit with a full set of scales. There are three officers assigned to this unit. The newer straight 7 axle dump trucks require up to 14 scales to weigh them properly. Two officers currently have 10 scales each and need 14 each. The additional officer needs 14 scales. ■ Considerations: The Motor Carrier Safety Unit provides a valuable service to the community by enforcing traffic safety ordinances concerning commercial motor vehicles. The unit also helps to assure that the City's roadways are not damaged by overweight vehicles. Funds are available through revenue generated by the unit. During the last four fiscal years, a total of $676,291 in revenue has been realized as a result of this unit's efforts. The cost of 22 scales is $79,100. This equipment was requested, but not funded, in the FY 2004/05 budget process. The cost of these scales should be offset by the additional revenue generated through fines. It is anticipated that the 22 additional scales would generate an additional $200,000 in revenue in FY 2005-06. The Police Department is requesting $70,000 towards the purchase of these scales in FY 2005- 06. The remaining $9,100 will be funded through other Police Department funds. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda public information process. ■ Alternatives: Without additional scales, accurate measurements of the newer straight 7 axle dump trucks cannot be made. ■ Recommendations: Appropriate $70,000 to purchase of 22 scales in FY 2005-06. ■ Attachments: None Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department City Manager: �4 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $70,000 IN 2 ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM THE MOTOR CARRIER 3 SAFETY UNIT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 4 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF 5 SCALES 6 WHEREAS, the Motor Carrier Safety Unit is anticipated to 7 generate revenue in excess of the FY 2005-06 anticipated revenue. 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 1. That $70,000 in estimated revenue from the Motor Carrier 11 Safety Unit is hereby appropriated to the Police Department's FY 12 2005-06 Operating Budget for the purchase of scales. 13 2. That estimated revenue in the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget 14 from the Motor Carrier Safety Unit is hereby increased by $70,000. 15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 16 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Rawl City Attorney's Office CA-9647 PA\GG\ORDRES\PD Motor Carrier Unit Scales ORD R-2 June 15, 2005 �04 fi� s^^rs,• s� i� r Yz.i S CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $18,100 in Ordinance Violations Revenue to the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Department of Agriculture for Wetlands and Coastal Sand Dune Restoration and Enhancements Projects MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: Civil charges are collected for violations of the City's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. Historically, these funds have been subsequently appropriated for various environmental restoration and habitat enhancement projects in the City. These projects are coordinated and implemented by the Habitat Enhancement Committee that was officially established by City Council in August 1994. ■ Considerations: Between July 1, 2004 and May 31, 2005, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Board collected civil charges in the amount of $18,100 from various individuals for violations of the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. The Department of Agriculture requests that a total of $18,100 be appropriated to the Operating Budget of the Department of Agriculture to be used by the Habitat Enhancement Committee for various projects. These funds will be used to enhance the City's natural environment through coastal sand dune stabilization and tidal wetlands restoration. Some recent projects include the Lynnhaven Boat Ramp and Great Neck Park wetlands plantings, Little Island Park dune stabilization, purchase of a greenhouse for the Virginia Aquarium and wetland creation at Redwing Golf Course. Possible new projects include wetlands and shoreline enhancement at the Adam Thoroughgood House. ■ Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal City Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: No other funds are budgeted for the described purpose. ■ Recommendations: Approval of attached ordinance. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture City Manage . 5 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $18,100 IN 2 ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS REVENUE TO THE FY 2004-05 3 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 4 AGRICULTURE FOR WETLANDS AND COASTAL SAND DUNE 5 RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 7 VIRGINIA: 8 That $18,100 collected from Chesapeake Bay Preservation 9 Ordinance violation civil charges is hereby appropriated to the FY 10 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Department of Agriculture for 11 wetlands and coastal restoration and enhancement projects. 12 That estimated revenue in the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget is 13 hereby increased by $18,100 from Chesapeake Bay Preservation 14 Ordinance violation civil charges. 15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 16 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 1� a . ' - r i � Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY J &V— k Z. City Attorney's Office CA-9644 PA/GG/ORDRES/Chesapeake Bay Fines ORD R-3 June 16, 2005 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer $209,000 within the FY 2004-05 Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund for Client Services MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ❑ Background: Section 2.2-5211 of the Code of Virginia requires the General Assembly and the local governing body to appropriate sufficient funds to provide mandated special education and foster care services. The current funding ratio for mandated children is 35.69% local and 64.31 % state. The Comprehensive Services Act was established in 1993 to consolidate several funding streams for non-residential and residential services for identified youth into a single pool of funding. Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue funding is utilized to provide mandated services for foster care children and children requiring special education services as indicated by their Individualized Education Plan. Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue funding is also utilized to provide non -mandated services to Court Services, Mental Retardation, and Mental Health/Substance Abuse youth. ❑ Considerations: The Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund provides payment for client specific services delivered by an array of vendors, including several city departments. The Comprehensive Services Act Fund contains a separate account for client services provided by city departments. A transfer of $209,000 within the Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue fund from the Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund General Fund-MH/MR/SA Transfer Account to the Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund Comprehensive Services Act Administration and Social Services Other Purchased Services Account is necessary to keep these individual accounts within appropriations. The funding is sufficient in total for the fund, but this transfer is needed to align the funding in the accounts with legal appropriation authority. The amount of state revenue is the same for both accounts. All of the services provided to the mandated populations were reviewed and approved as necessary by the Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT). ❑ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal council agenda process. ❑ Alternatives: Currently there are no alternatives. ❑ Recommendations: Approve the proposed transfer. Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Community Policy and Management Team City Manager• �� 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $209,000 WITHIN 2 THE FY 2004-05 COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT 3 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CLIENT SERVICES 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 5 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 6 That $209,000 is hereby transferred from within the FY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2004-05 Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund from the Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund General Fund- MH/MR/SA Transfer Account to the Comprehensive Services Act Special Revenue Fund Comprehensive Services Act Administration and Social Services Other Purchased Services Account to provide critical services for mandated youth in need of foster care, court services, mental retardation, mental health/substance abuse services. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 15 Virginia, on the day of 2005. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City Council. Approved As to Content: �U �tL� Management Services Approved As To Legal Sufficiency: City Attorneys Office CA9645 PA/GG/ORDRES/Comp. Services Act Transfer ORD R-2 June 15, 2005 ^4 riA AFq� L CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Donating $18,000 to the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: In 2002, City Council adopted an ordinance setting the annual salary of the City Councilmember representing the Beach district at zero dollars. Funds in the amount of a Councilmember's salary ($18,000) have been transferred to the FY 2005-06 Council Donations account to provide a potential source of funding for a charitable donation by the City Council. ■ Considerations: The proposed ordinance would donate $18,000 to the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation. ■ Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council Agenda process. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of Ordinance ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Management Services C �W City Manager.,:: anager: SJ k-- . 7 Wok 1 AN ORDINANCE DONATING $18,000 TO THE 2 VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION 3 FOUNDATION 4 WHEREAS, the City has previously established the salary of the 5 Beach District Councilmember at zero dollars ($0) per annum; 6 WHEREAS, an amount equal to a Councilmember's salary ($18,000) 7 has been transferred to the Council Donations account; and 8 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to donate these funds to the 9 Virginia Beach Public Schools Education Foundation, a tax exempt 10 non-profit organization. 11 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 13 That $18,000 from the FY 2005-06 Council Donations account is 14 hereby donated to the Virginia Beach Public Schools Education 15 Foundation, as authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-953. 16 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 17 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorney's Office CA9642 PA/GG/ORDRES/Donation of Maddox Salary.ORD R-2 June 15, 2005 �tia BEq''+ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Transfer $50,000 from Reserve for Contingencies to the Regional Participation FY 2005-06 Operating Budget to Fund a Cost Participation Agreement With Hampton Roads Squadron, Association of Naval Aviation, Inc., for Costs to Refinish the Existing Retaining Walls Adjacent to the Monument to Naval Aviation MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: On September 28, 2004, City Council approved the use of the 25th Street park area just east of Atlantic Ave for a monument to Naval Aviation as proposed by Hampton Roads Squadron, Association of Naval Aviation (HRANA). The City then executed a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Virginia Beach and HRANA to construct a world -class monument to naval aviation in Virginia Beach to recognize the contributions of naval aviation and the citizens of Virginia Beach to the defense of our nation. Approval of all required site plans and permits was granted in January 2005, and construction began soon afterward. To date, site work is substantially complete with installation of the bronze sculptures expected in the fall. A formal opening and dedication is planned for Spring 2006. ■ Considerations: Prior to approaching the City with the project, HRANA had raised over $750,000 towards the project, and since City Council approval last fall, fund raising has continued with the total now exceeding $1,000,000. HRANA remains committed to completing the work with quality materials and privately raised funds. However, the project has experienced cost increases due to the rapid rise in costs of construction materials and unexpected site issues. HRANA has approached the City regarding the issue of the existing brick retaining walls bordering the 25th Street Park site. The City constructed the walls many years ago and as a result of repairs and weathering, the walls' current appearance will detract from the new high - quality stone and granite materials being used on the monument. HRANA has proposed cladding the walls with rock, pre -cast or granite cladding. Cost estimates vary depending on the choice of materials from $42,170.00 to $68,995.00. HRANA does not have sufficient funds to refurbish the walls at this time. HRANA has requested the City assist in funding an upgrade to the appearance of the retaining walls. The City Manager would be authorized and directed to execute a cost participation agreement with HRANA in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the cost of refinishing the walls. The funding source for this transfer is Reserve for Contingencies. ■ Alternatives: The retaining walls can remain as is and the monument site will function as planned but with a less appealing visual complement to the new materials and sculptures. HRANA will continue its fund raising efforts and come back at a later date and clad the walls once the funds are in hand. This alternative would result in a less than optimal installation, as the retaining wall cladding would have to be cut to fit on top of the pavers rather than being installed prior to the pavers. This would increase the cost to HRANA since construction equipment would have to be redeployed to the site. It would also necessitate another short closure of the park to the public when the cladding was installed. ■ Recommendations: HRANA has invested over $1,000,000 to date in the project. Once complete, the monument will represent over $2,000,000 in actual costs and donated time by architects, engineers, contractors, suppliers and craftsman. Given the substantial investment made by HRANA in this public asset, and the fact that all other funding has been privately raised, it is recommended that City Council approve this ordinance and enter into a cost participation agreement for up to $50,000 for costs to improve the existing retaining walls adjacent to the site. ■ Attachments: Ordinance and photographs of the existing retaining walls. Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Interim Chief Financial Officer City Manager: r V N 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $50,000 FROM RESERVE 2 FOR CONTINGENCIES TO THE REGIONAL 3 PARTICIPATION FY 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET TO 4 FUND A COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE 5 HAMPTON ROADS SQUADRON, ASSOCIATION OF NAVAL 6 AVIATION, INC., FOR COSTS TO REFINISH THE 7 EXISTING RETAINING WALLS ADJACENT TO THE 8 MONUMENT TO NAVAL AVIATION 9 10 11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 12 VIRGINIA: 13 That $50,000 is hereby transferred from Reserve for 14 Contingencies to the Regional Participation FY 2005-06 Operating 15 Budget to fund a cost participation agreement in an amount not 16 to exceed $50,000 with the Hampton Roads Squadron, Association 17 of Naval Aviation, Inc., for costs to refinish the existing 18 retaining walls adjacent to the Monument to Naval Aviation. The 19 City Manager is hereby authorized to execute such cost 20 participation agreement on behalf of the City. 21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 22 Virginia, on the day of , 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 3 C bno!- ManagementServices APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY P A 1d) I / U City Attorney's Office CA9640 PA/GG/ORDRES/Naval Aviation Monument.ORD R-6 June 22, 2005 f y s • - r eyF'�- . .. .; ,- ,*'t•�?-. a .wy x� 'E'er t 'AT a S �*sM _ i_ "JUK" 4-2, � \�\ \ \� � d� � � . t w « � ¥� �� a�� \ n 1_ r- J. PLANNING — NO ACTION 1. Applications of CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: a. AMEND §§105 and 502 of the Zoning Ordinance re establishing restrictions on development of nonconforming lots in Residential Zoning Districts b. AMEND §4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance re resubdivision of nonconforming lots in residential zoning districts (The Planning Commission deferred these matters indefinitely) K. PLANNING 1. Application of TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit re multi- family dwellings on property bounded by Independence Boulevard, Commerce Street, Market Street and Columbus Street. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. Application of MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re placement of two room modular office trailer at 1486 Holland Road. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Application of G and A PROPERTIES, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales and rental at 4933 and 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of SHORE DRIVE AUTO SALES for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales at 4510 Shore Drive. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL ♦�r.',^a�aagz.. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances pertaining to nonconforming lots MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: (a) An Ordinance to Amend Sections 105 and 502 of the City Zoning Ordinance, Establishing Restrictions on Development of Nonconforming Lots in Residential Zoning Districts (b) An Ordinance to Amend Section 4.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, pertaining to the Resubdivision of Nonconforming Lots in Residential Zoning Districts. ■ Considerations: The two amendments were advertised for the June 28 City Council meeting in anticipation of the Planning Commission taking action on June 14. However, on June 14, the Planning Commission indefinitely deferred the proposed amendments, providing time for staff and the commission to conduct further evaluation regarding the potential applicability of an amendment designed to further regulate nonconforming lots. ■ Recommendations: Since action on the amendments was indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission, the City Council cannot act. Recommended Action: No Action Necessary. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: �f. ' fpG�N� BESA , i f> ;i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Town Center Associates, L.L.C. — Conditional Use Permit (multi -family dwellings) MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Town Center Associates, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings on property bounded on the west by Independence Boulevard, on the north by Commerce Street, on the east by Market Street and on the south by Columbus Street (GPINs 14774455430000;14774484440000;14774475940000;14774464930000; 14774485940000). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN ■ Considerations: The applicant, Town Center Associates, requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site for 120 multi -family (condominium) dwellings. The dwellings will be part of a project that includes a hotel (The Westin), retail and restaurant space, and a parking garage. Retail, restaurants, the hotel lobby, and residential development lobby anchor the four corners of the proposed building. Parking is to be located on five levels of the proposed building. The hotel will occupy floors three through sixteen. The proposed condominiums will occupy floors 17 through 36. The proposed dwelling units will be a mix of one and two bedroom apartments, ranging in size from 800 square feet to 2,500 square feet. The penthouse area will have a social room and lounge available for the residents. The proposed building design is contemporary, complementing the existing buildings in Town Center. The height of the building, as reported to staff, is 497 feet (to the top of the spire). This height exceeds the maximum height limit allowed in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District, which is 400 feet. An amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance is forthcoming, which will propose allowing building heights in the B-3A District such as that planned for this building. The purpose of the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District is to optimize the area's development potential for a mixed use, pedestrian -oriented urban activity center with mid- to high-rise structures. Introduction of this multi -use building comprising retail, restaurant, hotel, multi -family dwellings and parking will Town Center Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 achieve part of the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central Business District Master Plan to develop an urban center that is a mix of complementary uses. The unit types are varied and designed to appeal to all market types. Common space is provided to complement the units. Sufficient parking is provided for a maximum of 120 dwelling units, proposed retail and restaurant uses, the hotel, and additional parking for general public use. