Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 23, 2007 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH, At -Large HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville -District 2 ROBERT M. DYER„ Centerville - District I BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach - District 6 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 FRASER, dlv1C CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 23 JANUARY 2007 CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 234568005 PHONE. -(757) 385-4303 FAX(757)385-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. DOME SITE PROPOSAL Lou Haddad, President — Armada Hoffler B. NAVY/CITY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) William Macali, Deputy City Attorney II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 3:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf 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 David Howard Brook Baptist Church - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS January 9, 2007 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION - Muscular Dystrophy Association I. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. WORKFORCE HOUSING J. CONSENT AGENDA K. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES 1. Resolution ENDORSING and SUPPORTING the implementation of a "new National Agenda for Urban Parks and Recreation" recognizing the critical importance to communities of abiding by the four (4) principles adopted at the 2006 Chicago Summit. 2. Resolution to AMEND the duties of the Employee Benefits Review Task Force. 3. Ordinance to AMEND § 37-25 of the City Code re water meters, valves and manholes being obstructed by parked vehicles. L. M 4. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN the APZ-1/Clear Zone Acquisition Plan, dated February 14, 2006, by adding certain properties upon which the right to develop for residential uses has vested as of December 20, 2005, deleting stricken portions dated January 23, 2007, and setting forth criteria for the City Manager to acquire properties after acquisition. PLANNING — NO ACTION 1. Applications of VIRGINIA SUPPORTIVE HOUSING at 964 South Military Highway - (DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE) a. Change o Zoning from B-2 Community Business District to A-12 Apartment District b. Conditional Use Permit re a single room occupancy facility This item was deferred by the Planning Commission to their February 14, 2007 meeting. PLANNING Application of CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC for the expansion of a Nonconforminz Use to enlarge a professional office building at 737 Little Neck Road. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL 2. Application of TIMOTHY H. HANKINS for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of a 15 -foot wide alley abutting 849 South Atlantic Avenue re reservation for a City drainage easement. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL 3. Application of M&M CONTRACTORS, INC. for a Modification of Condition No. 1 on a Conditional Use Permit (approved by City Council on July 3, 2001, amended and approved February 26, 2002, and indefinitely deferred January 31, 2006) at 533 South Lynnhaven Road to allow additional storage space. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL 4. Application of ENTERPRISE RENT -A -CAR for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle rentals at 3680 Holland Road. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) Recommendation: ,V N Ij L 5. Applications of BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. at 6226 Providence Road: (DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE) a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District b. Conditional Use Permit re a senior housing project Deferred: Recommendation: December 12, 2006 APPROVAL 6. Application of HICKMAN PLANTATION SHOPPES for a Change ofZonink District Classification from R-20 Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District and R-40 Residential District at General Booth Boulevard and Nimmo Parkway re a retail shopping center and other parcels around the existing historic home. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: INDEFINITE DEFERRAL 7. Ordinance to AMEND Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), defining the terms: "Alcoholic Beverage" and "Bar or Nightclub," requiring Conditional Use Permits, ADDING standards for the consideration of applications for Conditional Use Permits, and ESTABLISHING other regulations pertaining to Bars or Nightclubs in the H-1, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, B -4C, B -4K, I-1, I-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts. Recommendation: APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD — CSB HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE-PPEA OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY PLAN COMMITTEE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WETLANDS BOARD UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT APPROVAL TOWN MEETING City Council's Top Priority Goal: Improved Transportation System Tuesday, January 30 7:15 — 9:00 PM Kellam High School 2323 Holland Road CITY COUNCIL BIENNIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP SCHEDULE April 10 (Workshop) April 17 (Workshop) April 19 (Public Hearing) April 24 (Workshop) April 24 (Public Hearing) May 1 (Workshop) May 8 (Reconciliation Workshop) May 15 (Adoption) Agenda 01/23/2007gw www,vbgov.com Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Tallwood High School at 6:00 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber at 6:00 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Chamber at 6:00 p.m. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 Hearing impaired, call: Virginia Relay Center at 1-800-828-1120 *********** I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. DOME SITE PROPOSAL Lou Haddad, President — Armada Hoffler B. NAVY/CITY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) William Macali, Deputy City Attorney II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 3:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf 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 David Howard Brook Baptist Church - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM 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 I. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS January 9, 2007 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION 7O ?_ � wti MS e ;9 OF OUR NPt`ONS Itrootuttlitt CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION - Muscular Dystrophy Association WHEREAS: The Muscular Dystrophy Association combats neuromuscular diseases through programs of worldwide research, medical and community services as well as far-reaching professional and public health education; WHEREAS: The Association relies heavily on individual private contributors, receiving no government grants, United Way funding or fees from those it serves; and, WHEREAS: On January 27, 2007, the local Chapter of the Muscular Dystrophy Association will hold its Sixth Annual MDA Crystal Ball. This event will feature a gala reception, auction, dinner and dance, the proceeds of which will go to muscular dystrophy research. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereby acknowledges the prior success of this event which has raised 5922, 000 in its five year existence. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach encourages the citizens of the City to support this worthy cause and commends it's founder, Linda Fox -Jarvis, on her vision and ability to continue carrying out such a successful event. Harry E. Bill R aateph, Jr., Robert M. Dyer,Council Member V Ron A. Villanueva, Council Member Barbara M. Henley, Council MembeO Ro ary Was, Council Member Ifn Reba S. McClanan, Council Member Ja)7iesLJ Wood, Council Member .1 . n . L11 eyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor PUBLIC COMMENT WORKFORCE HOUSING J. CONSENT AGENDA K. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES 1. Resolution ENDORSING and SUPPORTING the implementation of a "new National Agenda for Urban Parks and Recreation" recognizing the critical importance to communities of abiding by the four (4) principles adopted at the 2006 Chicago Summit. 2. Resolution to AMEND the duties of the Employee Benefits Review Task Force. Ordinance to AMEND § 37-25 of the City Code re water meters, valves and manholes being obstructed by parked vehicles. 4. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN the APZ-1/Clear Zone Acquisition Plan, dated February 14, 2006, by adding certain properties upon which the right to develop for residential uses has vested as of December 20, 2005, deleting stricken portions dated January 23, 2007, and setting forth criteria for the City Manager to acquire properties after acquisition. ,�ANN BCtt `J ✓ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Endorsing and Supporting the Implementation of a New National Agenda for Urban Parks and Recreation MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: In May 2006, representatives of the nation's largest urban park and recreation systems gathered in Chicago for an "Urban Parks Summit" to create a national agenda for urban parks and recreation. The agenda calls upon Congress to provide increased federal funding for urban parks in exchange for a commitment from state and local governments to match the federal funds dollar for dollar. At its 2006 annual meeting, the United States Conference of Mayors enthusiastically endorsed the national agenda for urban parks and recreation. Earlier this month, our Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to endorse the attached resolution in support of the national parks agenda, and the commission has requested City Council's adoption of the resolution. ■ Considerations: Virginia Beach has the 26th largest city parks and recreation department in the county and has 230 parks that serve the City's 437,000 residents. Although City Council has generously provided funding for the maintenance of those facilities, a capital infrastructure and