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that it is an appropriate addition to Town Center, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit is limited to a maximum of 120 multi -family dwelling units. 2. The exterior of the building shall substantially adhere to the submitted renderings titled "Virginia Beach Town Center Luxury Hotel & Residences", prepared by Brennan Beer Gorman Architects, dated 3/28/05. Said renderings are on file with the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. All mechanical equipment, including generators, shall be screened from the public rights of ways. The screening shall include solid walls that complement the structure. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department* City Manager: s'�- TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 June 8, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 120 multiple - family dwellings - Virginia -Beach -Blvd. loll---dSch....,7 V (111N f£MFF q -_fMNK30 - �i n 1 53 ((EUF!(N15 �.•^�— {,� .. � ,-EOIilM8U5—"ST .. ` Sil1�� T 6(57A 3 1 ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on Block 7, bounded by Independence Boulevard to the west, Commerce Street to the north, Market Street to the east, and Columbus Street to the south. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14774455430000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 2.7 Acres 14774484440000 14774475940000 14774464930000 14774485940000 The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow SUMMARY OF REQUEST development of the site for 120 multiple -family dwellings in conjunction with a hotel, The Westin, retail and restaurant space, and a parking garage. The proposed building will occupy the entirety of Block 7 within the Town Center project area. Retail and restaurant space anchors the four corners of the proposed building, along with the hotel check -in and the residential lobby. Parking is to be located on five levels of the proposed building. The hotel will occupy floors three through sixteen. The proposed multiple -family dwellings will occupy floors seventeen through thirty-six. Entrance to the building is obtained via Commerce Street, Market Street and Columbus Street. The proposed building design is contemporary, complementing the existing buildings in Town Center. The proposed units will be a mix of one and two bedroom apartments, ranging in size from 800 square feet to 2,500 square feet. The penthouse will have a social room and lounge available for the residents. TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC Agenda Item # 3 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped site, currently being used as a staging area for the on -going construction and development of Town Center SURROUNDING LAND North: . Commerce Street USE AND ZONING: . Across Commerce Street is Block 6, the site of the future Theater / B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District South: . Columbus Street • Across Columbus Street is Block 12, Dick's Sporting Goods / B- 3A Pembroke Central Business Core District East: . Market Street • Across Market Street is Block 10, currently under construction (proposed multiple -family units and retail) / B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District West: . Independence Boulevard NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is currently being used as a staging area for the on -going CULTURAL FEATURES: development of Town Center. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): No improvements are included in the City's Master Transportation Plan for Columbus Street, Independence Boulevard or Virginia Beach Boulevard around this development. However, the City has begun the Comprehensive Transportation Study for the Pembroke Area, and this study may include short and long term improvements for these roadways. Additional comments regarding traffic issues will be provided during detailed site plan review. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Columbus Street 15,209 ADT 22,800 ADT Existing Land Use 2 — 0 Independence 75,000 ADT' 64,260 ADT' ADT Boulevard Proposed Land Use 3- 1399 /1961 /496/1684 ADT Average Daily Trips z as defined by Vacant parcel 3as defined by11, 000 s.f. Restaurant; 240 Room Hotel units; 449 120 Multiple -family dwellings; 38,000 s.f., Retail TOWN CENTER AS WATER: This site must connect to City water. There are 12-inch water mains in Independence Boulevard and Columbus Street, and ten -inch water mains in Market Street and Commerce Street. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There are eight -inch sanitary sewer mains in Independence Boulevard and Commerce Street, and a ten -inch sanitary sewer main in Market Street. Sanitary sewer and pump station analysis for pump station #359 will be required to determine if flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation' Change 2 Thalia Elementary 694 728 7 7 Independence Middle 1524 1324 4 4 Princess Anne High 1 2104* 1 1688 16 6 "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 ,change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). * School Board approved redistricting will lower Princess Anne's membership by approximately 350 students beginning 2006-2007 The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city COMPREHENSIVE PLAN as the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area # 4. This Strategic Growth Area is comprised of three sub areas including the Town Center, West Pembroke Area and Bonney Road West Corridor. The Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, lists one of several goals for the plan is to encourage a mix of uses that ideally create a city center that never closes. The submitted proposal is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central Business District Master Plan to blend multiple land use activities into a reinforcing whole. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request to develop a maximum of 120 multiple -family dwelling units on the site subject to the conditions below. The purpose of the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District is to optimize the area's development potential for a mixed use, pedestrian -oriented urban activity center with mid- to high-rise structures that contain numerous types of uses including businesses, retail, residential, cultural, educational, and other public and private uses. The district is intended to comprise publicly accessible community open space areas that are reflective of the concepts identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the Pembroke Central Business District Master Plan. Introduction of this multi -use building comprising retail and restaurant space, a hotel, multiple -family dwellings and parking will achieve part of the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central Business District Master Plan to develop an urban center that is a mix of complementary uses. TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC AgendaItem# 3 Page 3 The proposed building is multistoried, contemporary in design, and complements the existing buildings in Town Center. The unit types are varied and designed to appeal to all market types. Common space is provided to complement the units. Sufficient parking is provided for a maximum of 120 dwelling units, the proposed retail and restaurant space, the hotel, and additional parking for general public use. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS 1. The Conditional Use Permit is limited to a maximum of 120 multi -family dwelling units. 2. The exterior of the building shall substantially adhere to the submitted renderings titled "Virginia Beach Town Center Luxury Hotel & Residences", prepared by Brennan Beer Gorman Architects, dated 3/28/05. Said renderings are on file with the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. All mechanical equipment, including generators, shall be screened from the public rights of ways. The screening shall include solid walls that complement the structure. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC Agenda Item # 3 Page 4 KIM w wz �e YD�.3 aasawny lxlw urri. � ,�' Jutd 4 Yulv�=kY �taa1?�hvV a;ie�apa�'i art �e� r 2iLON NLLS3Mt 3H1 . !m2ar�mr$,rr�w.0 ss i i -J TOWN CENTER AS Q a w H Fn 0 cn m O m IL Z O H Q w J w a Z_ J_ m 0 w CO O m O IL Z O H a w J W C) Z_ _J m W N O m O m a Z O H Q w J W a Z_ G J_ m W U) O IL O m a East Elevation TOWN CENTER AS TOWN CENTER LLC #-3 rage 10 Z O H Q w J W a Z_ J m W N O IL O cc a Z O Q w -j W 0 Z_ G J_ m G W U) O a O It a TOWN CENTER Z O H Q w J W a Z_ J_ m G W O a O a TOWN CENTER A Not io n Center Map to Scnle 003 B — — 3 Bo 3 U'B do t �-- a, ti a 2 — 3 [5 p e ow B-3 0 o o MA c aAxx s. aN P g 01B , O 002 — �B B MAIN ST. U as o --....._...::..-.� ----- o 3� o �' o o ' 51 0 B-3 I a o OP55 S W sr��T 003 � oPA M--,, - 3 007 n005 006 NINA � CUP - Multiple -Family 1 3/9/04 Rezoning (B-3 Central Business to B3-A Pembroke Central Approved Business Core District 2 3/11/03 Street Closure Approved 9/24/02 Conditional Use Permit - Multiple -family dwellings 342 units Approved 3 2-8-00 Rezoning (B-3 Central Business District to B-3A Pembroke Approved Central Business Core District) 2-8-00 Street Closure (10-27-78; 12-15-75; 10-14-74; 7-22-74) Approved 4 10-10-00 Rezoning (B-3 Central Business District to B-3A Pembroke Approved Central Business Core District 5 11-1-65 Rezoning (Residence Suburban R-S3 to General Commercial Approved C-G1) and a Conditional Use Permit (Gasoline Supply Station 6 8-8-63 Rezoning (Residence Suburban R-S3 to Limited Commercial Approved C-L1 7 Pending Rezoning (B-3 Central Business District to B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District TOWN CENTER I.L O z z 0 N DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCL;;;RE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Town Center Associates, L.L.C. Members: City Center Associates, LLC and ArmadafHoffler Properties, L.L.C. Managers: Louis S. Haddad, Anthony P. Nero and Gerald S. Divaris 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Armada/Hoffler entities and numerous Town Center -related and other unrelated bsiess entities are affiliated with the Applicant through its principals: Daniel A. Hoffer, A. Russell Dirk and Anthony P. Nero; and Divaris entities through its principal: Gerald S. Divans Check here if the applicant is NOT corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: t,. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) City of Virginia Beach Development Authority -- see attached list of Members. 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. See next page for footnotes> Conditional Use Permit Apphcation Rage 9 of 10 Revised 911/2004 TOWN CENTER .M. �4 i DISCLOSURE STATEMENfi C> 1�# ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal selryices: (Attach list if necessary) Town Center Associates, L.L.C; Faggert & Frieden, P.G.; MSA P.C.; Divaris Real Estate, Inc.; Hunton & Williams; Cherry Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.; Armada/Hoffler Construction Co.; Brennan Bebr Gorman Monk "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local GovernmentConflictof Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, 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 in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship C.include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities, there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities 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 working 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 herein is true and accurate.. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject roperty at least 30 hays prior to the scheduled public hearing actor ng to t uetions in this package. ra Eriraa oc �res �..�.. . ay;'i3rk ffA�"'Y- Applicant"it' Signafturq Print Name`' cn t q� vr+w a�acn o�v oxnaaT nurrMJTr "5 0C1� � Pr rty Ow is Sig ature (if different than applicant) Print Name lchs4r04401 C Conditional Use Permit Application Page 10 of 10 Revised 9/1/2004 TOWN CENTER City of Virginia Beach Development Authority — List of Members C. Maxwell Bartholomew, Jr. District Manager Dominion Virginia Power 4901 Princess Anne Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 671-3401 (Business) 671-3471 (FAX) Dan H. Brockwell 3755 Dupont Circle Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455 460-5091 Teresa H. Carrington Wachovia Bank 125 Independence Boulevard Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 4937-4049 (Business) 493-4102 (FAX) Douglas D. Ellis Ellis Gibson Development Group 1081 19" Street Suite 203 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 497-7700 (Business) 497-2943 (FAX) Robert F. Hagans, Jr. 1065 Fairlawn Avenue Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455 627-8284 (Business) 627-7858 (FAX) Donald V. Jellig Sentara Enterprises 6015 Poplar Hall Drive Suite 300 Norfolk, Virginia 23502 455-7755 (Business) 455-7756 (FAX) Robert G. Jones Jones Walker & Clements, PC 128 South Lynnhaven Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 486-0333 (Business) 340-8583 (FAX) Page G. Lea Capes Capital Management, Inc. 300 West Freemason Street Norfolk, Virginia 23 5 10 622-8514 (Business) 622-8441 (FAX) Paul V. Michels Coastal Training Technologies Corp. 500 Studio Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 498-9014 x 3 100 (Business) 631-4301 (FAX) Jerrold L. Miller 1242 N. Inlynnview Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454 393-1471 (Business) 397-8535 (FAX) Elizabeth A. Twohy Capital Concrete, Inc. 400 Stapleton Street Norfolk, Virginia 23504 627-0630 (Business) 627-3927 (FAX) TOWN CENTER Page 1 of 1 Faith Christi - response to notice for conditional use permit by Town Center Associates, L.L.C. From: 'Bert Crawford" <bert.crawford@eocrawford.com> To: "City of Virginia Beach Planning Department" <planadmn@vbgov.com> Date: 5/26/2005 6:34 PM Subject: response to notice for conditional use permit by Town Center Associates, L.L.C. City of Virginia Beach Planning Department Current Planning Division Dear Planning Commission: The quality and magnitude of the proposed development by Town Center Associates L.L.C. represents an incredible opportunity for our city. An amenity like this is a perfect fit for the expanding Virginia Beach Town Center area as well as fiscally productive for our community as a whole. We urge your unanimous support for this exciting project and look forward to our new neighbor. Respectfully, E. W. Crawford, Jr. Crawford Properties L.L.C. 4677 Columbus Street Virginia Beach, VA 23462 This message was sent through the EOCRAWFORD Anti -Spam; Anti -Virus Server and is certified Virus Free. E.O. Crawford & Sons, Inc. file://C:\WINNT\Temp\GW 100074.HTM Item #3 Town Center Associates, L.L.C. Conditional Use Permit Bounded on the west by Independence Boulevard on the north by Commerce Street on the east by Market Street on the south by Columbus Street District 5 Lynnhaven June 8, 2005 CONSENT William Din: The next item I have is Item #3. This is Town Center Associates, L.L.C. This is a Conditional Use Permit application for multi -family dwellings on property bounded by Independence Boulevard, and on the north by Commerce Street, and on the east by Market Street, and on the south by Columbus Street. This is in the Lynnhaven District, and there are three conditions associated with this item. Mike Nickols: Good afternoon and thank you. My name is Mike Nickols, the attorney representing the applicant, Town Center Associates. We have read and accept the conditions. William Din: Thank you sir. Is there any opposition to placing this item on consent agenda? If not, Ms. Anderson could you speak on this too? Janice Anderson: Yes. Thank you. This is a very exciting attractive new addition to the Town Center Development. What they're proposing is a tower of 36 floors. Now this will be tallest building now supposedly in Virginia Beach. It will overtake the current large tower that is Town Center. The proposal is for a Conditional Use Permit for 120 multi -family dwelling units. This new building will have retail and restaurants on the bottom floor, and actually be the anchors on all four corners. There will be parking on five floors. The hotel in this facility, floors 3-16, and it is the proposed Western Hotel. The hotel will occupy that portion of the building, and from floors 17-36 will be apartments or condos. They will be one or two bedroom dwellings. They have different site plans that they have submitted. It is a very attractive, and it is believed to be very popular. These one or two bedroom apartments or condos will go anywhere from 800 square feet to 2,500 square feet. This facility will be right across from the proposed theatre that has just been approved. One issue that has been addressed in the Planning report is transportation. There has been some concerned with the traffic in the area, but the City has addressed, and Planning Department has already started a comprehensive traffic study, which they will keep on top of, and as development progresses in the Town Center area, we believe that will address any concerns that they have there. This is an appropriate addition to the Town Center. The zoning is new to Virginia Beach. It's a B- 3A Pembroke Business Center, and that is to encourage the urban development that Town Item #3 Town Center Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 Center reflects, and we're very excited about this project, and we're recommending approval. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Jan. William Din: Thank you Jan. I would like to make a motion to approve the following item, Item #3 Town Center Associates, L.L.C., a Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwelling on property in the Lynnhaven District with three conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Robert Miller: Madame Chair? Dorothy Wood: Yes Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item #3. My firm is working on the project. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS ABSENT KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-0, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved Item #3 for consent. CUP — Church Expansion ��.1N1A�BEgi 7 �C« rly b.,__.. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Messiah Lutheran Church — Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Messiah Lutheran Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church (expansion) on property located at 1486 Holland Road (GPIN 14860641960000). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow the temporary placement of a two room modular office trailer unit, 50 feet long by 14 feet wide, to be installed at the rear of the church property. This temporary trailer will be used for educational church programs and meeting space. The church has developed a five-year capital improvement plan to include additional worship and education space. When the church is ready to proceed with any expansion of their existing facilities, an additional Conditional Use Permit for that expansion will be necessary. Staff recognizes the need for the church to provide an interim area for meeting space until an expansion is constructed. Modular trailer units are for a temporary need only and should not become a part of the permanent facility. A condition to the use permit pertaining to the temporary nature of this use is recommended below. Conditions have also been recommended to ensure that the undercarriage of the unit is screened and that the unit is secured at all times. Additionally, in order to provide access to the unit by emergency response vehicles, a condition has been recommended requiring the installation of a gravel surface capable of supporting 75,000 pounds back to the unit from the existing parking lot. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is a temporary use while the church works on its capital improvement project, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as part of the Consent Agenda with the following conditions: Messiah Lutheran Church Page 2 of 2 The Conditional Use Permit is for the addition of one modular trailer unit on the church site for a period of five years from the date of City Council approval. Continued use of the unit beyond that time shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. 2. The modular trailer unit shall be installed at the location indicated on the submitted Physical Survey for Messiah Lutheran Church dated April 12, 1993 by Stephen I. Boone & Associates. 3. The bottom of the modular trailer unit shall be screened by an opaque or semi -opaque apron. 