asset maintenance backlog of over $80 million is projected for the next 25 years. If current and future CIP funding could be matched by federal and state grants, the backlog would be reduced significantly. ■ Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Adoption Requested by Mayor Oberndorf Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf 1 A RESOLUTION EDORSING AND SUPPORTING THE 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW NATIONAL AGENDA FOR 3 URBAN PARKS AND RECREATION 4 WHEREAS, there are thousands of urban parks in the nation's 5 communities that help to enrich the lives of millions of 6 Americans everyday and 230 of those parks serve the 437,000 7 residents of Virginia Beach, and 8 WHEREAS, urban parks provide countless social, health and 9 environmental benefits for the residents of the nation's 10 communities, such as helping to reduce air pollution, protecting 11 communities from flooding, providing a safe place for children 12 to play and learn, and providing a place for health recreation, 13 physical activity, and family gathering, usually at no or low 14 cost; and 15 WHEREAS, many of the nation's local parks and recreation 16 systems in the nation's communities have long recognized the 17 important benefits of urban parks and have used their best 18 efforts to make ongoing investments of local funds to improve 19 their parks; and 20 WHEREAS, the increased demand for park space and 21 recreational facilities in many of the nation's communities, 22 together with aging park infrastructure in cities such as 23 Virginia Beach, has resulted in a situation where many local 24 governments and local park and recreation systems have been 25 unable to keep pace with the tremendous costs of making the 26 needed repairs, improvements and upgrades to their local parks; 27 and 28 WHEREAS, the National Recreation and Park Association has 29 recently estimated that funding for local parks and recreation 30 is predicted to fall $38 billion short of meeting basic needs 31 over the next four years and in Virginia Beach there is a 32 current need for infrastructure estimated at $80 million over 33 the next 25 years; and 34 WHEREAS, despite the clear and important benefits of urban 35 parks to the health and welfare of the nation's communities, and 36 a demonstrated need for more funding, in recent years the 37 federal government has failed to provide adequate funding for 38 the nation's urban parks; and 39 WHEREAS, in May 2006, representatives of the largest urban 40 park and recreation systems in the United States gathered 41 together in Chicago for an "Urban Parks Summit" to create a new 42 national agenda for urban parks and recreation, a new compact 43 among federal, state and local governments, along with citizens 44 groups, private foundations and businesses; and 45 WHEREAS, the new national agenda for urban parks and 46 recreation is premised upon four guiding principles and beliefs; 47 as follows: 48 Urban parks must continue to promote health and 49 wellness; 50 Urban parks must continue to stimulate community and 51 economic development; 52 Urban parks must continue to protect the environment; 53 and 54 Urban parks must continue to educate, protect and 55 enrich America's young people; and 56 WHEREAS, the new national urban parks and recreation agenda 57 calls upon the President of the United States and the U.S. 58 Congress to provide increased federal funding for urban parks in 59 the nation's communities, in exchange for a commitment from 60 state and local governments to match the federal funds dollar 61 for dollar; and 62 WHEREAS, this new urban parks agenda, which is premised 63 upon these four guiding principles and a renewed commitment by 64 all levels of government to invest in the nation's communities 65 by investing in parks, will help to protect and ensure the 66 countless value of urban parks for generations to come; and 67 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 68 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 69 That the City of Virginia Beach recognizes the invaluable 70 role of urban parks to the nation's communities and to the 71 citizens of Virginia Beach; and 72 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council hereby endorses 73 the new "National Agenda for Urban Parks and Recreation," 74 adopted at the Urban Parks Summit in Chicago in May.. 2006, and 75 recognizes the critical importance to the nation's communities 76 of abiding by the four guiding principles for urban parks 77 adopted at that Summit. 78 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 79 Virginia on the day of , 2007. Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Office CA10251 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D016\P001\00026407.DOC R-3 January 17, 2007 W 11 1 �7 rot ,r 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Amending the Duties of the Employee Benefits Review Task Force MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: On October 24, 2006, City Council established the Employee Benefits Review Task Force (the "Task Force") to comprehensively analyze employee benefits and alternative .benefit options to aid the City Council in making budgetary decisions about such benefits. The October 24, 2006 resolution provides that any recommendations of the Task Force, if adopted by City Council, shall apply only to employees hired after July 1, 2007. On December 12, 2006, the City Council suspended proposed increases in retiree health insurance premiums until July 1, 2007 to enable City Council to review the recommendations of the Task Force. City Council would be aided in making budgetary decisions if it was provided with an analysis that reviews current and future retiree benefits and the overall sustainability of retiree health benefits. ■ Considerations: This Resolution expands the duties of the Task Force to include review and recommendations with respect to current and future retiree benefits and the overall sustainability of retiree health benefits. ■ Public Information: The item is to be advertised in the normal manner of agenda items. ■ Attachments: Resolution Requested by: Councilmembers Diezel & DeSteph 1 Requested by Councilmembers Harry Diezel & Bill DeSteph 2 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DUTIES 3 OF THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS REVIEW 4 TASK FORCE 5 WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, City Council established the 6 Employee Benefits Review Task Force (the "Task Force") to 7 comprehensively analyze employee benefits and alternative 8 benefit options to aid the City Council in making budgetary 9 decisions about such benefits; and 10 WHEREAS, the October 24, 2006 resolution provides that any 11 recommendations of the Task Force, if adopted by City Council, 12 shall apply only to employees hired after July 1, 2007; and 13 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2006, the City Council suspended 14 proposed increases in retiree health insurance premiums until 15 July 1, 2007, to enable City Council to review the 16 recommendations of the Task Force; and 17 WHEREAS, the City Council would benefit from the review and 18 recommendations of the Task Force with respect to current and 19 future retiree benefits and the overall sustainability of 20 retiree health benefits. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 22 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 That, in addition to the duties outlined in the October 24, 24 2006 resolution and the December 12, 2006 resolution, the City 25 Council hereby requests that the Employee Benefits Review Task 26 Force review and present recommendations regarding the benefits 27 offered to current and future retirees and the overall 28 sustainability of the City's retiree health benefits. 29 30 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 31 Virginia on the day of , 2007. Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's dffice CA 10250 R-1 January 12, 2007 h f. _% CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City Code revisions pertaining to the procedure for addressing water meters obstructed by vehicles MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: Virginia Beach has a small subset of customers who intentionally park vehicles on top of water meters, which prevents Public Utilities from discontinuing water service for non-payment. As long as the meters remain inaccessible, the customers continue to receive service while delinquent charges continue to accrue, often exceeding $1,000. Public Utilities will often expend hundreds of dollars in unsuccessful attempts to access these meters. The existing remedy, charging the customer with a Class 3 misdemeanor ($500 fine), is unwieldy, time consuming, and very expensive administratively. Attempts to use criminal statutes to enforce these types of situations have poor track records and cost the City far more than the delinquent balance. Other municipal utilities in Hampton Roads tow vehicles that are obstructing water meters. However, the Virginia Beach City Code does not currently provide such authority. The purpose of this agenda request and the attached Policy Report is to recommend changes to City Code to authorize the towing of vehicles that are obstructing water meter boxes. ■ Considerations: The authority to tow an obstructing vehicle would provide an efficient means to manage situations in which water meters are intentionally blocked. It would also serve as a disincentive for customers to repeat this conduct. Towing would be coordinated through the Virginia Beach Police Department and the current City towing contract. As detailed in the attached Policy Paper, vehicles would be towed only as a last resort, and only after a number of notices and requests to move the vehicle had been ineffective. ■ Public Information: This ordinance has been advertised as part of the City Council Agenda Package. The Department of Public Utilities will make information with respect to the new ordinance available to the general public through established channels of communication, such as the customer newsletter, bill print messages, and the Department's website. ■ Alternatives: As the attached Policy Paper explains in detail, there are three alternatives: 1) Do not revise the City Code (no action), 2) revise the City Code to provide authority to move vehicles blocking water meters, but not tow the vehicle from the property, and 3) revise the City Code to provide authority to tow vehicles blocking water meters from the property in accordance with existing City contracts and procedures. If the City Code is not revised, water meters intentionally obstructed by vehicles will continue to be a time-consuming and costly problem with no viable solution. The delinquent customers will continue to receive water service without payment and the Department will continue to incur court costs associated with obtaining judgments in an effort to recover money owed. Providing the authority to move a vehicle, but not tow it from the property would allow Public Utilities to lock or remove the water meter and enforce the delinquency process. However, Public Utilities would have to incur costs upfront for moving the vehicle and then attempt to recover those costs from the customer. More importantly, this would not provide a disincentive for similar future behavior on the customer's part. The authority to tow a vehicle that is obstructing a water meter from the property in accordance with existing City contracts and procedures would give Public Utilities an effective tool to collect delinquent balances and provide an effective disincentive for repeat actions on the part of those customers who refuse to move their vehicles. However, Public Utilities believes that having the authority to tow an offending vehicle will be more significant than the actual process of towing the vehicle. Public Utilities believes that its experience will be similar to that of Chesapeake in that most, if not all, customers will voluntarily move their vehicle when notified that towing will be the consequence of not moving it. ■ Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the Virginia Beach City Code, thereby authorizing the towing of vehicles obstructing water meter boxes. State enabling legislation is not required. ■ Attachments: Policy Paper and Ordinance revising City Code Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Utilities �l ' 'J7 �` 0 City Manage : 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 37- 2 25 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO 3 OBSTRUCTING VALVES, MANHOLES, 4 METERS, ETC. 5 SECTION AMENDED: 37-25 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 7 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 8 That Section 37-25 of the Code of the City of Virginia 9 Beach, Virginia, is hereby amended to read as follows: 10 Sec. 37-25. Obstructing valves, manholes, meters, etc. 11 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally 12 place, upon or about any gate valve, manhole, fire hydrant, stop 13 cock, meter or meter box connected with the water pipes of the 14 city's system of waterworks, any vehicle, trailer or on]ect, 15 material, debris or structure of any kind which will prevent 16 free access to such facilities at all times. It shall be the 17 responsibility of the owner or occupant of all premises upon 18 which such facilities are placed to maintain a one -foot 19 clearance around all such facilities; provided, that there shall 20 be a three (3) foot clearance surrounding any fire hydrant. 21 (b) Upon finding that access to a meter is prevented by a 25 the motor 22 motor vehicle or trailer parked on or over such meter, the 23 Director of Public Utilities or his designee shall contact the 24 customer served by the meter and request such customer to move 25 the motor vehicle or trailer so as to allow access to the meter. 26 If the customer cannot be contacted or refuses to cooperate, a 27 written notice stating that the motor vehicle or trailer, or any 28 other motor vehicle or trailer parked in such manner as to 29 prevent access to the meter, will be removed after five (5) days 30 at the property owner's expense shall be posted on the door of 31 the home or business and on the item obstructing the meter. If 32 after five (5) days access to the meter is still prevented by a 33 motor vehicle or trailer, such motor vehicle or trailer may be 34 towed, at the vehicle owner's expense, by or at the direction of 35 the Police Department in accordance with applicable provisions 36 of the City Code; provided, however, that the permission of the 37 owner or occupant of the property from which the motor vehicle 38 or trailer is towed shall not be required. Prior to the actual 39 towing of the motor vehicle or trailer, the owner or occupant, 40 if present, shall be given the opportunity to move the motor 41 vehicle or trailer. 42 COMMENT 43 This ordinance will allow the Department of Public Utilities to cause the removal of vehicles 44 that have been parked over water meters for the purpose of preventing the disconnection of service. 45 Such removal is effected only after the property owner or occupant has been contacted and refuses 46 to move the vehicle. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of . 2007. APPROV D AS TO CONTENT: Public Utilities APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: t ),d - City Attorney's Office CA -10141 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\wpdocs\D006\P001\00019724.DOC R-5 January 16, 2007 v Z O r? 4 EV �9 4'y. 0 5 Op OUR NAt��N Policy Report OBSTRUCTING METERS A PROPOSAL TO AMEND VIRGINIA BEACH CITY CODE TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING WATER METERS OBSTRUCTED BY VEHICLES BACKGROUND Like other water utilities, Virginia Beach has a small subset of customers who avoid paying water and sewer charges by intentionally parking a car over the water meter. At any given time, up to two -dozen cars are parked on top of Virginia Beach water meters. Some of these obstructions are unintentional, and the vehicles are promptly relocated upon request and/or notice to move the vehicle. But many of these obstructions are intentional and are not corrected, even after numerous notifications and requests. Consequently, the meters remain inaccessible, the customers continue to receive water and sanitary sewer services, and the delinquent charges continue to accrue month after month, with account balances often exceeding $1,000. Moreover, Public Utilities will often invest several hundred dollars or more of staff resources in repeated attempts to access one of these meters. Efforts to seek court orders to move these vehicles would be extremely unwieldy, not very successful, and would cost far more than the outstanding balances owed. Historically, many of these customers avoid paying their accounts for a number of billing cycles, and some move out of the property, which exponentially diminishes the City's ability to collect the debt. Even after court proceedings are initiated to collect delinquent amounts, it may be years before Public Utilities realizes any of the monies owed, if ever. Other municipal utilities in Hampton Roads resolve this issue by towing vehicles that are deliberately obstructing access to meters. However, the Virginia Beach City Code does not currently provide such authority to Public Utilities. The purpose of this policy report is to recommend amendment to §37-25 of the City Code to authorize the towing of vehicles obstructing water meter boxes. CONSIDERATIONS Virginia Beach City Code §37-25 prohibits the obstructing of meter boxes so as to prevent access: §37-25. Obstructing valves, manholes, meters, etc. "It shall be unlawful for any person to place, upon or about any gate valve, manhole, fire hydrant, stop cock, meter or meter box connected with the water pipes of the city's system of waterworks, any object, material, debris or structure of any kind which will prevent free access to such facilities at all times. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant of all premises upon which such facilities are placed to maintain a one -foot clearance around all such facilities; provided, that there shall be a three (3) foot clearance surrounding any fire hydrant." However, this language does not specifically address the parking of vehicles on meter boxes, nor does it authorize the towing of an obstructing vehicle. As noted below in City Code §37-2, violations of Chapter 37, generally, are punishable as Class 3 misdemeanors with monetary fines of up to $500, and no jail time. §37-2. Violations of chapter generally. "Unless otherwise specifically provided, any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and each day's continuation of a violation shall be considered a separate offense. Any such person shall, furthermore, be liable for all damage, loss and expense suffered or incurred by the city as a result of such violation." The existing remedy is unwieldy, time consuming, and very expensive administratively. Public Utilities' attempts to use criminal statutes to enforce these types of situations have had poor track records and have cost the City far more than the delinquent balances. Even if a fine were eventually imposed, it would often be less than the account balance, would not be paid to Public Utilities, and would not require that the customer move the vehicle. Other municipalities in Virginia and in Hampton Roads employ towing to remove vehicles obstructing access to water meter boxes, including Chesapeake, Norfolk, and Portsmouth. In Chesapeake, if a water meter is obstructed, the customer is given notice to move the vehicle. If the vehicle is not moved, utility personnel notify the police. The police go to the property and inform the customer that the vehicle will be towed if it is not moved. Chesapeake indicates that this nearly always produces the desired outcome and they have rarely, if ever, had to actually tow a vehicle. In Norfolk, towing is approved by the City Manager on a case-by-case basis. Currently, the city's assistant fire marshal has the authority to direct towing operations. When instructed, he appears at the property and gives the vehicle owner 15 minutes to move the vehicle. If the vehicle is