4. High -security locks are to be provided for the doors of the modular trailer unit. 5. Landscape screening consisting of either wax myrtles or ligustrums a minimum of three feet high and three feet apart in a mulched bed shall be provided along the front of the modular trailer unit. 6. A vehicle turn around (either a hammerhead or cul-de-sac) shall be provided at the end of the drive aisle. A gravel surface capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, meeting the width and radius requirements may be used as the paving surface. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department* City Manager: IL_ MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item # 9 May 11, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for temporary modular trailer unit at the existing church site. Messiah Lutheran Church H, Not �o ��siz \\ \ A-18 P01 HI a PD-HT-, J,O nnEADOWS? CUP — Church Expansion ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1486 Holland Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14860641960000 3 — ROSE HALL 2.991 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow the temporary setting of a two room office modular trailer unit, 50 feet long by 14 feet wide, to be installed at the rear of the church property. This temporary trailer will be used for educational church programs and meeting space as the council of Messiah Lutheran Church commits to a capital improvement project. The church has developed a five-year capital improvement plan to include additional worship and education space. When the church is ready to proceed with any expansion of their existing facilities, an additional Conditional Use Permit for that expansion will be necessary. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The property is currently used for a church. SURROUNDING LAND North: 0 Multi -family residential / A-12 Apartment District USE AND ZONING: South: . Across Holland Road, multi -family residential / PD-H1 Planned Development District East: . Multi -family residential / A-12 Apartment District West: 0 Multi -family residential / A-12 Apartment District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no natural resources or cultural features on this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES The requested conditional use will have no measurable impact on City Services. MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Holland Road in the vicinity of this application has a Capital Improvement Program Holland Road Phase V, CIP 2-850 which currently does not have right-of-way impacts. FIRE: Fire code permits are required at the time of occupancy; contact the Fire Department for permit information. With a need for the Fire Department to access this structure via the parking lot, there will be the requirement for a vehicle turn around (either a hammerhead or cul-de-sac) at the end of the drive aisle. Since this is a temporary use, a gravel surface capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, meeting the width and radius requirements may be used. SCHOOLS: No comments — not applicable. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for this area focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Staff recognizes the need for the church to provide an interim area for meeting space until an expansion is constructed. Modular trailer units are for a temporary need only and should not become a part of the permanent facility. CONDITIONS The Conditional Use Permit is for the addition of one modular trailer unit on the church site for a MESSIAH LUTH period of five years from the date of City Council approval. Continued use of the unit beyond that time shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. 2. The modular trailer unit shall be installed at the location indicated on the submitted Physical Survey for Messiah Lutheran Church dated April 12, 1993 by Stephen I. Boone & Associates. 3. The bottom of the modular trailer unit shall be screened by an opaque or semi -opaque apron. 4. High -security locks are to be provided for the doors of the modular trailer unit. 5. Landscape screening consisting of either Wax Myrtles or Ligustrums a minimum of three feet high and three feet apart in a mulched bed shall be provided along the front of the modular trailer unit. 6. A vehicle turn around (either a hammerhead or cul-de-sac) shall be provided at the end of the drive aisle. A gravel surface capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, meeting the width and radius requirements may be used as the paving surface. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. MESSIAH LUTH �' 4 �. L �� i afie� � �� d �y � � �� ¢` '� +i� .. Q .a yLiw �� `IAr � ,s w� � <+ "3� � � ® v'� � f � k. � m , m�� ' �� h � '�� .,,. �"A . ... �. .. �'�� _ ��. 2 THIS* TO CRATI"°THAT ON <APRIL 1 1993 IS.AWYED THE 14WHIERTY SHOW. 9NTHIS PLAT ANO THAT THE -f I;INES AND PNYWCAL IM"OVEMENTS ARE SHOWN D TNIS PLAT. THE SMPROVEMENTS STAND STRICTLY WITHIN THE TITLE LINES AND THERE ANE Hf1 EN6ROACHMENTS OA V NIISLE EASfMEN TS EXCEPT A64NUWH. 4"� ry 1, booNE, L5: It ,t m H 4DL_L.AhlC i2CaAC"i THE. BUILDING .SHOWN HEREON APPEARS 70 BE IN FLOOD ZONE °XP FIRM NAP CITY Of VA. $EACH COMMUNITY NO. 515531 MAP REVISION: AUGUST 18, 1992 PAN rL N0, B0231) PHYSICAL SURVEY 4136 HOLLA40 ROAD, VIRGI.NIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SITE 1-B SUBDIVISION Of PARCEL .8", AS SHOWN ON PLAT ENTITLED„ 'SURVEY OF PROPERTY FOR 3AGOB ). Hl.RSHRE RC FR, €) AL" -M,6� 91, P, 38 '.FOR: MtSSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH ST€PNf" L 84tNiE A AssocaTl% PC. SCALE: I^- SO:I POR73M{MllAsou TRa'EYOAS Akre' APRIL 12, 1993. II, 1flflONitA MESSIAH LUTH a a c� O O a M w J_ a H 0 w O IL O m a O H U) 0 Z Z O N CUP - Church Expansion 1 04/11/95 Rezoning from A-12 to Conditional B-2 Granted 2 10/24/88 Conditional Use Permit for a carwash Withdrawn 3 01/11/82 Zoning change from PD-H to PD-H2 Granted � Z W � W � � U) W � D Cl) 0 J L) Cl) 5 MESSIAH LUTH Item #9 Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use Permit 1486 Holland Road District 3 Rose Hall May 11, 2005 CONSENT William Din: My next item is Item #9 Messiah Lutheran Church. This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a church (expansion) on property located at 1486 Holland Road in the Rose Hall District. There are six conditions associated with the application. Welcome. Robert Vogl: Good afternoon. We accept all the conditions. William Din: Would you identify yourself. Robert Vogl: I'm sorry. Bob Vogl. I'm the Pastor of Messiah Lutheran. William Din: Thank you. Is there any objection to placing this item on consent agenda? If not, Mr. Don Horsley, will you please speak on this issue? Donald Horsley: Okay. This church has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary usage of a module trailer while they are in the stages of enlarging their operation there. The temporary trailer will be used for educational purposes, and also for an area to study how to better do their capital improvements. It's a five-year deal and we don't see any problem with it. It's being accessed in the rear of the property, and I think the conditions have adequately addressed any concerns that have arisen, so they have been agreed to by the pastor and we thought it should be put on consent agenda. William Din: Thank you again Don. I would like to make the following motion to approve the following consent agenda item, Item #9 Messiah Lutheran Church, an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion in the Rose Hall District with six conditions. Dorothy Wood: A motion by Mr. Din and seconded by Mr. Knight. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON ABSENT CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE Item #9 Messiah Lutheran Church Page 2 KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE William Din: By a vote of 10-0, we have approved the consent agenda item. CUP for auto Sales and Service �.PG4.dyA B6.q !'S <, py � apt Ir CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: G and A Properties, L.L.C. — Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales and rental) MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of G and A Properties, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and rental on property located at 4933 and 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard (GPINs 14771531100000; 14771521400000; 14771429990000). DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to operate a motor vehicle sales and rental business. The applicant will utilize the existing building and paved areas on the site for these uses. A portion of this site, 7,500 square feet in the northwest corner, was previously approved for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and rental and an indoor car wash in 1995. The applicant recently purchased the property and is currently operating his business on the 7,500 square foot western portion of the site already covered by a Use Permit. The landscaping required with the 1995 Conditional Use Permit has been installed and the Conditional Use Permit was administratively extended several times. At some point in time, the landscaping was removed and concrete pads were installed within the right-of-way to display vehicles for sale. Condition 3, recommended below, requires removal of the pads and restoration of the landscaping. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-1 to approve this request with the following conditions: This Conditional Use Permit supersedes the Conditional Use Permit granted at 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard on May 23, 1995. 2. The existing indoor car wash may remain. G and A Properties, L.L.C. Page 2of3 3. The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Department of Planning/Development Services Center within 90 days of approval of this use permit that addresses the following items. i. Removal of the two existing concrete pads within the Virginia Beach Boulevard right-of-way. ii. Removal of the western entrance within the Virginia Beach Boulevard right-of-way. iii. Installation of standard street front landscaping within the 12- foot wide grassed area between the sidewalk and on -site pavement along the entire Virginia Beach Boulevard frontage. iv. Modification of the eastern entrance to comply with current commercial entrance standards. v. Identification of a customer/employee parking area with at least three spaces, one being a handicap accessible space. 4. The existing chain link fence and planting surrounding the rear of the site does not meet the requirement for auto storage areas or the required setbacks from Potomac Street. The applicant intends to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to these requirements. If the variance is denied, the applicant shall include on the site plan submitted to the Development Services Center a new fence and plantings that meet current zoning ordinance requirements. 5. There shall be no pennants, streamers, balloons, portable signs or banners displayed on the site or the vehicles. 6. Vehicles shall be parked in the designated areas and no vehicles shall be parked or displayed within any portion of the public right-of-way. No vehicles shall be displayed on ramps. Vehicles shall not be used as barriers to prevent ingress or egress of the site. Storage of vehicles awaiting sale shall not obstruct Fire Department access to the site. 7. On -site vehicle maintenance is permitted as an accessory use only for light mechanical work wholly within the building. Light mechanical work consists mainly of such things as fixing flat tires, replacing tires, windshield wipers, belts as needed. No outdoor storage of parts, tires or equipment is allowed. 8. There shall be no neon signs or neon accents installed on the exterior of the building, the inside or outside of any window, and/or door, any light pole or any other portion of the site. 9. A yearly administrative review of this Conditional Use Permit shall be conducted to ensure continued compliance with the above conditions. ■ Attachments: Staff Review G and A Properties, L.L.C. Page 3of3 Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmeent City Manager. V— "�'' GAND A PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 4 May 11, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and rental :w RON 1 IN 111 Irr. 1. 8 1 'HIM ��Yii�i"r�c� ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4933 and 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14771503110; 2 — KEMPSVILLE 30,625 square feet 1477142999; 1477152140 The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to operate a SUMMARY OF REQUEST motor vehicle sales and rental business. The applicant will utilize the existing building and paved areas for the business. A portion of this site, 7,500 square feet in the northwest corner, was previously approved for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and rental and an indoor car wash in 1995 with the following conditions. 1. Not more than ten (10) automobiles for sale or rent shall be parked on this site at any given time. 2. Low level landscape plant material such as Dwarf Inkberry, Dwarf Yaupon Holly, Blue Pacifica Juniper or similar plant material will be installed in the existing grassed area west of the entrance. 3. No outside speaker (paging system) is permitted. 4. Approval is for a period of two years. The landscaping required with the 1995 Conditional Use Permit was installed and the Conditional Use Permit was administratively extended several times. At some point in time, the landscaping was removed and concrete pads were installed within the right-of-way to display vehicles for sale. The eastern portion of this site was leased as a restaurant until the applicant purchased the property recently. The applicant recently purchased the property and is currently operating his business on the 7,500 square foot western portion of the site. The applicant is now requesting a new Conditional Use Permit GAND A that will supersede the 1995 Conditional Use Permit for the 7,500 square foot western portion as well as cover the remainder of the site. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Motor vehicle sales and rental with indoor car wash on a portion of the site SURROUNDING LAND North: . Motor vehicle sales / B-3 Central Business District USE AND ZONING: South: . Potomac Street East: . Ice cream store / B-3 Central Business District West: . Automobile repair/ B-3 Central Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no significant natural resources or cultural features on the CULTURAL FEATURES: subject site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Virginia Beach Boulevard and Potomac Street are not shown on the Master Transportation Plan and there are no projects in the current Capital Improvement Program for these roadways in the vicinity of this site. The proposed use is already located on a portion of the site; therefore, the current proposal is not expected to significantly impact traffic flow on either roadway above what the site currently generates. WATER: This site is connected to City water. SEWER: This site is connected to City sanitary sewer. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Strategic Growth Area known as the West Pembroke Area. The land use recommendations for the West Pembroke Area include a vertical mix of mid to high-rise residential uses and a variety of compatible higher value non-residential uses including office, retail, publicly accessible urban open space, entertainment, educational, institutional and other similar urban activities. A gradual transformation from the existing land uses in the area to those recommended by the Plan is envisioned. G AND EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions recommended by staff with the use permit. The recommended conditions are provided below. The applicant has stated that the use of this site for motor vehicle sales and rental is a short term plan for the property. The applicant intends to redevelop this site, sometime within the next five years, with a mix of uses as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for this strategic growth area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the transition from existing land uses to those recommended by the Plan will happen over an extended period of time. In an effort to support the applicant's desire for this to be an interim, short term use of the property, the staff has recommended some minimal improvements with the conditions listed below. These conditions will help to enhance the aesthetics of this site so that it better fits the vision for this area while allowing the applicant to utilize the existing building and paving to the maximum extent practical, helping the transition of this strategic growth area to move forward. CONDITIONS 1. This Conditional Use Permit supersedes the Conditional Use Permit granted at 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard on May 23, 1995. 2. The existing indoor car wash may remain. 3. The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Department of Planning/Development Services Center within 90 days of approval of this use permit that addresses the following items. (a) Removal of the two existing concrete pads within the Virginia Beach Boulevard right-of- way. (b) Removal of the western entrance within the Virginia Beach Boulevard right-of-way. (c) Installation of standard street front landscaping within the 12-foot wide grassed area between the sidewalk and on -site pavement along the entire Virginia Beach Boulevard frontage. (d) Modification of the eastern entrance to comply with current commercial entrance standards. (e) Identification of a customer/employee parking area with at least three spaces, one being a handicap accessible space. 4. The existing chain link fence and planting surrounding the rear of the site does not meet the requirement for auto storage areas or the required setbacks from Potomac Street. The applicant intends to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to these requirements. If the variance is denied, the applicant shall include on the site plan submitted to the Development Services Center a new fence and plantings that meet current zoning ordinance requirements. 5. There shall be no pennants, streamers, balloons, portable signs or banners displayed on the site or the vehicles. any portion of the public right-of-way. No vehicles shall be displayed on ramps. Vehicles shall not be used as barriers to prevent ingress or egress of the site. Storage of vehicles awaiting sale shall not obstruct Fire Department access to the site. 7. On -site vehicle maintenance is permitted as an accessory use only for light mechanical work wholly within the building. Light mechanical work consists mainly of such things as fixing flat tires, replacing tires, windshield wipers, belts as needed. No outdoor storage of parts, tires or equipment is allowed. 8. There shall be no neon signs or neon accents installed on the exterior of the building, the inside or outside of any window, and/or door, any light pole or any other portion of the site. 9. A yearly administrative review of this Conditional Use Permit shall be conducted to ensure continued compliance with the above conditions. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. G AND Z O H Q U O J W H us LL. O J Q LU Q G AND POTOMAC STREET' Z15' 50' PIN {F) l W WRF VENcE N 84'54'30" W 150.00' a 31 C?,25 t� uZ W LIGHT XX POST 9 PIN F I LAJ 3011,- r i O z } { } ��IBLOCK ',BUILDING - THERS) ,,. 25 24 - E -'' " w 13.3 zao .33' ENC. B.E4` Id 4 22 BLOCK }a' t STORY �s-r BUILDING BRICK & FRAME (OTHERS) • M HOUSE # 4933 & 4935 � b- 2&41 .12 ENC, I 2 PARTOF ?` PART, CIF �I PART OF f- OF' ,PART PART - OF, � 'PART OF I 1 I saav PIN (F) DgRAIN n INLET S 84`54'30" E '. E :;- j 95Q.00 UET MOD- TO l I LAVENDER LN. SIMWALK G AND GAND A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CUP for auto Sales and Service 05/23/95 Conditional Use Permit (auto sales, repair, and indoor car wash) 01/19/04 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) 01/25/03 Conditional Use Permit (auto sales) 11/09/04 Conditional Use Permit (gas/conv. Store) 01/12/93 Rezoning from B-3 to 1-1 03/14/01 Conditional Use Permit (tattoo studio) 02/25/03 Conditional Use Permit (bingo hall) APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED O H 2 0 Z Z O N _ Cy l � kid 1 ' � � 11 va ; Ills c.g�MINy main m 3 MPH SSA.• M8 .`�' .� C � � A��Y � �r wk �p�9 .j' `"�F list b � # 4 all c ea A 2 24 Val3 tY7 '6, e Gt 005 SF<` kz j � �` L4 ` � �c� � € � a �� j '• € tab Ills i v (2('} A QA w ilia! 1-9 G AND r.1 Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Conditional Use Permit 4933 and 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard District 2 Kempsville May 11, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C, an Ordinance upon application of G & A Properties, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and rental on property located at 4933 and 4935 Virginia Beach Boulevard, District 2, Kempsville with nine conditions. Eddie Bourdon: Madame Chair. Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Loizou is here this afternoon with us. He will give us a brief synopsis and try to clear up a couple of things that may have been somewhat unclear this morning in the informal. This piece of property is on Virginia Beach Boulevard on the south side. In fact, a few years ago the previous owner applied for and obtained a Conditional Use Permit for this small section of what is an assemblage of a number of lots for a Use Permit for auto sales and the car wash. Subsequent to that operation being in place, my client bought the property. He is in the process and has been trying to assemble some properties in this area for potential redevelopment. In addition to the car wash and auto sales, there is a small restaurant on the property adjacent to the property. It is not on one continuous parcel but is under one ownership, however, but it was not contiguous, and it is the one piece called Napoleons. With the success of Town Center and the large number of eateries that we are now blessed to have in our city, unfortunately there has been some negative fallout. It is not a criticism but some of the smaller establishments nearby have not faired well. They have not been able to sustain the business so my client, who is renting to them, and after buying the property operating the car sales has determined the best course of action in his long term plan, as we discussed with staff being to redevelop the property. Hopefully, it will assemble with other properties. Temporarily, he will continue to use the property in total for auto sales, and that is the genesis of this application. As a temporary use not looking what is going to happen in the future, I think a temporary use and it is a good use. As such, we don't want to be expending any large number dollars to change the appearance of the property. We will certainly have no problem with the conditions that staff has recommended with one exception, and I think this was not particularly clear this morning. We are in full accord with all of the conditions including Sections A, C, and E in Subsection Three. We have no problem with removal of existing concrete pads in the Virginia Beach Boulevard right-of-way. We have no problem with complying with the law. I do understand there may be some discussion about the fact there might not be to date compliance with the requirements that there not be any cars displayed in the public right-of-way. I certainly am not here to defend or condone any such activity. I do know it does happen. We all know that. With regard to Condition C, the installation of the landscaping, no problem Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 2 with that whatsoever. Condition E, this is all under Number 3, the identification of parking spaces is not a problem in any way. What we did not feel was necessary given the circumstances we are dealing with here is the removal of the western entrance and the widening of the eastern entrance. We don't know how the property will redevelop, which entrance or may be both entrances may some day go away. We're not redeveloping the property, and there are entrances all up and down the Boulevard similar to this to the number of sites. I went up the Boulevard this morning and counted them but there are more than you can count on your two hands. It's not a dangerous situation or a problematic situation. We do recognize that when this property does redevelop there will be an elimination of entrances, and there will be consolidation of entrances but at this point we are looking at it as a holding pattern, we certainly want it to look attractive. That is why I don't have a problem with the landscaping. We just don't see the significant need to spend the money to eliminate an entrance and widen another entrance that will in 3-5 years, may well eliminate that entrance as well. So that was the only condition of the nine conditions recommended by staff, which are far more expansive and beneficial to the City's interest than were the conditions attached to the original Use Permit on the smaller portion of the site. So, those were the only objections that we had. It really is just one objection and that's changing the configuration of the entrance at this point. Dorothy Wood: Would you mind answering any questions Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: I would be happy to make that effort, and again my client is here. I don't have any problem with that at all. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Are there any questions on this side? Mr. Horsley. Donald Horsley: Eddie, you said that he would get those vehicles off the right-of-way? Eddie Bourdon: Absolutely. There was never, and I spoke to Barbara and that wasn't her intent to convey that we had a problem with that. We have no problem with that. We have not had a problem with that. My client, you may want to speak to him and he is here, but he's here to tell you that there won't be any more vehicles in the right-of-way. Donald Horsley: Maybe we need to hear him say that. Eddie Bourdon: I'll be happy to allow you to. Dorothy Wood: Could you identify yourself please? George Loizou: Yes. My name is George Loizou. I'm the owner of G & A Properties. As Eddie said, definitely there will be no cars parked on the right-of-way. We will comply with the Planning. Dorothy Wood: Are there cars parked there as we speak? Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 3 George Loizou: Yes. There is one car parked. The first car, I guess you can see it right now. Dorothy Wood: But there are cars there right now? George Loizou: Yes. There is one car there. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for him? Mr. Crabtree. I'm sorry did you want Mr. Bourdon? Eugene Crabtree: It doesn't make any difference. In reference to the widening of the driveway, when we made our trip around last week and we were in the city van, and we were pulling out, there were a couple of vehicles coming down Virginia Beach Boulevard that wanted to make a right hand turn, and they could not adequately navigate that driveway with the width that it currently is without us having to move the van. So, in defense of Planning's recommendation to widen that driveway, I can honestly say that we did have some difficulty when we were on the van trip with our van there, and other vehicles trying to pull in there and navigate that corner. So, I can see the purpose of widening that driveway. I would be in favor of that being done. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Mr. Ripley and then Mr. Din. Ronald Ripley: A question for staff and something that Mr. Bourdon said about the existing Use Permit for auto sales. Is that the area that is in front of these buildings where these cars are now? That's where it is? Maybe, I just misread it or misunderstood it when we were talking about that other piece of property that was adjacent. It's actually all on this piece of property. Eddie Bourdon: The Use Permit that is there now is essentially on this section of the property. Ronald Ripley: I see. Eddie Bourdon: It does not include this section here or the area in the rear. On the original application we had filed was simply a Use Permit for this portion given there was one already here. But in the process of bringing this forward, staff has determined that, and we did not object to adding this to it so now it encompasses the entirety what is under one ownership at this point in time. Ronald Ripley: I understand. Eddie Bourdon: That clears it up. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. It clears it up a lot. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 4 Dorothy Wood: Is there any other questions? Mr. Din. William Din: Yeah, I would like to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Loizou, if I may? Your intended use for this area in the back of the building is that intended to be an auto sales area or is that going to be a storage area for your vehicles? George Loizou: It probably is going to be some sales and some storage. No mechanical repairs or anything like that. William Din: So you are going to have vehicles stored back there for sale? Are people going to have access to that area? George Loizou: Yeah. There could be an access there. Yes. William Din: My question is that you have a chain link fence in this area. If you're going to have it as a bulk storage area then the fencing has to be of a different type. George Loizou: Okay. William Din: That is why I would like to find out what your intent use is. George Loizou: Yes. It will probably also be for sales. If I have to change the fence I can do that or the entrance of the fence. Eddie Bourdon: This is not a Permit application for bulk storage. It's for sales of vehicles. They have to be vehicles that are for sale. It's not an application for any type of repair. William Din: I understand that but my understanding is that if you are just going to store vehicles in the back then I think the fencing has to be of a solid fencing. If the public is not available to go back into that area and you lock that fence then it should not be chain link fence. Eddie Bourdon: The ability to secure your property with cars that are there for sale, I'm not aware of a restriction that says that you can't have a chain link fence that secures your boundaries of your cars that are for sale. William Din: I think it's a sales area that we are talking about. Eddie Bourdon: That's all that we've asked for. There is no bulk storage component. guess the question that is blurring the lines if there are cars waiting to be sold are they being stored while they're waiting to be sold. I'm not sure. William Din: They can be placed back there if the public has access and walk around and look at them for sale. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: Right. William Din: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: I don't know and this is my own ignorance when the dealership is closed whether a gate can be closed if the public is not in there. William Din: I'm pretty sure it can. I'm not saying that it can't. My understanding is if you're going to have a bulk storage area then it has to have a solid type fence. That is what I wanted clarification on. Also, I do have a little bit, and I would like a little comment, I guess on the closure of that western entrance, if I may? All along Virginia Beach Boulevard, as you mentioned, there are many entrances to that street. I think that is why we want one of those entrances closed. You're going to have to modify the smaller entrance in order, I think to get in to this area anyway, and for the aesthetics of Virginia Beach Boulevard whether it is temporary or a permanent change, I think it would help the appearance of Virginia Beach Boulevard in this area, and we try to do that whether it's landscaping or any other type of aesthetic improvement to make this area look better. I think it would enhance this area if we did close this entrance and put some kind of landscaping area in there. Without closing that entrance, I don't know, and I guess you could if you were to pull the cement pads up, and put the landscaping in that area, that essentially closes that entrance anyway. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Din, we don't disagree in terms of the long term view of what we are going to see happen in this section of Virginia Beach Boulevard. What's going to happen here is those areas, will now be landscaped, as well as landscaping here, and this will all be landscaped with what we propose to do. All this concrete comes out. What we ultimately believe is that one or both of these entrances may eventually be eliminated. With an assemblage and a redevelopment of a larger piece that even this assemblages represents which is what the view of my client's investment is in is the ultimate redevelopment of this property. What we're dealing with is how much money one is going to spend in the interim to put in place, eliminating an entrance and adding and widening another entrance for something that may both go away. It may not be the right location for an entrance if this property were to redevelop as it is. We have suggested and it is not even one of the conditions that we're happy to limit the term of this Use Permit because we are not looking to spend a lot of money on something that we are not going to be doing on a long-term basis. When I go up and down the Boulevard and look at uses that are going to be there for quite a while, I believe that are on properties that are similarly sized, and closely similarly sized that have the same type of situation. It is not a limited access road. I do appreciate the concerns that Mr. Crabtree expressed. Again, those other driveways are best that I can tell. I didn't go out there and measure them of the fairly similar width. So, it's really a question of trying to, in my mind, accommodate a use of the property that is intended to try to promote what we ultimately want to see a change in vision rather than an expenditure of a fair amount of capital to improve a site that is length than the term they are going to wish to use for a use that I hope, and I think we all hope won't be a long term use. That is kind of a balance that we try to engage the Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 6 staff. The staff has been very helpful in that regard. The only issue that we have, and have any disagreement on is just this entrance issue. William Din: Well, I understand but there is no guarantee whether this use is going to be there in five years or ten years but whatever period of time it is going to be, I would like to see some kind of improvement along this area to improve the aesthetics of Virginia Beach Boulevard. This is a major thoroughfare, and the number of entrances is of concern. When you go to redevelop this site there is nothing to preclude a reestablishing a different entrance if that was the case for redevelopment. Eddie Bourdon: The intent is not preserve two entrances for redevelopment in any way. If we were coming forth to do a redevelopment of the property, there isn't any doubt about the fact that we would be eliminating an entrance. I'm not suggesting in any way. I don't want anyone to get the impression that we're trying to preserve that for future redevelopment because when that occurs the entrance, at least one or potentially both may well go away. That would be in are development where we are tearing down the building and building something more substantial. That's the balancing act. What you have here are conditions that are going to require the property to be better landscaped than exist today. Although, compared to some properties along the Boulevard, it is certainly not the worse. William Din: That's true but as I said, with each application when we insist on different type of landscaping changes that is for the aesthetic of this thing. I think the elimination of this entrance is part of that too. You have to get what you can when the application comes through as part of that process that we usually evaluate for so I think elimination of this entrance is an important aspect of these conditions. I think I would like to keep that in there. At the same time, I have a hard time looking at this application in view of these vehicles being stored in the right-of-way, and the continued use of that. I would like to have seen that these vehicles been moved prior to it coming up to us or making sure that they are moved before City Council sees this thing. Dorothy Wood: We have several more questions but I believe Mr. Bourdon they were asked to be moved when the staff went out there. I think you heard that this morning one of the concerns of the Commission. Would you please answer questions from Ms. Katsias and Mr. Horsley? Kathy Katsias: I think one of the items here is there are no more than 10 cars for sale or lease parked in front. Where do the customers park? What is the total parking ratio in front of the building? George Loizou: I would say there is about 25 parking spaces. Kathy Katsias: Ten of which are going to be for cars that are for sale. George Loizou: Right. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 7 Kathy Katsias: And the employees will park where? George Loizou: In the back. Kathy Katsias: In the back? So where would you show the vehicles that are for sale versus where the customers park? George Loizou: Well, when the people would come in the entrance, I would have a sign that says "parking in the rear." Kathy Katsias: For the customers? George Loizou: For the customers. Yes. Kathy Katsias: So the customers will park in the rear? So all the vehicles in the front are for sale? George Loizou: Yes. Except, I can have a couple of parking spaces right in front of the office that I can allow for handicapped, which there is one parking space there already assigned for handicapped in front of the building. Kathy Katsias: Isn't that going to create a lot of traffic with customers coming in versus vehicles being taken out for test drive? George Loizou: When they pull in there is enough space where they can park and people go around it. Eddie Bourdon: One of the conditions is there has to be marked, which is not there today. They have to be marked spaces that meet the current requirements of our zoning ordinance. That will help significantly in terms of the ordering of access, and drive aisles through the property that doesn't exist today. That is one of the conditions that your staff has put in here. All parking spaces will need to be marked, and that means they will be marked to our current requirements and drive aisles would be appropriate. I think when you visualize in the site today, it doesn't measure up because it doesn't have parking marks like it suppose to. Also, I would like my client because I think the picture may have caused him some confusion with the question that asked previously. He tells me that there today no cars parked in the right-of-way. When the picture was taken that was not the case. I'm not familiar. Dorothy Wood: There was yesterday Mr. Bourdon. I don't know about today. Eddie Bourdon: Well believe me, after the informal this morning, and I was on the phone and he tells me there are no cars in the right-of-way but that's another issue. They are not there now. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 8 Dorothy Wood: Mr. Horsley. Donald Horsley: Yeah. The other entrance that we are talking about doing away with, the way I see it vehicles park in front of that entrance so it is not used? Eddie Bourdon: That's the problem. You're not allowed to have a vehicle parked there. That is one of the conditions that will have to be adhered to is there won't be any cars parked there in front of that entrance in the right-of-way. Donald Horsley: In the right-of-way. I mean in the entrance. Eddie Bourdon: A good portion of the entrance is in the right-of-way. Donald Horsley: Show me the entrance. On that diagram, show me the one that we just saw. Eddie Bourdon: What you just saw there was cars parked in this area which is the entrance, which is in the public right-of-way. The property line is this dark line that is right here. So, if you go to that picture then you see these vehicles they are parked in the entrance in the right-of-way. Donald Horsley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: Again, the property line is back in this area here so that all will have to go away. Then the entrance will be utilized. Donald Horsley: So what I'm saying is that you're not using the second entrance now anyway except for parking vehicles there illegally. Is that right? George Loizou: What I was allowed was to park ten cars on half of the property. Donald Horsley: Under the Use Permit? George Loizou: Right, which has already been approved to do that. I have more than one city inspector that came by and said you have ten cars on one side of the building, and that is what you are allowed. In order for me to park ten cars on half of the lot, that is where I had to park them to be able to have ten cars. But now, if I get a permit for all the property, then I'll be able to move everything out of the entrance, and have the opening, and be able to operate. Donald Horsley: So you want to use both entrances? Is that what you're telling me? George Loizou: Yes. Donald Horsley: Okay. For ingress and egress? Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 9 George Loizou: Right. Donald Horsley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: It is very squeezed with those ten cars on that one little section of the property. As I was just saying to Ms. Katsias, I think you will see a marked improvement with this because instead of everything being cramped on to a site that was small to begin with that the Use Permit was on, now it is going to be able to spread out, and done in a more professional manner. Donald Horsley: The vehicles you have gotten off the right-of-way, and that will be landscaped and all to be upgraded. Eddie Bourdon: All the landscaping will be upgraded in the right-of-way. There will be nothing parked in the right-of-way or in the entrance. Donald Horsley: Okay. Thank you sir. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller. John Waller: I think the conditions as staff stated are at a minimum at least. I think they're fair and I think they should be complied with but I have a problem. Do I have anyone to talk to? Dorothy Wood: Certainly. Mr. Bourdon. You weren't finished. You were still working sir. Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry Mr. Waller. I thought you were going to discuss. John Waller: It is my understanding that your client has been informed several times to get those cars out of the right-of-way. How much of this stuff has he done? Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Waller, I can't speak to the understanding. I'll be more than happy to let you have that conversation with my client. John Waller: I'm don't want to get involved with it. I'm just going to vote. Eddie Bourdon: I spoke with staff. John Waller: I don't think he has been very cooperative with the city and getting the cars out of the city right-of-way. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Waller, the first I heard about this problem was this morning. Okay? So, I'm not in a position to defend nor am I standing here defending or even substantiating allegations because I don't know who's making them. But, I have spoken Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 10 to my client and told him point blank you can't park your cars in the right-of-way. He tells me that there are not going to be any cars parked in the right-of-way. I have to take the man of his word. As far as the conditions are concerned, you got a provision in here that the conditions will be reviewed by Planning Department annual. If you want to change them to six months, I don't have a problem with that. I think people that agree to things must abide to what they agree to. I don't have any sympathy or aversion to the notion that you abide by what you say what you're going to do. So, I'm not going to get into an argument about it because I don't know who told him or what occasions or how many times. I just don't have any knowledge of that but I concur with the settlement, and I do believe that with, and this is not to defend any behavior but the original use permit for the very small portion of the property was a fairly difficult situation to be able to operate. It wasn't his Use Permit but he bought knowing what the conditions were. I think this will at least help to operate in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of our ordinance. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Macali. Bill Macali: Just to complicate things further, I need to remind the Commission and everybody else that it is not just that you can't park cars on the right-of-way. There's got to be no cars within five feet of the right-of-way. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. We're talking about the right-of-way and it is not just the right-of-way. Thank you Mr. Macali. Eddie Bourdon: Where that may have an impact, although you can't tell from the scale, it certainly isn't going to be an issue over here, which is the area you're talking about. It may have some impact over here. This is much more than five feet off the property line. John Waller: I like landscaping in that driveway a whole lot better than concrete. Eddie Bourdon: Once you landscape this area and this area, and all this area, it is going to make a dramatic improvement. This is the area that we are suggesting it be left the same so the appearance in order to know what you're dealing with here is about a quarter of the total area that we are talking about landscaping. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ms. Duke, did you talk to the applicant about moving his car before or did someone from the Planning Department? Faith, could you please comment on that for us? Faith Christie: The third Tuesday of May when the staff went on the field trip we stopped here. A gentleman came out and asked us what we were doing there. I informed him that he needed to move his cars out of the right-of-way. Dorothy Wood: Then it was not when we went back out? Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 11 Faith Christie: Right. Dorothy Wood: And, no it wasn't as of yesterday. Have you seen this in other car dealerships on the Boulevard? Faith Christie: Yes. Dorothy Wood: Would you comment on that at all or tell us about this? Faith Christie: The zoning inspectors spend a good deal of their time going up and down Virginia Beach Boulevard telling them to move their cars. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Horsley has a question for you Mr. Scott. Donald Horsley: Bob, when this initial Permit was approved in 1995, I think it was, and it was approved for two years, when he got the property and got the Permit, has this been administratively reviewed and extended since then? Robert Scott: Yes. I think we indicated in the write up that is has been reviewed a number of times since then. I can't find the exact language. I think when this was approved we have made some administrative review of it and approved it periodically since then. There have not been any problems except for this repeated problem with is common, well, I should say that. There are some car dealerships in the city where this is a problem. This is not a new problem. That is the only problem we've had. Donald Horsley: It really doesn't make any difference if we want to put a two-year time limit on this permit. It really doesn't make any difference because if it is a one-year and it is administrative review and we haven't made any problems it's going to be extended right? Robert Scott: That's correct. Donald Horsley: So it really doesn't matter whether we put a time limit on it or not. Right? Robert Scott: Well, I think there should be a time limit on it. Donald Horsley: That's what I'm getting at. Maybe we need to put a time limit because Mr. Bourdon has insinuated that this is probably a temporary use anyway for a short period of time. Maybe we need to put a two or three year time limit on it, and work with that. When you get down to it, I kind of sympathize. If we're going to do some landscaping to try to upgrade this property to just go in and arbitrary do away with one and pardon another one when you got two that probably the business could operate under. It may be money spent for no real purpose in the end if this property is going to be redeveloped in three to five years or whatever any. I guess the rationale I'm using. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 12 Robert Scott: Condition #9 that we are suggesting indicated that yearly administrative review. Now, what we would do in a case like that is if we found that there was some problems, we would have them come back to you through this process. In all fairness, the magnitude of problems that we've seen are not nearly that. But, we do want to continue to draw attention to that one problem that we talked about. Other than that, I think if you were to agree to Condition #9 that would be acceptable. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I got a couple. Am I to understand that if you were to be allowed to have two entrances to remain as they are now, that you would have an entrance and an exit to this property? Eddie Bourdon: We would be happy to try to do that Mr. Crabtree: I don't know personally of whether that works so well. I guess you can put little directional signs up saying "entrance only" and "exit only." I don't have any problem with it. Eugene Crabtree: My second question is to the staff. If that were to occur, would there be any objection to leaving the two entrances? Robert Scott: You're not going to be in compliance with an exit only and an entrance only. Eddie Bourdon: I tend to share Mr. Scott's belief that where there is a way to get in they are going to get in. If you look at the application, and when I filed this application, we stated right in the application that we are amenable to a time limitation. So, some where three years, four years or five years. We're fine with a time limit because this truly is a temporary use, and that is why we're here, and that is why I'm handling the application. It makes sense on a temporary basis to try to clean up the situation, and try to make it better maybe not perfect. My client indicated to me, and I'll be happy to let him talk if you care too. I don't know if it is all that important. He indicates that the inspectors, and he has some conversation with the inspector concerning this period with the ten -car limit that it may be of some help. The point is as explicitly as I can, if there is a violation from this point forward, I think the Use Permit should be pulled as far as I'm concerned. It's black and white. If you put this condition on this application, that's his application on his property, not some property that he bought from someone else that had conditions on it, I think you've done, as a Commission, all that you could do or certainly done a significant amount towards all that you can do to make sure that the operation comes into compliance. Dorothy Wood: Yes, Mr. Macali. Bill Macali: As long as we're talking about that condition and because of the code requires a five foot setback, Condition #6 should say, I guess right at the top of Page 4, the first thing on the page just add the words "five feet of," so it would read "no vehicles Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 13 shall be parked or displayed within five feet of or any portion of the pubic right-of-way." That would conform the provision of the City's Zoning Ordinance and it would be obvious preferable to having the two be different. Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. William Din: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as stated with the conditions as stated with modified Condition #6 to state, "within five feet of or any portion of the public right-of-way." Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? Robert Miller: Second. Robert Miller: A second by Mr. Miller. Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Just one comment. The applicant is insinuating they would put a time limit. I don't like to see time limits on Conditional Use Permits because I think it could affect their financing if that was part of a bank looking at a loan. But, by putting a time limit on them, there are a lot of changes occurring in this area. If the Commission five years from now or so may see another use that would be more applicable then renewing a Conditional Use Permit or maybe they would want to renew it on an annual basis or something of that effect or tie in more with the overall Comprehensive Plan of that area. So a time limit, if the applicant is willing to accept it, I think it is acceptable, if that is what he's saying. Dorothy Wood: As Number #10. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: I guess I should have been more direct. If we can avoid spending significant amount of monies we're willing to do the time limit, which I think in the long run, I think everyone is better off. Dorothy Wood: I think the motion on the floor and with a second. Do you want to put that as Condition #10 or what? Bill Macali: You can put a substitute motion. Ronald Ripley: If I put a substitute motion in, I think it would accomplish what I spoke to. I don't think it is going to accomplish what the applicant wishes and that is not to spend the money. Dorothy Wood: What would your substitute motion be Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: My substitute motion would be that the Conditional Use Permit be for a period of five years. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 14 Dorothy Wood: Is that okay with you with the substitute? I'm not sure. Bill Macali: Madame Chairman, the substitute motion really doesn't require approval of the maker of the original motion. If the substitute motion gets a second, you can just go ahead and vote on it. Dorothy Wood: Is there a second to the substitute motion? Joseph Strange: I have a question. Are you talking about removing 3A & B? Ronald Ripley: I didn't say that. Dorothy Wood: They stay. Barry Knight: I basically have the same question for Ron. If you made a substitute motion, would you make it with Item #10 as five years but if you had that in there, would you not make a modified eastern entrance, and not make them move the western entrance. That is what they're getting at. That is what they are agreeing to or would like to see happen. I didn't know if that is what your substitute motion was or was not? Ronald Ripley: No. My substitute motion was just to simply add Number #10. Dorothy Wood: Is there a second to his substitute motion? Joseph Strange: I have one more question. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: So, how is that going to help him get what he wants if we don't take away those two conditions? I mean he is still going to have to spend the money. Dorothy Wood: Do we have a second to the substitute motion? Ms. Katsias seconded the substitute motion. Do we vote on the substitute motion first or the second? Robert Miller: You only vote on one. Dorothy Wood: Would you please repeat the motion that we're voting on Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: That the Conditional Use Permit be for a period of five years, Number #10. Joseph Strange: I'm sorry. I just don't quite understand here. We're going to put in another condition. How is this going to affect what we are doing? If we're going to keep all the conditions why don't we leave it in because he is going to have to do all the work he objects to anyway. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 15 Ronald Ripley: My rationale was that the applicant is willing to limit it to five years or three years, or whatever. Given the changes that are occurring in this area that it would provide more flexibility to the city to meet its Comprehensive Plan in the future because of the changes that are occurring in that particular area. That is the only reason. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Horsley. Donald Horsley: I agree with your rationale there. I think it should be a shorter period of time. I think it should be three years, and take out those two criteria. It gives the applicant a little something to lean on that he doesn't have to spend that amount of money to do that, and it is going to be a shorter term of operation. Ronald Ripley: Okay. I'll withdraw my motion. Donald Horsley: Can I amend a motion? Dorothy Wood: I don't know. I'm just so confused now. Donald Horsley: Can I amend the motion? Bill Macali: Mr. Ripley made a substitute motion. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. It has been seconded. Bill Macali: It has been seconded. Ronald Ripley: Do you want it voted on? Bill Macali: If the body allows by consent to withdraw its substitute motion. Once the motion has been made and seconded. Dorothy Wood: Can we vote on it and go back? Bill Macali: You can or you can just go ahead and agree by consent to withdraw. Robert Miller: Do we have another substitute motion? Bill Macali: No. Take action on this one. You can allow that to be withdrawn by consent of the body. If you just vote to allow Mr. Ripley's substitute motion to be withdrawn, then you can go ahead and make a new substitute motion. It's all Parliamentary. Dorothy Wood: Would you please take the Chair until we get done with this? Bill Macali: You really don't have to vote necessarily. You can all vote by consent. Item #4 G & A Properties, L.L.C. Page 16 Dorothy Wood: Okay. Did you hear him? Good everyone agrees. Great. Thank you. Okay. Now, where are we? Bill Macali: A new substitute motion can be made. Dorothy Wood: I thought Mr. Miller said he had something to say first. Donald Horsley: Okay. I'm going to make another substitute motion that we approve the application, removing 3B & D, and adding "five feet" to Number #6, and Number #10 be three years for the length of the permit. Ronald Ripley: Second. Dorothy Wood: A motion by Mr. Horsley and a second by Mr. Miller and Mr. Knight. Donald Horsley: You got two seconds. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Might as well. Is the vote open? AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON ABSENT CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER NAY WOOD AYE William Din: By a vote of 9-1, we have approved the application of G & A Properties. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much. 4 PI --I Shoy-e—Zirye Axiro Sates . 1 ^� ,gyp. !+� �• �., CUP — Motor Vehicle Sales YI L r4y ^i ;41-.; y t ��r •.�.,�° .roc.. _ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Shore Drive Auto Sales — Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales) MEETING DATE: June 28, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Shore Drive Auto Sales for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales on property located at 4510 Shore Drive (GPIN 14796745580000). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site for motor vehicle sales. The site currently contains a convenience store, car wash and gasoline pumps and has been vacant for several years. The applicant proposes rehabilitation of the exterior of the buildings with Exterior Insulated Finishing System (E.I.F.S.). The applicant also plans to raise the roof from the current flat roof to a pitched roof with dormers and gables. The gables will be dressed in cedar shakes or Hardi-plank siding. The roof will be finished with architectural grade shingles. Proposed colors will be cream, beige and brown or grays and white. The accessory car wash building will also be rehabilitated to complement the proposed sales building. Proposed site work includes removal of the gas pumps and canopy, closure of the entrance on Shore Drive closest to the intersection, removal of the existing nonconforming freestanding sign, and installation of parking lot landscaping and screening and buffering adjacent to the northern and western property lines. The applicant proposes a six-foot high fence with dwarf ligustrum shrubs along the northern property line. A mix of evergreen trees is proposed along the western property line. The street frontage landscaping will include a mixture of live oaks and Indian hawthorne shrubs. A decorative berm is proposed at the intersection of Shore Drive and Greenwell Drive. A mixture of decorative grasses and shrubs are proposed for the berm. The proposed sales operation will be Monday through Saturday, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM; the business will be closed on Sundays. The applicant proposes the use of low-level security lighting during non -business hours. The proposal is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, Shore Drive Corridor Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines recommendations for this area. Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 2 of 3 The Comprehensive Plan policies established for the Shore Drive Corridor focus on preserving, protecting and enhancing the character, environmental quality and economic value of the adjacent neighborhoods. The development provisions offered with this request regarding site redesign and redevelopment, rehabilitation of the buildings, removal of the non -conforming free-standing sign, enhanced site landscaping and screening, reduced traffic generation, and safe and efficient vehicular access and circulation conform to the recommendations in the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. The provisions also provide the necessary assurances that this redevelopment will enhance the adjacent mixed -use community far more than the majority of commercial uses that could use this site by -right without review by the City Council. These provisions collectively promote the desired level of development quality the Comprehensive Plan policies and the Shore Drive Design Guidelines encourage and seek to achieve in this corridor. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The site shall be redeveloped in accordance with the submitted "Conceptual Site Layout & Landscape Plan of SHORE DRIVE AUTO SALES", dated 4/25/05 and prepared by MSA, P.C. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The buildings on the site shall be rehabilitated in accordance with the submitted "Conceptual Elevations Shore Drive Auto Sales", dated March 1, 2005. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. The existing non -conforming freestanding sign shall be removed or altered to conform to the requirements of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines and the City Zoning Ordinance, except that the maximum height of any new (post removal) or altered sign shall be eight feet and the style of the sign shall be a monument sign. 4. A Lighting Plan and/or Photometric Diagram Plan shall be submitted during detailed site plan review. Said plan shall include the location of all pole mounted and building mounted lighting fixtures, and the listing of lamp type, wattage, and type of fixture. Lighting shall overlap and be uniform throughout the parking area. All lighting on the site shall be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America. The plan shall include provisions for implementing low-level security lighting for non -business hours. Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 3 of 3 5. Parking spaces and vehicle display areas shall be clearly delineated on the site plan; and the parking lot shall be striped in accordance with the approved site plan. The site is limited to 65 vehicles. Vehicles shall be parked within the designated areas, and no vehicles shall be parked within any portion of the public right-of-way. Vehicles shall not be displayed on raised platforms. 6. No advertising banners, streamers, balloons, pennants, or similar devices shall be permitted on any vehicles or the site. There shall be no signs in excess of four (4) square feet installed or displayed on the exterior or interior of the windows of the building. 7. All of the areas not improved with planting beds and/or landscaping shall be maintained with a grassed lawn. The required foundation landscaping may be permitted in planters along the front and side portions of the buildings. 8. No outdoor speakers or public address system shall be permitted. 9. A yearly administrative review of this Conditional Use Permit shall be conducted to ensure continued compliance with the above conditions. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting DepartmenVA ency: Planning Departmen City Manager: t Q) 1(-. W14L SHORE DRIVE AUTO SALES Agenda Item # 5 May 11, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales Man E-3 Shore .Drive Auto Sales Me Not _ 1l z� } n s% rs� ��p4,,,rfr"cB 4�'r•--" S'�A� � t i � 2 1$� ( }��= J_J 9/ dam.. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on 4510 Shore Drive GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 14796744580000 4 - BAYS I D E CUP — Motor Vehicle Sales SITE SIZE: 0.86 acre SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site for motor vehicle sales. The site currently contains a convenience store, car wash and gasoline pumps and has been vacant for several years. The applicant proposes rehabilitation of the exterior of the buildings with Exterior Insulated Finishing System (E.I.F.S.). The applicant also plans to raise the roof from the current flat roof to a pitched roof with dormers and gables. The gables will be dressed in cedar shakes or hardi-plank siding. The roof will be finished with architectural grade shingles. Proposed colors will be cream, beige and brown or grays and white. The accessory car wash building will also be rehabilitated to complement the proposed sales building. Proposed site work includes removal of the gas pumps and canopy, closure of the eastern most entrance on Shore Drive, removal of the nonconforming freestanding sign, and installation of parking lot landscaping and screening and buffering adjacent to the northern and western property lines. The applicant proposes a six-foot privacy, or decorative wrought iron, fence with Dwarf Ligustrum shrubs along the northern property line. A mix of evergreen trees is proposed along the western property line. The street frontage landscaping will include a mixture of Live Oaks and Indian Hawthorne shrubs. A decorative berm is proposed at the intersection of Shore Drive and Greenwell Drive. A mixture of decorative grasses and shrubs are proposed for the berm. The proposed sales operation will be Monday through Saturday, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM; the business will be closed on Sundays. The applicant proposes the use of low-level security lighting during non -business hours. SH LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The site is developed with a currently vacant convenience store, car wash and gas pumps. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family and Duplex dwellings / B-2 Community Business USE AND ZONING: District South: . Shore Drive • Across Shore Drive are Motor Vehicle Repair, Motor Vehicle Sales and Mini -warehouses / B-2 Community Business District East: . North Greenwell Road • Across North Greenwell Road is a Convenience Store and Gas Pumps / B-2 Community Business District West: . Northampton Boulevard (Route 13) NATURAL RESOURCE AND The majority of the site is developed with impervious cover in the form of CULTURAL FEATURES: buildings and parking areas. The site is within the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore Drive in front of this application is considered a four -lane divided major urban arterial facility. The Master Transportation Plan proposes a six -lane divided facility with a 150- foot right of way. There are no active Capital Improvement Projects in this area. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Shore Drive 36,285 ADT 31,700 ADT Existing Land Use — 1,223 ADT Proposed Land Use 3- 84 ADT 'Average Daily Trips z as defined by Convenience Store/Gas Station/Car Wash 3 as defined by Auto Sales WATER and SEWER: City water and sewer are available to the site. SH The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site 1). Land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods. Primary Residential Areas are planned for relatively low density, suburban -type growth that includes residential as well as some commercial and office uses. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering development or redevelopment. Shore Drive has emerged as one of the City's most -prized road corridors, mainly because of its function as a resort gateway, its economic vitality status, its critical environmental importance, and the positive relationship it fosters between its residential and commercial land use components. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions recommended by staff. The recommended conditions are provided below. The proposal is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, Shore Drive Corridor Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines recommendations for this area. The Comprehensive Plan policies established for the Shore Drive Corridor focus on preserving, protecting and enhancing the character, environmental quality and economic value of the adjacent neighborhoods. The development provisions offered with this request regarding site redesign and redevelopment, rehabilitation of the buildings, removal of the non- conforming free-standing sign, enhanced site landscaping and screening, reduced traffic generation, and safe and efficient vehicular access and circulation conform with the recommendations in the Shore Drive Design Guidelines and provide the necessary assurances that this redeveloped commercial use will enhance the surrounding mixed -use community. These provisions collectively promote the desired level of development quality the Comprehensive Plan policies and the Shore Drive Design Guidelines encourage and seek to achieve in this corridor. CONDITIONS 1. The site shall be redeveloped in accordance with the submitted "Conceptual Site Layout & Landscape Plan of SHORE DRIVE AUTO SALES", dated 4/25/05 and prepared by MSA, P.C. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The buildings on the site shall be rehabilitated in accordance with the submitted "Conceptual Elevations Shore Drive Auto Sales", dated March 1, 2005. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. The existing non -conforming freestanding sign shall be removed or altered to conform to the requirements of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines and the City Zoning Ordinance, except that the maximum height of any new (post removal) or altered sign shall be eight feet and the style of the sign SHORE DRIVE AUTO AgendaItem #-5 ;Page 3 shall be a monument sign. 4. A Lighting Plan and/or Photometric Diagram Plan shall be submitted during detailed site plan review. Said plan shall include the location of all pole mounted and building mounted lighting fixtures, and the listing of lamp type, wattage, and type of fixture. Lighting shall overlap and be uniform throughout the parking area. All lighting on the site shall be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America. The plan shall include provisions for implementing low-level security lighting for non -business hours. 5. Parking spaces and vehicle display areas shall be clearly delineated on the site plan; and the parking lot shall be striped in accordance with the approved site plan. The site is limited to 65 vehicles. Vehicles shall be parked within the designated areas, and no vehicles shall be parked within any portion of the public right-of-way. Vehicles shall not be displayed on raised platforms. 6. No advertising banners, streamers, balloons, pennants, or similar devices shall be permitted on any vehicles or the site. There shall be no signs in excess of four (4) square feet installed or displayed on the exterior or interior of the windows of the building. 7. All of the areas not improved with planting beds and/or landscaping shall be maintained with a grassed lawn. The required foundation landscaping may be permitted in planters along the front and side portions of the buildings. 8. No outdoor speakers or public address system shall be permitted. 9. A yearly administrative review of this Conditional Use Permit shall be conducted to ensure continued compliance with the above conditions. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. SHO Z O H Q V O J LU H LL O J a LU a JAI w z U. OR Z7,Y t7. .... ... . t; - ?L5 tu Its ul lu f W �mw SHO Z O H Q w J W 0 Z_ J m W c/ m O w a S O H Cn Z Z O N CLIP — Motor Vehicle Sales 1. 3/15/82 Conditional Use Permit (Gas, Bar, Car Approved Wash and Retail) 12/4/63 Rezoning (R-D 1 Residence Duplex with Approved T-1 Motel & Tourist Supplement to C-L 2 Limited Commercial) 2. 12/3/96 Conditional Use Permit (Automobile Approved Service Station and Convenience Store) 3. 7/9/90 Subdivision Variance Approved 8/8/88 Subdivision Variance Denied 4. 6/11/91 Rezoning (B-2 Business to A-24 Approved Apartment) 5. 8/21/90 Conditional Use Permit (Billiards) Denied 6�61 9� R } gail au CL Z c a:< $ � � vV S ` 1; ," a E OM- 0 o z 0 a dz,,. Qy'E 39 e 4 o ' OCC IDE }v� SHO Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Conditional Use Permit 4510 Shore Drive District 4 Bayside May 11, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #5, Shore Drive Auto Sales. An ordinance upon application of Shore Drive Auto Sales for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales on property located at 4510 Shore Drive, District 4, Bayside, with eight conditions. Jeff Maynard: Thank you, Mr. Strange. Good afternoon Ms. Wood and members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for having us. My name is Jeff Maynard. My business address for the record is 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 in Virginia Beach. I'm the attorney for the applicant, Shore Drive Auto Sales, for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales at 4510 Shore Drive. I don't have any substitute motions thankfully. To make three basic points with respect to the application today, first is that my client is proposing redeveloping an old Texaco site that's been abandoned for about two years. So we think that is a pretty good improvement. The second point is that we feel that the proposal conforms with the Shore Drive Design Guidelines that impact the site. And three, I would like to focus that what we envision this application is as an interim use. I'll get in to what I mean in a little bit. But also subject to a Use Permit that has lots of conditions that I think go far and beyond what most motor vehicle dealers have been required to do in the city in terms of addressing compatibility issues with the area. In terms of redevelopment, you have the pictures of the existing site. It's an old Texaco station. There is little or no landscaping on site. Until last week, there was this canopy and a nonconforming pylon sign structure on the site. The buildings, as you can see are a large square flat buildings, steel colored, that have been abandoned, and haven't been kept up very well over the last couple of years. There are two existing entrances along Shore Drive, and by right the last time this was a service station this site would have generated approximately 1,200 vehicle trips a day. My client is proposing, and has already removed the canopy and the nonconforming sign, is proposing a new development that we feel complies with the Shore Drive Advisory Guidelines. We presented the application to the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and also worked very carefully with the staff for several months on this, and believe the site conforms. My client has proposed using the existing buildings on the site, but upgrading them significantly. The upgrades that they're proposing are putting a residential style roof on the building. So instead of a flat roof design we've got a good roof both on the former Texaco convenience and the former carwash. The building materials will be EIFS on the bottom and cedar shake or hardi plank on the top where the canopies and the dormers are, and the former carwash structure will be renovated to match. In terms of building colors, my client has not proposed yellow, our architect was not friendly to us. The building will be either gray or neutral in color with the porch features. The eaves will be white vinyl. Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 2 My client proposes keeping the existing car wash building, but it is no longer going to have the mechanical device in there that it used to have. What he is proposing is to use it for at this point for detailing his inventory. There is not going to be any kind of automobile repair or anything like that in the building. It is just a detail inventory and prep it for sale. He intends to resurface the parking lot, which is in desperate need of repair, and then install landscaping along Shore Drive. You can see he has the street frontage landscaping, additional landscaping along the west side, on Northampton Boulevard side. On the rear there is a depilated white wooden fence that is in desperate need of replacement. He has agreed to install a white vinyl fence with some landscaping there. The property behind us is zoned B-2. It used to be an antique store. It's occupied as a residence, but he felt that it would accommodate the needs of the existing residence next door. On the corner, he has proposed a three-foot earth berm that matches the earth berm at the convenience store across Greenwell Road did. The site has a significant upgrade in terms of coming into compliance, we think, with the guidelines. The third of my points deal with use. I mentioned earlier that we consider this an interim use. And by that, I'm not suggesting that it is temporary or that we want a condition that would limit the use to five or six years. But what we have been advised by the Planning staff, and everyone along the way is that the city, at some point, envisioned improvements along the Shore Drive Corridor as well as making improvements to the Northampton Boulevard ramp there, which will basically result in the taking of this site. So, at this point, we don't know if this is going to in the next five years or the next ten years, but we consider it kind of an interim use. It takes the old Texaco site that's been vacant for two years, renovates it, upgrades it, and brings it into compliance with the design components of the Shore Drive Guidelines, and puts the site back into use. There is another aspect of use, and that is the conditions that my client has agreed to, and in fact mostly proposed to deal with some of the things you mentioned with the applicant before us. I understand our problems with other car dealerships. A big one is site lighting. My client is proposing, and he has a condition that requires him after hours, and his hours will end at 8:00, Monday thru Saturday, the lighting will turn to a low-level security light. It will not interfere with the neighbors. You won't have the old, I guess with the gasoline canopy. It looks like a space ship these days when you drive by those at night. He's not proposing anything of that nature. I already addressed the signage. He is going to update the sign and make it a monument style sign. He's not going to have any banners or streamers or balloons or pennants littering the site. One of the items too, the display area that is shown on the site plan is where he intends to display the vehicles. He has agreed to a limitation of no more than 65 vehicles within that area. And the concern there was we heard from some of the residents, and I believe it was Mr. Knight was concerned as well, that he didn't want the cars packed into closely. I've checked with our engineering firm who has helped us very much with this site plan, and with 65 cars that should allow for adequate space, and design so people can walk around the cars and visit them instead of being tightly packed in like you see some of the automobile dealerships do. We've also agreed to an administrative review of this application every one year. The citizens have expressed some concern in this area. My client fully intends to comply with the conditions which he has agreed to, and welcomes the administrative review, and hopes that is going to be a good relationship. The employee and customer parking I should Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 3 point out as well is in front of the old carwash structure. Those will be striped and that is the area designated for that purpose. It allows good traffic circulation for people who want to come in and leave, and test-drive the vehicles. So because of the redevelopment efforts what we think is pretty much an eyesore at this point, and has been for two years, and we think it complies with the corridor guidelines for design purposes. We look at this as an interim use that is subject to what I think is pretty strict conditions on this motor vehicle sale operation. We would ask for your approval and recommendation to City Council. We also like to thank the staff for their help. They have been, quite -a -help in getting us this far. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Jeff. That could be a service station again, could it not without even coming here? Jeff Maynard: Yes. It could be a service station. It could be a bar, restaurant, a convenience store, all those different things. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Jeff. Could you answer any questions please? Ron. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Maynard, did your client consider any other uses of this site other than a car lot? Jeff Maynard: I believe he bought this site with the intention of locating the dealership there. I'm aware, and in fact was involved with a deal that was the back up purchase that did involve another use, and that was not motor vehicle sales. That was a convenience store without gas facilities that wouldn't have required the level of upgrades. It's not often and I don't usually like to make the argument of what could go there by right without having something to back it up. I was actually very familiar with what would be the reality on this site had the other purchasers who was working with Texaco on the sale of the property. It didn't involve the level of upgrades that my client is proposing. Ronald Ripley: You mentioned that you think the property could be taken in the future. What do you base that on? Jeff Maynard: We understand that the proposal for Shore Drive can ultimately widen it to six lanes and that the alignment if the Northampton Boulevard ramp is redesigned would impact and basically cut off the entire western side of that property including the building. Ronald Ripley: Can you see plans of such? Jeff Maynard: I haven't. I got that information from staff when we were working during the review process. Ronald Ripley: Because the plans I've seen and I don't recall seeing that. I think I've seen a little bit of need along Shore Drive, maybe a little bit off the western end of the Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 4 property but for the most part, the urban interchange that at least as been preliminary laid into Shore Drive, I believe would take this property. That wouldn't certainly mean that use couldn't change in the future as the demand changes down there. Jeff Maynard: I apologize. My understanding of it has been that he plans would basically result in the taking of the site, but again those plans are not definite. We don't know if it would be five or ten years from now. Ronald Ripley: I have a question about the elevations and the materials again that you mentioned. Is there any exposed salt treated wood that is going to seen or is all of that going to be wrapped vinyl. Tell me about that because that is something we're trying to avoid is the look of exposed wood. Jeff Maynard: Right. The columns that are proposed are wrapped in vinyl as well as the eaves on the roof portions. So everything that would ordinary be wood would be wrapped in white vinyl. Most likely on the tops of the building, he is going to use the hardi plank, which I think is more durable over time and easier to maintain for that same reason. Ronald Ripley: I've asked you this question a couple of times, and I'll ask it again for the public record. Would your applicant consider closing the curb cut on Shore Drive? Jeff Maynard: We initially considered this various way. We initially proposed the application to close the entrance that is shown as open, and keeping open the one that is shown as closed. At one point we considered, and I think my client would maybe agree to close both of them but the comment that we got was that would cause some traffic stacking for folks who were coming out of Greenwell Road making the right turn on Shore Drive. They thought that intersection is congested enough, and I guess there was a Wawa application recently approved where they agreed to a similar condition that caused similar problems along Shore Drive. I think my client would do that. In fact, it would probably increase his display area on the number of vehicles he would like to sell there, but we thought that this alignment made more sense in terms of circulation if someone wants to pull in and drive out and then do the right onto Shore Drive. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Mr. Maynard? Thanks Jeff. Jeff Maynard: Thank you Ms. Wood. Joseph Strange: Okay. In opposition, we have Leslie Cornwell with the Baylake Pines Civic League. Dorothy Wood: Welcome. We're glad you are with us. Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 5 Leslie Cornwell: Thank you. Good afternoon. Ms. Wood and members of the Planning Commission, I'm Leslie Cornwell, the President of the Baylake Pines Civic League. I'm here representing our neighborhood and opposing the Conditional Use Permit for the Shore Drive Auto Sales. Our community is growing increasingly concerned with the development on Shore Drive. The city has spent thousands of dollars and studies to develop a Comprehensive Plan for the Shore Drive Corridor. I noticed in Faith Christie's report that she discussed under the heading of Comprehensive Plan, she stated that Shore Drive has emerged as one of the City's most prize road corridors because of its function as a resort gateway, gateway to the Beach, one of the city's most prized road corridors. When tourist turn onto Shore Drive the first thing they see is the sign that states 81 individuals have lost their lives on this road. Then we have an automotive towing company, a used car lot, a carwash, and a pool hall. This is just on the right hand side. Where's the charm in all of this? It has become a real problem to the adjacent homes and surrounding neighborhoods. Our once quiet residential bay front community is beginning to look more like Virginia Beach Boulevard. This kind of development is not in keeping with the vision for Shore Drive. Shore Drive Auto Sales will be the fourth used car lot in a mile stretch in this area on Shore Drive. The ULI and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan do not identify used car dealerships as recommended business establishments that fit the local flavor of Shore Drive. In fact, it is recommended that parking lots should be located to the side and or behind the main building to have a less negative visual impact on the street. But yet he is proposing at least 65 cars right directly there in front. A brightly illuminated lot would adversely impact the adjacent residential community if auto dealers cannot be restricted all along Shore Drive, they should at least be prohibited on lots adjacent to residential zoning. Traffic flow at this location is challenging several times a day because of the large volume of cars entering and exiting Northampton Boulevard. Any development at this location really needs to have minimal traffic so it is not to add to the already difficult situation. Dorothy Wood: Excuse me. Your three minutes are up. Can you just wrap it up pretty quickly for us? Leslie Cornwell: Sure. Basically what I'm coming back with is the community who feels that the city really feel that this is a prize corridor and a gateway for the resort, and there is this wonderful Comprehensive Plan. We're just not seeing it done. We are seeing what should be a beautiful bay front, residential community turning into something that we absolutely aren't happy with. Dorothy Wood: Thanks. Would you mind answering any questions if there are any for her? Does anyone have a question? Thank you so much. We appreciate you coming down. Leslie Cornwell: Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Let me ask something. Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 6 Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. Mr. Ripley does have one. Ronald Ripley: Leslie, the parking to the front is something that, and you are right, the guidelines speak to that, and that is a good thing to do. This is a redevelopment. In order for them to do that they need to tear down the building and move to the front, so this is a redevelopment. I guess it is a little bit of different twist. Are you referring to the property being adjacent to residential? There is a residential house next door but I think we heard this morning in the informal that it is zoned B-2, the property is located directly behind it. Are you aware of that? Leslie Cornwell: Yes. Right along the fence is actually more or less a driveway to what used to be the old antique store, but that is all residential back there. There is no commercial going on at those locations. It is very close. It would be like my property starting here and there is a small roadway between my property and the fence, so the lighting could be a real issue. I mean I know we have to worry about just locally in our residents on our streets how bright just the streetlights are because it upsets people. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Leslie Cornwell: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: We appreciate it. Joseph Strange: Next we have Brad Martin. Dorothy Wood: Hello Mr. Martin. Welcome. Brad Martin: Good afternoon. Thank you all for having me. My name is Brad Martin. I live in Baylake Pines, and we are not the immediate neighborhood community adjacent to this development but we are the next one on Shore Drive. Just to echo a little bit of the opposition you already heard, this looks like a nice development. It is certainly probably already better than what is there now, a closed down Texaco station. It also is pretty compatible to what is across the street from it and diagonal. There is an auto repair facility. There is another used car lot, and there is a gas station on that same intersection but quite frankly, I don't think that is the standard to be judged by, whether it is better than what was before or whether is compatible to what's immediately adjacent to it. There seems to me to be a real disconnect between the potential approval of development projects like this one when you look at the long range vision for Shore Drive. Like Leslie said, the prize gateway to the resort area, a gateway to the City and it is the first thing that the visitors see. Notwithstanding the existing uses that are out there now, a used car lot doesn't aesthetically fit what should, I think the vision for all of Shore Drive. The city is in the middle of a three million dollar roadway improvement project, a beautification project, and quite frankly, I don't think a used car lot fits into that scheme. A used car lot, I think more of Military Highway and Virginia Beach Boulevard then I think of Shore Drive. The applicant made a very specific statement about the design guidelines of the Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 7 Land Use Study. I think to me speaks to landscaping and parking spaces, and the distance from the right-of-way, but I think what we really need to look at is aesthetics and use, and how that figures in with what the long range goal of Shore Drive is. Quite frankly, I think somebody has to put their foot down and deny an application like this. Dorothy Wood: What would you like to see there sir? Brad Martin: That is a great question. I would say some compatible uses would be something like the Leaping Lizard gift shop is right down the road from this. Some thing at Thoroughood Commons, the little strips that are there, unique shops, interesting eateries, Taste Unlimited, something like that. I quite frankly think maybe a high -end nice fast food restaurant would be better than a used car lot. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. Brad Martin: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Also speaking in opposition is Dorinda Ennis. Dorrinda Ennis: Good afternoon Ms. Wood and members of the Council. I am the representative of the shore Drive Community Coalition. We represent 20 civic leagues in the Shore Drive area. I'm also a resident of 3556 on the Bay Condominium. Seven years ago when the ULI report we had great expectations for Shore Drive. Today, there is unfortunately massive dissolution, and you see it because this room isn't full. This is not because people don't care about what is going on at this place. They do care very much, but they feel their time would be wasted because nobody is listening. That is unfortunately the state of affairs. I'm an optimist by nature, but even I have been challenged in this Shore Drive program for beautification. I've been Chairman of the Beautification Committee at the Coalition for several years, and it has just been one delay after another. The Shore Drive Community Coalition has successfully fought to maintain Shore Drive's four lanes by defeating the drive for six -lane roadway. We are now fighting for commercial integrity of the area. We do not feel that another auto sales in this area, is an appropriate use of the land. Even though it is attractive. You're not even going to be able see it because there is going to be 65 cars parked in front. This is something that is in violation of the Planning Commission's own guidelines in terms of hiding the cars, they are not a visual thing in our face all the time. Apparently, Norfolk government is cleaning up the Little Creek area, and they are discouraging used car lots, and what's happening is the same thing that is happening on Shore Drive a number of years ago when Norfolk cleaned up their area and said the go-go dancers to us, well the used car lots are coming down to us too. Like Mr. Martin said it is time to put our foot down and say no. We already have two in the area. We will be hosting a workshop in June to work on commercial overlay, our request, and appropriate businesses for this lot, for example, and other uses along Shore Drive. I would like to second as to what Mr. Martin said about appropriate uses. We have several things that have just grownup recently. There is a development at 3772 Shore Drive across from the Browning Marine. Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 8 The Albamarle Shops, which is a wonderful example of what Shore Drive, could look like. Thank you very much for your time. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? We are listening to you. Mrs. Katsias and Mr. Ripley spend a great deal of time working with the Shore Drive Coalition. They certainly are interested and are listening. Dorrinda Ennis: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Thank you Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Dan Creeden. Dorrinda Ennis: Unfortunately, Mr. Creeden had to go to a cardiac appointment. He will be unable to be with us. Joseph Strange: Okay. Thank you. That concludes the speakers. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Maynard, you have a few minutes for rebuttal. Jeff Maynard: Yes. Thank you. I'll make it brief. I made my major points earlier. But in terms of visibility, I just did want to point out that we did concern ourselves with that as well. Mr. Ripley is correct short of moving the building, which was an expensive operation. That is not something that my client wanted to do. But we have installed a three-foot berm with landscaping. We will provide some visible screening of the cars if you are headed westward along Shore Drive. One of the opponents mentioned something about traffic. I would like to point out that as a convenience store or gas facility, the trip generations would be in excess of 1, 200 daily trips. For motor vehicle sales the city's number on that is 84 trips. So, we have taken that into account as well. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Maynard. Are there any questions? Comments? Discussion? Let's start down here. Mr. Waller. Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: I have to commend Mr. Maynard and the applicant. I think they have done a beautiful job in transforming a Texaco station that has been vacant for two years with the wonderful site plan. As far as residents of Shore Drive, I think this application probably is much better than a gas station or a fast food. Therefore, I'm going to support the application. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Horsley. Donald Horsley: I don't have a whole lot to add other than we select these areas that we think are gateways to our cities or to our communities, and we know we would like for them be there, but the irony is that the city doesn't own all this property so it can't really dictate exactly what's got to be put there. The property owners have certain rights and Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 9 whatever, so the zoning is there, and that is kind of our job here is to decide whether we think this will fit, and we try to do things like landscaping and buffers and whatever to protect communities even though it may not be the utopia that we all look for. That is just the way it is right now. Hopefully one day we will have this beautiful gateway that everybody would like to have but we maybe this will look like part of the gateway compared to what some of the other stuff you got along there is. Hopefully it won't be a permanent thing that we are going to see in 10-15 years from now. Like I said, I go along with Ms. Katsias. I'm going to support the application. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: I don't have a lot to add. I can surely see both sides of this. When you think of a gateway, I have to admit, I don't think of a used car lot either. But I think we're faced with conditions that we have that it is zoned and by right there are certain businesses that can go in there that quite frankly, I don't think would be as flattering as this one right here is. I say right this minute that I'm thinking about supporting the application for lack of an alternative. Dorothy Wood: I certainly understand also what the residents are saying. I did not know there was a sign when you drive into Virginia Beach saying that 81 people have been killed. I think that is kind of unusual. Welcome to our City. Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: This is kind of an interesting application because when the Comprehensive Plan as amended with the Shore Drive plan and the guidelines were adopted, the idea of the guidelines were to develop. Well the plan was to create what the corridor should look like, landscaping, like you see on the site plan, tied in with an overall plan. The guidelines were intended to create a sense of place or unique architectural blend of the resort residential area with the roadway. And, I think the applicant has and it is unfortunate and that the applicant has really worked very hard to do that, and he has, in my mind has done that. He has reached the antenna and I respect what Ms. Cornwell brought up, and the parking should be in the front. In this case of a redevelopment, it is just not a practical thing to do. He is putting landscaping in the middle of his property. I guess that is where the tanks were but really the issue is the use. I don't think it's the appearance. Maybe some of the cars are affected but it's the use itself, I think is the obvious objection. If we talked about the use and you look at the carwash the redevelopment of the Burger King that was turned into a carwash, I did not have anybody come down to object to that. I don't recall. It turned out to be a real nice addition. I'm hoping that this type of feel on this particular property does the same thing. I went last night and pulled out my Urban Land Institute (ULI Study) that everybody started on with this whole plan, and it definitely says the gateway is critical. This is in the entrance of the gateway so the appearance of it is really important. The use of it, I'm not finding anything in here that talks about use it gets too talking about retail use. For example, it talks about retail, commercial, and development, and it kind of sets forth that the area is basically is set up for strip retail, and that's the case today. There are a few properties oriented towards the water. It talks about budget brand, local operations the Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 10 motels that are in the area, and restaurants. But when it talks about retail it says there is no critical mass of established retail within the corridor and local residents routinely travel out of the study area to shop. That pattern really hasn't changed a whole lot, I don't think. Do you think that, Bob? I think generally speaking the predominate retail activities are not occurring in this area. Robert Scott: Yeah. I think that's true. The changes that have occurred in this area in the last few years, since that study have been largely positive. In other words, they were given an "A" for everyone of those efforts. I don't think I would. It's better than it was there. I think there is a lot to be done. I think you will see in this coming year, at tomorrow's Shore Drive Advisory Meeting, Clay Bernick is going to make some statements to how much is going to be happening in the next year in terms of city's expenditures in the corridor. There is a significant commitment there. I think you need to balance a number of things. This, to my eye, this particular site right here today is one of two or three worse looking sites on all of Shore Drive. It's truly an eyesore today. It has been that way for some time. I think you are taking a piece of property that is way down the scale and moving it up closer to the middle of the scale. I'm kind of like Joe Strange on this subject. I would rather see something significantly better than a used car lot there. Quite frankly, it dictates that what you are getting is a significant improvement over the eyesore that is there right now for the short term at least, that is a better situation. After this, you are going to have to look at that eyesore for a long time. Ronald Ripley: I think the intent of the road corridor plan and landscaping plan, and the design guidelines was to set the plan out from the public, and a combination of public/private money basically in the long run solve the issues but make the corridor what we want it to look like. This is a private part of that solution. They are actually spending money in redeveloping this site. People in the area are frustrated as the Shore Drive Advisory Committee is frustrated, but I think you have to be patient from the standpoint that the demonstration project, which I reviewed those plans very thoroughly, and that is a demonstration project from Treasure House to Marlin Bay, which is just in that Taste Unlimited area up to the Browning Marine location. That is going to be a very sophisticated, very nice plan that is going to be occurring. Last night the City Council approved inside the Capital Improvement Plan. Bob, how much did they approve for the design of this stretch. It is actually beyond Northampton up to Treasure House. How much was that? Do you recall? Robert Scott: I think all the things, but not just that, but all of them, and I think Clay is going to have a report for you tomorrow. He told me that it was going to be in the neighborhood of seven million dollars just for this next coming year that the city is preparing to spend. Ronald Ripley: I got to tell you. I've wrestled with this, and I've been out and looked at the site and thought about it, and read the report. I think the staff probably did the same thing. They probably wrestled with this pretty hard. I know Bob did. I'm supportive of the staff's position on it, and I agree with Kathy. Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales Page 11 Dorothy Wood: Is that a motion? Ronald Ripley: I'll make a motion to approve it. Dorothy Wood: A motion by Ron and seconded by Gene to approve. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON ABSENT CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABSENT RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE William Din: By a vote of 9-0, we have approved Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sales. Dorothy Wood: Thank you all. I want to thank the :staff members who helped us so much today. Mr. Macali, thank you for helping me get out of the tight situation. Thank you Sharon for coming. Meeting is adjourned. We5lergan rorest Civic League wesleyanforest.cl@verizon.net President: Michele A. Galdun 5900 Buckminister Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Phone: 490-9572 To: Virginia Beach Planning Commission RE: Shore Drive Auto Sales Item No. 5 on May 11, 2005 agenda May 11, 2005 Dear Chairman Woods and Esteemed Commissioners, My community is located in the Northwest Beach Area of the City and the League represents approximately 110 households. We proudly include a number of military personnel within our community. Although we are not adjacent to Shore Drive we feel it effects the neighborhood as it is a corridor and gateway path into Virginia Beach. Do we want the visitors to the Navy Base or visitors coming into the cityfrom the Bay Bridge to have a first impression of row after row of used car lots advertising - "we give credit to E-1 and up"? Do' we really need another car lot along that corridor? Let's take a lesson from Norfolk and not let the Shore Drive "Base Corridor" get junked up with .used car lots and seedy bars - What is next for that area a tattoo parlor? We are aware the Baylake Pines Civic League is not in support of this project and we support their efforts to keep the Shore Drive Corridor a pleasingly and welcoming gateway for residents and visitors to our city. Therefore we must stand with Baylake Pines and say we do not support this proposed plan. We feel there is enough Auto Sale Places. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. Respectfully, Michele A. Galdun President Wesleyan Forest Civic League 490-9572 �/11/I'UUJ lU: bC tv"I C7(Uf'I: V2X '1U: 9Zb-bbb1 YHIS: UU1 UP' UUZ 5900 Buckminister Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23462 urgent facsimile To: Planning Commision Fax Number: 426-5667 From: Michele A. Galdun Fax Number.• Business Phone: Home Phone: 757-490-9572 Pages: 2 DatelTi-me: 5/11/2005 10:52:48 AM Subject.' Item #5 Shore Drive Auto Sale Can you please see the commssion gets this for the May 11 meeting - sorry about it being late Michele - 1 page plus cover Faith Christi - Planning Commission May 11 Agenda Item #5 - Shore Drive Auto Sales From: "Todd Solomon" <capestory@vabch.com> To: <fchristi@vbgov.com>, <rripley@ripheat.com> Date: 5/10/2005 12:24 AM Subject: Planning Commission May 11 Agenda Item #5 - Shore Drive Auto Sales Dear Planning Commission and City Staff, On behalf of the Shore Drive Community Coalition (SDCC), I would like to express our concerns regarding the proposed construction of Shore Drive Auto Sales - Agenda Item #5. Based on discussions among the SDCC member organizations, the subject application should be denied for the following reasons: The quality of life along Shore Drive will be jeopardized by having 5 dealerships (3 existing and 2 proposed) within a 4 mile stretch. Approval of this type will result in Shore Drive becoming another Virginia Beach Boulevard. The ULI and Shore Drive Corridor Plan do not identify used car dealerships as recommended business establishments that fit the local flavor of Shore Drive. A brightly illuminated lot would adversely impact the adjacent residential community. If auto dealers can't be restricted all along Shore Drive, they should at least be prohibited on lots adjacent to residential zoning It is no secret that the City is spending millions of dollars to study and improve the Shore Drive Corridor. City Council has recent recommend the accelerated funding for the engineering study to implement a demonstration project at this particular intersection. Your approval of any business that doesn't reflect the City and Community suggested "Gateway to Virginia Beach" appearance would deter from the ultimate goal of beautification for Shore Drive. The development that eventually is approved for this site needs to be one that leaves a lasting impression on travelers that they are arriving and departing and exceptional area, Virginia Beach's Shore Drive. The construction of a used car dealership does not convey this collective goal. It would result in another corridor common to the rest of everyday America. Please consider the future of Shore Drive and its communities and deny this application. Sincerely, Todd Solomon Shore Drive Community Coalition - President file: //C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\fchristALocal%20Settings\Temp\GW 100178.HTM 5/10/2005 NH)' e�l Lbb5 14:4 r FR PRDIOLOGY SUPPY 757 953 7988 TO 94255667 P.01i01 Dear Sir/Madam, April 30, 2005 Re: Shore Drive Auto Sales Application Conditional Use Permit Permit I am extremely angry that anyone would consider another auto car sales on this side of the street. We already have a large car sales on this side of the street. To put another right beside the first is unconscionable. If I gave friends and, family direction to say house, I would say on the left hand side of the street there are 2 auto sales businesses. We are directly behind them.. Undesirable People have moved in here along with high crime -How could you even consider given anyone a Conditional Use Permit? You would not act in our best interest. I live in North Beach Condos on West Sail bane, We have a small mini mall outside this compound. Businesses dox�.'t stay long because are are on the wrong side of the street. The Mini Mall was built in taste. Placing yet another Auto Sales would make this area look like a junk yard. I lived here for 18 originally a Drive In Movie. For the Years. This was yearn ou Shore Drive looks like we live on a highway econgested withra of bunch of business.our property would be devalued once again. Shame on you for even trying to consider the people who live here. On our side is a Walgreen on the corner of Shore Drive and Pleasure House Road, Next up is a Auto Sales Business, I canft go on my morning Walk without hearing vulgarities from the Auto Sales. I mould think we should be taken into consideration, on the opposite side of the street is Krogers, Video Place, Auto Parts store, tend Sayside Shell. In additional a new car sales would bring undesired people and more crime_ Two years ago builders built new Town Houses and this set Would be directly in back of yet another car sales business. I am asking you to take us into consideration because we don't want to live like the City of Virginia Beach has built too y man condos and apartments. When driving up Shore Drive in the direction of Oceanfront, too many apartments building and condos look like they are all cramped in. Who really comes first? it looks like a bad case avarice here_ Shame on you! Helene B,Thomas ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** Shanette Sherrod - Part.001 --— -- -- -- -- - ---- ------ _ — -- ---- —_— Page 1 To: Members of Planning Commission I am very much opposed to the Conditional Use Permit sought by this applicant as I believe that such use is not in the best interest of the the surrounding communities. I had a bit part when the ULI Study was done in 1997 and as a result of that study the City Council created The Shore Drive Advisory Committee. I was one of the original appointees. The ULI study emphasized that the existing residential areas and amenities must be preserved and enhanced. One of the strategies recommended was better site plan review and design quality and creating a sense of arrival at the gateway to the area. The citizen Shore Drive AdvisoryCommittee, along with staff personnel, developed the "The Shore Drive Corridor Plan" which was adopted by City Council in March 2000. In the section entitled "VISION" it states that the Shore Drive area is first and foremost a residential community. It further states "New development and redevelopment in the area should be oriented towards protection and enhancement of the character of the exisitng residential neighborhoods, while commercial development should be oriented toward servicing neighborhood needs or building on the restaurant and marine -oriented business theme in the area." In implementing the plan the committe created phases - finally the first phase has recently been funded and hopefully we will begin to see something positive happening along the corridor. I resigned from the committee in 2001 when I began to divide my time completely betwee here and VT and could no longer be a viable member of the group. I returned permanently about 8 monthsd ago and needless to say was dismayed to see the unprecedented development that has and is taking place along Shore Drive. In light of the intent of the Corridor Plan as adopted and with the committee's work starting to materialize I urge you to take this into consideration when considering the merits of case # 5 for used auto sales is not an envisioned use along this stretch of Shore Drive. No amount of planting or screenign can disguise what this facitity will be. Another Virginias Beach Boulevard WE DO NOT WANT. Thank you for considering my request - I am unable to be at the Planning Commission Meeting on the 1 Ith due to medical appointments. Judith K. Connors 3958 Whispering Oaks Place 23455 464-3640 A UNFINISHED BUSINESS ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Virginia, at the June 14, 2005 Republican Primary Election for: GOVERNOR TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT AN FIGURES) GEORGE B. FITCH.................................... 2,865 JERRY W. KILGORE ......................... .... . 11,480 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office... 4 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on June 14, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said Republican Primary Election for the above office. Given under our hands this 15 thday of June, 2005. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary _. �^ Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Virginia, at the June 14, 2005 Republican Primary Election for: LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT ON FIGURES) SEAN T. CONNALIGHTON.............................. 6,713 WILLIAM T. "BILL" BOLLING............................ 7,404 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office .................. 7 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on June 14, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said Republican Primary Election for the above office. Given under our hands this 15 th day of June, 2005. A copy teste: Electoral Board Stal Chairman e Chairman Secretary j Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Virginia, at the June 14, 2005 Democratic Primary Election for: LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) LESLIE L. BYRNE...........:........................ 949 J. C. "CHAP" PETERSEN ....................... ...... 853 PHILLIP P. PUCKETT ......................... I ...... 714 VIOLA OSBORNE BASKERVILLE ....................... 489 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ................... 5 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on June 14, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said Democratic Primary Election for the above office. Given under our hands this 15 th day of June, 2005. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary �" •`�` L ? Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Virginia, at the June 14, 2005 Republican Primary Election for: ATTORNEY GENERAL TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) ROBERT F. "BOB MCDONNELL................ 12,449 STEPHEN E. BARIL................................... 1,958 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office .................. 2 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on June 14, 2005, do hereby. certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said Republican Primary Election for the above office. Given under our hands this 15 th day of June, 2005. A copy testes Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Virginia, at the June 14, 2005 Republican Primary Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT Harry R. "Bob" Purkey Peter W. Schmidt 82nd ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED (IN FIGURES) ....... 2,980 ............. 1,739 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ............ 0 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on June 14, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said Republican Party Primary Election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 15 th day of June, 2005. A copy teste: Electoral board Sea[ Chairman Chairman Secretary t -�1 Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Virginia, at the June 14, 2005 Republican Primary Election, for: MEMBER. HOUSE OF DELEGATES 83 ra ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES) Leo C. Wardrup, Jr. ....... 2,210 Delceno C. Miles 779 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ............ 1 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on June 14, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said Republican Party Primary Election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 15 th day of June, 2005. A copy testes Electoral Board Seal Chairman e Chairman Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Virginia, at the June 14, 2005 Democratic Primary Election, for: MEMBER HOUSE OF DELEGATES 90 th ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER NAMES Of CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED MV FIGURES) Algle T. Howell, Jr. 66 Keela A. Boose 30 Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ............... 1 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examinadon of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on June 14, 2005, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast atsaid Democratic Party Primary Election for the office indicated above. Given under our hands this 15 th day of June, 2005. A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal Chairman Chairman -2/ '` , Secretary Secretary, Electoral Board CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS v O I M B L C E S L DATE: June 14, 2005 D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 1 E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D O E I E S p AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O p ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D I BRIEFINGS: A WORKFORCE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PART II Andrew M. Friedman, Director -Housing and Neighborhood Preservation B DOLPHIN PROMISE Lynn Clements, Director - Museums and Cultural Arts C INTERNATIONAL SEASONAL WORKERS James B. Ricketts, Director - Convention and Visitors Bureau II, III, CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y IV, V- E F MINUTES — June 7, 2005 APPROVED 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y -1-a PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 Speakers RENTAL INSPECTION DISTRICTS Repeal certain sections/add others re Rental Dwelling Unit Inspections b Designation of Rental Inspection Districts 2-a REAL/PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX --Proposed No Speakers Exemptions Catholic Charities of Hampton Roads, Inc. b Virginia Beach Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #8 H/I/J- Ordinances re RENTAL INSPECTION ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y la DISTRICTS: CONSENT DESIGNATION of Rental Inspection Districts b REPEAL §§ 16-12/16-12.1/ADD §§ 16-2/ ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y 16-12.1 thru 16-12.9 re Rental Dwelling CONSENT Unit Inspections CITY OF VIRGINJA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O 1 M B L C E S L DATE: June 14, 2005 D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 2 E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D O E I E S p AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O p ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D 2-a Ordinances to EXEMPT from local real/personal ADOPTED, BY 8-1 Y Y Y N A Y Y A Y Y Y property taxation: CONSENT Catholic Charities of Hampton Roads, Inc. b Virginia Beach Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #8 ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y CONSENT 3-a Ordinances to AMEND City: ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y CONSENT § 22/ADD § 22-11.2 re obscene sexual display b §§ 23-38 re damaging/defacing property/ ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y 23-45.1 re unlawful filming/videotaping/ CONSENT photographing/ADD §§ 23-7.4 re escape from custody/23-8.3 reimbursement of expenses for terrorism hoax c REORDAIN § 27-3 re fees by Police Department ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y CONSENT d § 7-47 re bicycle headlights/tail lights/ ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y reflectors @ over 35 mph CONSENT e §§ 21-16/21-128/21-150/21-194/21-314/21-344/ ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y 21-496 re traffic laws/REPEAL § 21-300/ADD § CONSENT 21-23.1 re traffic regs f § 38-1 re concealed weapons/ADD § 38-6 re ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y hunting with firearms while under influence of CONSENT intoxicant or narcotic drug 4-a Ordinances re Development Authority's EDIP DEFERRED 60 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y funding: DAYS, BY CONSENT $85,000 to Tidewater Institute of Sports, L.L.C. re development of recreational sports soccer facility at Harpers Road/Dam Neck Road F $50,000 to MEAC re relocation of headquarters ADOPTED, BY 8-1 Y Y Y N A Y Y A I Y I Y I Y CONSENT CITY OF VIRGINL4 BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L C E S L DATE: June 14, 2005 D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 3 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 # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D 5 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the Performing Arts ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y Center Foundation, Inc. to grant naming rights CONSENT to the theatre/component parts. 6 Resolution to AUTHORIZE issuance of IDB not ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y to exceed $9,100,000 for London Bridge CONSENT Holding, LLC at London Bridge Road/Precision Drive 7 Resolution to MOU with Dolphin's Promise ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y CONSENT V/K-1 ROBERT A. WINBAUER expansion of a APPROVED/ 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y Nonconforming Use for alterations to a duplex/ CONDITIONED single family dwelling at 1312 Cypress Avenue. BY CONSENT DISTRICT 6 — BEACH 2 C. COOPER PEARCE, III/MARTHA APPROVED/ 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y PEARCE expansion of Nonconforming Use re CONDITIONED alterations to a single family dwelling/guest house BY CONSENT at 117 Bay Colony Drive/117 47th Street. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH 3 WILLIAM A. BEIGEL CUP re home occupation APPROVED/ 7-2 Y Y Y N A N Y A Y Y Y (firearm sales) at 2529 Broad Bay Road. CONDITIONED DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN 4 RAINBOW STATION, INC. CUP re child care APPROVED/ 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y education center on Sandbridge/Princess Anne CONDITIONED Roads. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE BY CONSENT 5 TRUE VICTORY OUTREACH MINISTRIES APPROVED/ 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y CUP re church at 1270 Diamond Springs Road. CONDITIONED DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE BY CONSENT 6 JEFFREY A. KROLL CUP re alternative APPROVED/ 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y residential development at Stowe/North Stowe CONDITIONED Roads. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE BY CONSENT 7 ST. CROIX ASSOCIATES, L.P. COZ from APPROVED/ 8-1 Y Y Y N A Y Y A Y Y Y R-10/ A-12 Apartment to Conditional A-18 on PROFFERED Newtown/ Diamond Springs Road. BY CONSENT DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE CITY OF VIRGINL4 BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L C E S L DATE: June 14, 2005 D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 4 E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D O E I E S p AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O p ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D 8 Ordinance to AMEND §§ 111/401/ADD § 239.02 ADOPTED, BY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y of COZ, defining "mulch processing/ CONSENT establishing mulch storage/standards/conditional uses Ag Zoning Districts. V•/L APPOINTMENTS RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD ARTS and HUMANITIES COMMISSION 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y Reappointed — 2 Year Term — 7/1/05 — 6/30/07 Beatriz Amberman Thomas A. Felton, Jr. M. Jean Rawls BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y Reappointed — 3 Year Term — 7/1/05 — 6/30/08 Judith Rosenblatt CHESAPEAKE ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y PROGRAM Reappointed — 3 Year Term — 7/1/05 — 6/30/08 Charles R. Wall HAMPTO ROADS ECONOMIC 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE Reappointed —1 Year Term Plus to 12/31/06 Eric C. Hauser Robert G. Jones Donald L. Maxwell Meyera Oberndorf MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y Appointed — 2 Year Term — 6/1/05 — 5/31/07 Wanda J. Cooper John M. Williamson Appointed Unexpired thru 5/31/06 William R. Brown Angelica M. Ceron OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y Appointed - Unexpired thru 5/31/07 Jeffrey L. Marks CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O 1 M B L C E S L DATE: June 14, 2005 D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 5 E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D O E I E S 0 AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY 9-0 Y Y Y Y A Y Y A Y Y Y DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Appointed - Unexpired thru 12/31/07 Ann K. Crenshaw MIN/ ADJOURNMENT 6:36 PM O