not moved, he calls a contracted towing service. Then he calls the meter reader so that a reading can be obtained. The process in Portsmouth is similar to Chesapeake's. If a customer will not move a vehicle upon notice or request from utility personnel, the police are notified. If the customer will not move the vehicle at the request of the police, the vehicle is towed. Having the authority to tow an obstructing vehicle would provide Public Utilities a low cost and efficient means to remedy situations in which water meters are intentionally blocked. Similar to the Chesapeake experience, it is highly expected that simply having the authority to tow an obstructing vehicle combined with notice that the vehicle will be towed if not relocated will produce the desired result in all but a handful of situations. Towing would be coordinated through the Virginia Beach Police Department and the current City towing contract, as follows: ➢ If a meter cannot be read because a vehicle is obstructing the meter box, the meter reader will attempt to contact the customer and ask that the vehicle be relocated. If this does not work, a notice is left on the vehicle and water demand is estimated based upon past consumption. A utility bill based upon the estimated consumption is mailed to the customer. This is current practice — Public Utilities will not tow a vehicle simply because a meter cannot be read. ➢ If the utility bill is not paid within 30 days of the billing date, the customer is sent a final notice indicating that the bill must be paid within 15 days or service is subject to termination. This is current practice. ➢ If the utility bill is not paid within 45 days from the billing date, the account is declared delinquent. This is current practice. ➢ If the account remains unpaid by 50 to 54 days from the billing date, a service inspector will attempt to discontinue service. If a vehicle is blocking the meter, the service inspector will attempt to contact the customer and ask that the vehicle be relocated. If this does not work, a notice will be left on the vehicle and on the door notifying the customer that the account is delinquent, and that the customer has five days to move the vehicle or it will be towed. ➢ If the account remains unpaid by 60 days from the billing date, a service inspector will return to the property and again attempt to discontinue service. If a vehicle is still blocking the meter, the service inspector will notify the Virginia Beach Police department that the vehicle needs to be towed. At this point in the process, a second billing period is nearly complete and the customer owes the City for four months of water and sanitary service, stormwater management fees, and City Utility Tax. ➢ A Virginia Beach Police Officer will arrive at the property and advise the customer that if the vehicle is not relocated, it will be towed. If the vehicle is moved, towing will not occur. The service inspector will read and lock (or pull) the meter. ➢ If vehicle is not moved, the towing company is called. The towing company will remove the vehicle to an impoundment lot, where it will remain until the vehicle owner pays all fees associated with the towing. The service inspector will read and lock (or pull) the meter. PUBLIC INFORMATION The proposed City Code revisions will be advertised as part of the City Council Agenda Package. The Department of Public Utilities will also make information with respect to the new ordinance available to the general public and use established channels of communication with our customers, such as the Pipeline customer newsletter, bill print messages, and the department's Website. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION 1) No action. Obstructed meters will continue to be a time-consuming and costly problem. Delinquent customers who have `Tigured--out" the system will continue to use vehicles to obstruct the water meter in order to avoid paying their water and sanitary sewer charges. The Department will continue to incur significant administrative costs associated with efforts to recover monies owed. 2) Amend the City Code to provide the Department of Public Utilities the authority to move a vehicle obstructing a water meter box, but not tow it to an impound lot. This would provide Public Utilities the ability to read and lock the meter and enforce the delinquency process, but the Department would have to incur costs upfront for moving the vehicle and then attempt to recover those costs from the customer, in addition to the delinquent utility charges. More importantly, this would not provide a disincentive for similar future behavior on the customer's part. 3) Amend the City Code to allow for a notice provision, and provide the Department of Public Utilities the authority to tow a vehicle obstructing a water meter box. This would be a cost effective and efficient tool to enable Public Utilities to enforce the delinquency process, and provide a disincentive for similar future behavior on the customer's part. The customer would have to work with the Department to pay off the account balance in order to continue water service while they are still at the property. Public Utilities believes that its experience will be similar to that of Chesapeake's in that most customers, if not all, will move an obstructing vehicle before it is towed, and that the number of vehicles that are actually towed will be very small. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance in accordance with Alternative 3 to amend the Virginia Beach City Code authorizing the towing of vehicles obstructing water meter boxes. State enabling legislation is not required. REVIEW AND APPROVAL City Manager LJ C1 LC. 1 1 l `ol W Public Utilities ONS a M I -� Department Director Date: 1 I (v D CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the APZ-1/Clear Zone Acquisition Plan by Including Within its Purview Certain Duplex Properties and Certain Properties Upon Which the Right to Develop Has Vested MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: On December 20, 2005, the City Council adopted the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan, dated December 14, 2005, as one of the components of its response to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's decision regarding NAS Oceana. The Plan was subsequently amended on February 14, 2006, to add Clear Zones within its purview. Recently, the Oceana Land Use Conformity Committee has recommended that the Plan be amended so as to add to the eligible properties under the Plan older duplex properties and properties upon which the right to develop for residential uses has vested as of December 20, 2005 (the date on which the City adopted its BRAC response plan). That recommendation is consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance, the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan itself, the Comprehensive Plan, the Final Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) and with good zoning practices that do not adversely affect established residential neighborhoods. ■ Considerations: The proposed Ordinance adds certain duplex properties and properties upon which the right to develop residential uses to the property that is eligible for acquisition by the City under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. It also sets forth criteria for the City Manager to apply in determining whether to acquire a particular property and provides for the disposition of such properties after acquisition. ■ Public Information: No special form of advertising or other public notice is necessary. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance. ■ Attachments: Ordinance; amended plan showing additions and deletions. Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager's Office City Manag ! 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE APZ- 2 1/CLEAR ZONE ACQUISITION PLAN BY INCLUDING 3 WITHIN ITS PURVIEW CERTAIN DUPLEX PROPERTIES 4 AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES UPON WHICH THE RIGHT TO 5 DEVELOP FOR RESIDENTIAL USES HAS VESTED 6 be added to 7 8 WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council adopted the 9 APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan, dated December 14, 2005, as one of 10 the components of its response to the Base Realignment and Closure 11 Commission's decision regarding NAS Oceana; and 12 WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, the City adopted an amendment 13 to such Plan that added to the purview of the Plan Clear Zones, as 14 shown on the official AICUZ Map, and renamed such plan the APZ- 15 1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan (the "Plan"); and 16 WHEREAS, the Oceana Land Use Conformity Committee (the 17 "Committee") was established by the City Council for the purpose, 18 among others, of making recommendations to the City Council and 19 Development Authority on matters relating to reducing the amount of 20 pre-existing nonconforming development, as determined pursuant to 21 Section 1804 of the City Zoning Ordinance, in APZ-1 and Clear 22 Zones, in a manner consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance, the 23 APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, 24 the Final Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) and with good 25 zoning practices that do not adversely affect established 26 residential neighborhoods; and 27 WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that certain duplex 28 properties and properties upon which the right to develop for 29 residential uses has vested as of December 20, 2005 be added to the 30 properties that are eligible for acquisition under the Plan; and 31 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the said 32 recommendation of the Committee is consistent with the City Zoning 33 Ordinance, the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan, the 34 Comprehensive Plan, the Final Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study 35 (JLUS) and with good zoning practices that do not adversely affect 36 established residential neighborhoods; 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 38 OF VIRGINIA BEACH: 39 That the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan dated 40 February 14, 2006 be, and hereby is, amended and reordained by the 41 addition of the underlined portions and the deletion of the 42 stricken portions shown on that certain document entitled "Amended 43 APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan," dated January 23, 2007, 44 such document being attached hereto and made a part hereof. 45 46 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the 47 day of 2007. 48 49 CA -10252 50 OID\Land Use\amendAPZ-1U&APlanordin.doc 51 R-1 52 January 17, 2007 53 54 55 2 56 Approved as to Content: 57 58 `- 59 Ci y anager Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH January 23, 2007 AMENDED APZ-1/CLEAR ZONE USE AND ACQUISITION PLAN Overview The APZ-1 Ordinance (adopted December 20, 2005 and revised to include Clear Zones) amended the City Zoning Ordinance to prohibit all uses in APZ-1 and Clear Zones that are incompatible with OPNAV Instruction 11010.36B (December 19, 2002) (the "OPNAV Instruction"). The APZ-1 Ordinance renders existing uses non -conforming but not incompatible, and requires all new development or redevelopment to be consistent with the OPNAV Instruction. As an exception, the Ordinance allows incompatible uses or structures as a replacement of the same use or structure if the replacement use or structure is of equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or structure. Where application of the APZ-1 Ordinance leaves property without a reasonable use, this APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan is intended to direct reuse, rezoning, or purchase of those properties. The Plan The Use and Acquisition Plan is illustrated in the following chart entitled "APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan." APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan Develop with Rezone or grant Voluntary acquisition Eminent domain Tools compatible use conditional use permit Property Type ("CUP") for compatible use NONRESIDENTIAL Developed Owner's choice. Owner's choice. Owner Yes. Owner has No. Owner has Already developed can initiate application for development options development options for use is "not new compatible use. City for reasonable use, so compatible and incompatible" and can will not initiate rezoning City need not reasonable use. City remain, or owner can because owner has acquire. But if need not acquire. redevelop with a existing use and other initiated by owner, different compatible allowable, compatible City may acquire to use. reasonable uses. "roll back" development. Undeveloped Yes. Owner can Yes. Owner can initiate No. Generally, owner No. Owner has initiate development application for has development development options for to a compatible use. compatible use. City options for reasonable compatible and Every nonresidential need not initiate rezoning use, and City need not reasonable use. City zoning category because owner may seek acquire. need not acquire. allows some approval for some But if property is left compatible & compatible & reasonable with no reasonable reasonable use. use, use, City will acquire. RESIDENTIAL Develots ed Not applicable Yes. On case-by-case No. Existing use is No. Existing use is `not includ vested because the property is already developed. basis. Owner can initiate "not incompatible," incompatible," thus City but un velo ed, Existing uses are "not rezoning. thus City need not need not acquire. roe es incompatible" so no acquire. Except, if initiated by action is needed. owner, City will acquire Qualifying Duplex Properties ffw4et value at 6me of sa4e as if the ADZ a*ml;. tear -down Undeve oped No. There is no Yes. On case-by-case basis; depends duplexes and vested` 6 4< �o�ooase < properties compatible use mP on size, eP� � 7 t, :. without rezoning/ location and intended use Yes. But only if `moi . . CUP. of parcel. Either owner unsuitable for (1 or City can initiate rezoning/CUP and ,y rezoning. only if APZ-1 Ordinance leaves Fez . ,;� �. property without a reasonable use. . How each category of property will be affected: Plan. The following is a description of how each category of property will be treated under the NONRESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL — DEVELOPED • Retain Existing Use or Develop Consistent with the OPNAV Instruction Developed Nonresidential/Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones would have some reasonable use under the new zoning rules. Owners of such property could retain their existing use, and they would also have other allowable compatible uses. Therefore, the owners of such property could keep their existing use or redevelop the property in any manner consistent with the OPNAV Instruction and the APZ-1 Ordinance, as amended. Such development might require a rezoning or conditional use permit, which would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. • Voluntary Acquisition Available The City would be willing to purchase Developed Nonresidential/ Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones that are adversely affected by the APZ-1 Ordinance. Only voluntary sales would be permitted. Eminent domain would not be available for such acquisitions. NONRESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL — UNDEVELOPED • Develop Consistent with the OPNAV Instruction Most undeveloped Nonresidential/Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones would have some reasonable use under the APZ-1 Ordinance. Therefore, the owners of such property could develop the property in any manner consistent with the OPNAV Instruction and the new APZ-1 Ordinance, as amended. Such development might require a rezoning or conditional use permit, which would be individually evaluated on the merits of each case. • Voluntary Acquisition Generally Unavailable Because most such properties will be left with some reasonable use, the City will not acquire them. If a property is deprived of all reasonable use, then the City will acquire it. RESIDENTIAL — DEVELOPED • Existing Dwellings Will Remain Residential developed property would be considered to be a preexisting use and would be allowed to remain. Under the APZ-1 Ordinance, as amended, the property may be replaced, repaired, reconstructed, or otherwise improved, so long as the density is not increased. • Redevelopment to Compatible Use, Case -By -Case If the owner of residential developed property wanted to rezone the property or seek a conditional use permit to a traditionally compatible use such as industrial, such redirected uses would be welcomed, so long as the fit was right with the neighborhood. These redevelopments would be handled on a case-by-case basis and would be initiated by the owner. • Dwellings Will Not Be Acquired Eminent domain would not be available for developed residential properties under any circumstances. Dwellings generally will not be acquired by voluntary purchase; however, voluntary acquisition will be available in the limited circumstances of the following Wes of properties: 1) "Qualifying Duplex Properties" as that term is defined on Page 6:i 2) Properties that were vested for new development or redevelopment on December 20, 2005, may be acquired by voluntary purchase or, at the owner's request, by eminent domain; and 3) Developed duplex properties. The Developed Duplex Acquisition Program is set forth in more detail on Page 7. RESIDENTIAL — UNDEVELOPED • Rezone/Conditional Use Permit (CUP), If Appropriate After the APZ-1 Ordinance went into effect, some undeveloped residential properties will be left with no reasonable compatible use. Such property could be rezoned or issued a conditional use permit on a case-by-case basis, but certain properties might not be suitable for any nonresidential use. The City would first evaluate whether a rezoning or conditional use permit would be appropriate. • Acquire By Agreement or Condemnation 4 If there are no suitable nonresidential uses, the City would acquire the property because the owner would be left without any reasonable use of its property. Either voluntary purchase or eminent domain would be available. If the City were unable to reach an agreement as to value with the owner, the City could condemn the property. QUALIFYING DUPLEX PROPERTIES • Voluntary Acquisition Available The City would be willing to purchase "Qualifying Duplex Properties" within APZ-1 and Clear Zones, as defined and described on Page 6. Eminent domain would not be available for such acquisitions. Acquisition Rules. Voluntary Acquisitions. Affected Property: Property located wholly or partially within APZ-1 and/or Clear Zones that is (a) undeveloped property which is currently zoned for residential use, or (b) developed commercial property. For the Voluntary Purchase Program for Qualifying Duplex Properties in APZ-1 and Clear Zones, see Page 6. Owner -initiated sales only for nonresidential property. Developed commercial property will be acquired only if the owner of the property initiates the sale. Fee Simple or Development Rights/Easements To Be Acquired,- The City might acquire either fee simple title, restrictive easements or development rights. In certain cases (for example large lots) the City might want to acquire the land in fee so that the property could be acquired and put to some compatible use. In other cases (for example small infill lots in residential neighborhoods where the owner owns an adjacent, developed lot) the City might want to acquire only development rights. The City would add as a condition to its acquisition of only the development rights that the adjacent owner must resubdivide the property to remove lot lines and create one larger lot. In other words, the City would avoid buying in fee small lots in neighborhoods where it is possible to pay only for the development rights and have the adjacent owner fold the property into his existing use. The object is to avoid City -owned vacant lots that would be difficult to maintain and could adversely affect the neighborhood. The goal would be for the City and the owner to work together to find a solution that compensates the owner and makes the most sense in the context of the neighborhood. City to Pay Market Value Without Regard to APZ-1 Ordinance for Undeveloped Residential Land. Owners of residential property (undeveloped residential land) will be paid market value based on sales of similar properties that are not within APZ-1 and Clear Zones, so there is no "blight" on the value of their property. The property will be valued as if the APZ-1 Ordinance's prohibition against new residential development does not apply. City to Pay Market Value for Commercial Properties. Owners who sell their commercial property to the City will be paid based on fair market value, with consideration given for the limitations and provisions of the APZ-1 Ordinance and the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. Voluntary Purchase Program for Qualifying Duplex Properties in APZ-1 and Clear Zones 1. Application. This program applies only to properties that meet the following criteria ("Qualifying Duplex Properties"): a. Located in APZ-1 and/or Clear Zone; b. Currently improved with a single-family home; and c. Duplex use was legally and physically possible before the adoption of the APZ-1 Ordinance (zoning district allowed "by -right" duplex development; physical features made duplex use a reasonable option; and there were no title restrictions preventing duplex use). 2. Voluntary Purchase Program. a. Fee Simple/Total Purchase only. The City will purchase, by voluntary agreement, the lot and all improvements from the owner. b. Valuation. As compensation, the City will pay the market value of the property and improvements at their highest and best use at the time of sale (i.e., higher of value as single-family residence or duplex) as if the APZ-1 Ordinance's prohibition against new residential development does not apply. c. Appraisal. The City will pay for an appraisal of the property, after the City and the owner have agreed on an appraiser. 3. City's Options after Purchase. After purchase of a Qualifying Duplex Property, the City shall rezone the property or otherwise eliminate the potential for duplex development, and do any of the following to be determined on a case-by-case basis: a. Sell the house and lot to a third party as excess property for continued use as a single-family home; 6 b. Lease the house and property to a third party for residential use; c. Demolish the improvements and sell the lot to adjacent landowners; or d. Rezone the property, if appropriate, to a nonresidential zoning classification and sell or lease the property for new development compatible with the OPNAV Instruction. If the City decides to proceed under part 3a or 3b above, it is the City's intent to cause noise attenuation measures to be performed on the single-family home, prior to occupancy. Involuntary Acquisitions/Eminent Domain Affected Property. Eminent domain will only be used to acquire undeveloped property zoned for residential use, only if the property has no other reasonable use and only after efforts to voluntarily purchase the property have failed. State legislation needed. State enabling legislation will be needed before condemnation can be used. The City has requested state legislation that gives the City the power to condemn, and condemnation will only be allowed for the following circumstances: • Only for undeveloped property zoned for residential use. • Only where property is deprived of all reasonable use. • Only where development rights have not vested. • Only for property wholly or partially within APZ-1 and Clear Zones. • Only after all efforts to reach a voluntary sale have been unsuccessful. • Only so long as acquisition is needed to protect NAS Oceana as a Master Jet Base. Rights to be Acquired. Either development rights or fee simple rights would be acquired, depending on the particular circumstances of each property. Where the owner owns developed adjacent property, acquiring development rights only will be favored. City to Pay Full Fair Market Value. Where eminent domain is authorized, Owners will be paid fair market value based on sales of similar properties that are not within APZ-1 or Clear Zones. The property will be valued as if the APZ-1 Ordinance does not apply. Developed Duplex Acquisition Program Recowiizing the Cit goals of reducing density in APZ-1 while maintaining the qualityf the neighborhoods, the City Manager is authorized to acquire existing duplexes in APZ-1 for the 7 purpose of removing the structures. The City Manager should evaluate the condition of the duplex and should prioritize acquisition of duplexes based on their relative age and condition and whether noise attenuation measures have been incorporated into the structure. Preference should be given to duplexes that are in the poorest condition and that have not had noise attenuation improvements. After acquisition of a duplex under this Program, the City Manager is directed to do any of the following: 1. Remove the structure, restrict the site to development of a single-family home, and sell to a third party for new construction of one dwelling unit; 2. Remove the structure, restrict any new dwelling units from being constructed and sell the site to adjacent landowner(s) who must resubdivide their lot(s) to include the vacant site; 3. Remove the structure and assemble the property for nonresidential, conforming uses, but only if (a) the property is in a neighborhood that is trending toward non- residential uses and (bb) there will be no adverse impact on the surrounding properties; 4. Remove the structure and use the property for public use or hold the property for future public use. The Acquisition Rules set forth on Page 5 shall apply to these sites the same as they do to any voluntary acquisitions under this APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. VoluntaryAcguisition ofProyerties VestedDevelonment The City_Manager is authorized to acquire properties in APZ-1 where the Planning Director and the City Attorney have determined that the owner of the properly had vested rights in develop the property with a residential use before the City adopted the APZ-1 Ordinance on December 20, 2005. Only properties that have not vet been developed with new structures are eligible for acquisition, unless the owner/developer has not yet sold or contracted to sell developed dwellings to individual owners. The Acquisition Rules set forth on Page 5 shall apply to these sites the same as they do to any voluntary acquisitions under this APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. Plan is Flexible The preceding guidelines shall be followed in implementing the APZ-1 /Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan, except where circumstances dictate other options particular to a specific property. In such cases, the City will consider other options only when (i) the proposed option is consistent with the intent to stop development incompatible with the OPNAV Instruction; (ii) the proposed option "rolls back" existing non -conforming uses by eliminating the use or reducing the density or intensity of the use; or (iii) no other reasonable, compatible use for the property is allowed; provided, that the option, in the judgment of City Council, does not have an unduly adverse impact on adjacent properties. Other possible options: The City Manager is directed to continue the consideration and development of other methods of converting uses in APZ-1 and Clear Zones that do not conform to the OPNAV Instruction to uses compatible with the OPNAV Instruction. Such other options shall have the effect of accomplishing the intent of the APZ-1 Ordinance and the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan and reducing uses not conforming with the OPNAV Instruction within APZ-1 and Clear Zones whenever reasonable and feasible. Options considered shall include, but not be limited to, assemblage of property for redevelopment, the use of Economic Development Incentive Program funds and the use of zoning and land use incentives. Implementation instructions: I. Notification This Plan is effective as of December 20, 2005. This Plan amendment to include Clear Zones is effective upon adoption. Thereafter, the City staff shall, within sixty (60) days, identify all property within Clear Zones and notify the property owners by certified letter of the APZ-1 Ordinance, the classifications ofproperty under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan, and provide the owners with a copy of the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. II. Purchase Beginning January 1, 2006, property owners desiring to sell their property consistent with the provisions of the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan shall notify the City Manager by letter. Letters received shall be date-stamped and priority of purchase shall be by date received, earliest to latest, except that (1) properties left without a reasonable use shall be given first priority; and (2) City Council may elevate the priority of property owners who suffer a demonstrated hardship if an expedited sale would ameliorate such hardship. Purchases of eligible property shall be made in such order, upon approval of the City Council, to the extent that funds are available each fiscal year. Annual Report The City Manager shall report annually to the City Council on the status of all uses not conforming with the OPNAV Instruction within APZ-1 and Clear Zones. The format of the report shall include an inventory of property within each classification under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. Funding The City Manager is directed each fiscal year to include in the City's annual budget funds for the purpose of acquiring properties within APZ-1 and Clear Zones designated for acquisition under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan in the amount of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00) or such greater amount as circumstances may warrant. Any proceeds the City receives from selling or leasing properties acquired under this APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan shall be deposited into the APZ-1/Clear Zone acquisition fund. If in any fiscal year there remains an amount available after the purchase of properties within APZ-1 and Clear Zones, such funds shall be used to purchase properties to be acquired in the Interfacility Traffic Area for purposes other than the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt Project. Plan Administration The City Manager may promulgate rules, regulations and policies consistent with the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan to further the efficient implementation and administration of this Plan. FADaWAPPOIDIREAL LCTATC\ A..seFte.1 D....:e.....\DD A!`\ A D7 1 Clear- Z...n Use & Aeq Plan 7 14 06.$9eV,\ pplications\citylaworod\n=m32\Wodocs\D012\P002\00026352 DOC 10 he regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 'irginia Beach will be held in the Council Chamber of Hail Building, Municipal Center, Virginia Virginia, cr, Tuesday' Jasivary 23, rti7 at 6:00 pjn_ at which time the follow- ing applications will be heat'-: . DISTRICT 3 - ROS`: 14ALL M&M Contractors, Inc. Applicatior: Plcdifir:ation Of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit, ovedutCoFebruary2002, 533 South (PIN 14962713680000). Enterprise Rent-A-Car Application: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals at 3680 Holland Road (GPIN 1486543888). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Timothy H. Hankins Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of a 15 -foot wide alley between Lots 4 and 14, Block 14, Croatan which abuts 849 South Atlantic Avenue. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Hickman Plantation Shoppes Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from R-20 Residential to Conditional B-2 Community Business and R-40 Residential at General Booth Boulevard and Nimmo Parkway (GPINs 2414170309 - part of; 2414172167; 2414173206; 2414174511; 2414077143). The Comprehensive Plan desig- nates esignates this site as being part of the primary residen- tial area, suitable for appropriately located subur- ban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this zoning change is to develop a retail shopping center. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Ordinance to Amend Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zon- ing Ordinance, Defining the Terms "Alcoholic Bever- age" and "Bar or Nightclub," Requiring Conditional Use Permits for Bars or Nightclubs, Adding Stan- dards for the Consideration of Applications for Con- ditional Use Permits, and Establishing Other Regula- tions Pertaining to Bars or Nightclubs in the H-1, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, B -4C, B -4K, 1-1, 1-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts. DISTRICT 1- CENTERVILLE (Virginia Supportive Housing Application: Change of Zoning from B-2 Community Business to A-12 Apartment at 964 S. Military Highway. The Compre- hensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropri- ately located suburban residential and non-residen- tial uses consistent with the policies of the Compre- hensive Plan. The purpose of this zoning change is to develop the.site with multi-famiy dwellings. The purpose of the zoning change is to develop the site for a Single Room Occupancy Facility. (GPIN 1456133354). Virginia Supportive Housing Application: Conditional Use Permit for a Single Room Occupancy Facility at 964 S. Military Highway. (GPIN 1456133354). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Clayborn Properties, LLC Application: Expansion Of a Noi conforming Use at 737 Little Neck Road (GPIN 1488803791). All interested citizens are invited to attend d Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC City Clerk Copies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning or online at htto"//www vtW_ov.com/deVt (planniqgZboar ds For information call 385-4621. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meet- ing, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303. Beacon Jan. 7 & 14, 2007 16354134 L. PLANNING — NO ACTION Applications of VIRGINIA SUPPORTIVE HOUSING at 964 South Military Highway (DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE) a. Change of Zoning from B-2 Community Business District to A-12 Apartment District b. Conditional Use Permit re a single room occupancy facility This item was deferred by the Planning Commission to their February 14, 2007 meeting. M. PLANNING Application of CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC for the expansion of a Nonconforming Use to enlarge a professional office buildingat 737 Little Neck Road (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL 2. Application of TIMOTHY H. HANKINS for the discontinuance, closure andabandonment of a portion of a 15 -foot wide alleyabutting 849 South Atlantic Avenue re reservation for aCity drainage easement (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application ofM&M CONTRACTORS, INC. for aModification of Condition No. 1 on a Conditional Use Permit(approved by City Council onJuly 3, 2001, amended and approved February 26, 2002, and indefinitely deferred January 31, 2006) at 533 South Lynnhaven Road to allow additional storage space (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL 4. Application of ENTERPRISE RENT -A -CAR for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle rentals at 3680 Holland Road. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. at 6226 Providence Road (DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE) a Change of Zoning District Classi icationfrom B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District b. Conditional Use Permit re a senior housing project Deferred: Recommendation: December 12, 2006 APPROVAL 6. Application of HICKMAN PLANTATION SHOPPES for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-20 Residential District toConditional B-2 Community Business District and R-40 Residential District at General Booth Boulevard and Nimmo Parkway re aetail shopping center and other parcels around the existing historic home. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: INDEFINITE DEFERRAL Ordinance to AMEND Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance, defining the terms: "Alcoholic Beverage" and "Bar orNightclub," requiring Conditional Use Permits, ADDING standards for the consideration ofapplications for Conditional Use Permits, and ESTABLISHING other regulations pertaining to Bars or Nightclubs in the 141, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, B -4C, B -4K, I-1, I-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts. Recommendation: APPROVAL Map TVir inia Supportive Housi Map Not too Scale c "41, I b b. wtj ao4 A-184 f' 37A 0 7 Zoning change from B-2 to A-12 CUP Single Room Occupancy Facility ��+8+ rs� 'i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEMS: (a) Application of Virginia Supportive Housing for a Change of Zoning from B-2 Community Business District to A-12 Apartment District at 964. S Military Highway. (GPIN 1456133354). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE (b) Application of Virginia Supportive Housing for a Conditional Use Permit for a Single Room Occupancy Facility at 964 S. Military Highway. (GPIN 1456133354). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: This package of items, which includes Use Permit and Change of Zoning and Use Permit requests for Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH) to construct a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facility, were advertised for City Council's January 23, 2007 meeting as an attempt to assist VSH in meeting a deadline for a grant necessary to develop this project. Virginia Supportive Housing has been working with a regional task force on homelessness over the past year to secure a location for the construction of a residential facility that can provide affordable, permanent housing for homeless individuals. ■ Considerations: The Planning Commission, at their January 10, 2007 public hearing, did not act on the Change of Zoning and Use Permit requests, due to concerns about what they perceived to be potential negative impacts of a SRO. The Planning Commission deferred action on the Change of Zoning and the Conditional Use Permit applications until the February 14, 2007 hearing, requesting the applicant to provide them with information regarding how the facility will be managed, how residents will be screened for criminal activity, how residents will be monitored, and similar items. ■ Recommendations: Staff requests that this package of items be deferred to City Council's February 27, 2007. ' ■ Attachments: Location Map Virginia Supportive Housing Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Staff recommends deferral to February 27, 2007. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: V-)t-- Clayborn Properties :o acoie om oo� 8 m om m at I � ros W, go, —10 033 aoe a:� 0I8 '09 Om 308 1 CUP - Bulk Storage Yard 0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use on property located at 737 Little Neck Road (GPIN 1488803791). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 Background: The site is zoned R-51) Residential District. The proposed site is considered nonconforming because it is currently used and has been used for an office for many years, predating the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance by Princess Anne County, in 1954. According to records, the site has been used as a dental office since 1966. The applicant proposes to continue that use; however, an enlargement of the building is proposed. Such an enlargement requires action of the City Council, since the use is nonconforming. Considerations: The applicant requests permission to expand the rear of the building, as shown on the submitted site plan. The building exterior will be renovated to better blend with the surrounding residential area, including the addition of dormers to the front of the building. The site will also be updated to current standards, including stormwater control, parking lot improvements, and landscaping as required by City ordinances. Additional parking spaces will be needed due to the increase in floor space. To accommodate the parking, the sign that is currently located on the right side of the building will have to be removed. The applicant intends to replace the sign with a new one to be located in the area between the entrance and exit drives on Little Neck Road. The new sign will be 7 feet long, 2 feet deep, and 5 feet -six inches high, and will be constructed of wood and stone, as shown on the submitted sign elevation. Recommendations: The proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and will be as appropriate to the district as the existing non -conforming use. The proposed addition allows continued use of this site for a professional service needed by the community. The proposed architecture will blend in with the existing structure, and the site will be improved to meet current City development standards. The request, therefore, is acceptable as submitted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The proposed enlargement shall be developed substantially as depicted on the site plan entitled "Concept Plan, Office Expansion for Dr. A. Clayborn Hendricks, D.D.S.," dated September 27, 2006, a copy of which Clayborn Properties, LLC Page 2 of 2 has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The architectural design of the addition to the existing structure shall be substantially as depicted on the submitted elevation drawing entitled "Renovation and New Construction, Clay Hendricks Dentistry, Virginia Beach, Virginia," a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 3. Signage for the site and building shall be limited to a wall sign not to exceed 2 square feet in size and a monument style freestanding sign. The monument style sign shall be as depicted on the submitted elevation drawing entitled, "New Sign for A. Clayborn Properties, 737 Little Neck Road," a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. The monument style sign shall not exceed 7 feet in length, 2 feet in depth, and 5 feet -six inches in height. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Resolution Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: —V 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT OF 2 A NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 737 LITTLE NECK ROAD, IN THE LYNNHAVEN 4 DISTRICT 5 WHEREAS, Clayborn Properties, LLC,(hereinafter the 6 "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for 7 authorization to enlarge a nonconforming office building 8 situated on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address 9 of 737 Little Neck Road, in the R -5D Residential District; and 10 WHEREAS, the said office building is a nonconforming use, 11 as office buildings are not allowed in the R -5D Residential 12 District, but such office building had been constructed prior to 13 the adoption of the current regulations; and 14 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning 15 Ordinance, the enlargement of a nonconforming use is unlawful in 16 the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such 17 action upon a finding that the proposed use, as enlarged, will 18 be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning 19 district than is the existing use; 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 21 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 22 That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed use, 23 as enlarged, will be equally appropriate to the district as is 24 the existing use. 25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 26 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 27 That the proposed enlargement of the Applicant's office 28 building is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 29 1. The proposed enlargement shall be developed 30 substantially as depicted on the site plan entitled "Concept 31 Plan, Office Expansion for Dr. A. Clayborn Hendricks, D.D.S.," 32 dated September 27, 2006, a copy of which has been exhibited to 33 the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department; 34 2. The architectural design of the addition to the 35 existing structure shall be substantially as depicted on the 36 submitted elevation drawing entitled "Renovation and New 37 Construction, Clay Hendricks Dentistry, Virginia Beach, 38 Virginia," a copy of which has been exhibited to the City 39 Council and is on file in the Planning Department; and 40 3. Signage for the site and building shall be limited to 41 a wall sign not to exceed two (2) square feet in size and a 42 monument style freestanding sign. The monument style sign shall 43 be as depicted on the submitted elevation drawing entitled, "New 44 Sign for A. Clayborn Properties, 737 Little Neck Road," a copy 45 of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file 46 in the Planning Department. The monument style sign shall not 47 exceed seven ( 7 ) f eet in length, two ( 2 ) f eet in depth and f ive 48 (5) and one-half (1/2) feet in height. 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 50 Virginia, on the day of January, 2007. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office CA10248 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\DO10\P001\00026188.DOC R-3 January 11, 2007 CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting REQUEST: Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use Map `'`6 S-1,Cla Bron Properties Meo dot to 30E IW �s -10 033 03 00<� aw l •� 006\ �007 X ocz M U0 tB 013 p Op'� R-10 J o� 1 � ~10 ` 1 CUP - Bulk Storage Yard ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: 737 Little Neck Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14888037910000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 14,679.72 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The site is zoned R -5D Residential District. The proposed site is considered nonconforming because it is currently used and has been used for an office for many years, predating the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance by Princess Anne County, in 1954. According to records, the site has been used as a dental office since 1966. The applicant proposes to continue that use; however, an enlargement of the building is proposed. Such an enlargement requires action of the City Council, since the use is nonconforming. The applicant requests permission to enlarge the rear of the building, as shown on the submitted site plan. The building exterior will be renovated to better blend with the surrounding residential area, including the addition of dormers to the front of the building. The site will also be updated to current standards, including stormwater control, parking lot improvements, and landscaping as required by City ordinances. Additional parking spaces will be needed due to the increase in floor space. To accommodate the parking, the sign that is currently located on the right side of the building will have to be removed. The applicant intends to replace the sign with a new one to be located in the area between the entrance and exit drives on Little Neck Road. The new sign will be 7 feet long, 2 feet deep, and 5 feet -six inches high, and will be constructed of wood and stone, as shown on the submitted sign elevation. CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 1 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request. The proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and will be as appropriate to the district as the existing non -conforming use. The proposed addition allows continued use of this site for a professional service needed by the community. The proposed architecture will blend in with the existing structure, and the site will be improved to meet current City development standards. The request, therefore, is acceptable as submitted, subject to the conditions below. CONDITIONS 1. The proposed enlargement shall be developed substantially as depicted on the site plan entitled "Concept Plan, Office Expansion for Dr. A. Clayborn Hendricks, D.D.S.," dated September 27, 2006, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The architectural design of the addition to the existing structure shall be substantially as depicted on the submitted elevation drawing entitled "Renovation and New Construction, Clay Hendricks Dentistry, Virginia Beach, Virginia," a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 3. Signage for the site and building shall be limited to a wall sign not to exceed 2 square feet in size and a monument style freestanding sign. The monument style sign shall be as depicted on the submitted elevation drawing entitled, "New Sign for A. Clayborn Properties, 737 Little Neck Road," a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. The monument style sign shall not exceed 7 feet in length, 2 feet in depth, and 5 feet -six inches in height. 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 and Standards. 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. CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 CI Council Meeting Page 4 a ✓�� i r '� it �� ,5 1 4 � �� .. .., �r ��� �/ a_ �� �` _ �' �x r � �' ; �- i .. d -` Y y 4 I 'I 1' � ; u ®� PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 6 PROPOSED SIGN ELEVATION CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 7 Number Date Description Action 1 4/8/2003 Conditional Use Permit Granted (columbarium) 8/26/2003 Conditional Use Permit Granted (columbarium) 9/23/2003 Conditional Use Permit (day care Granted ZONING HISTORY CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 8 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE 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) Clayborn Properties, LLC Dr. A. Clavton Hendricks - managing member 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOTa 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: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names .of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOTa corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & 2 See next page for footnotes does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes No X f yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 9 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 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 services: (Attach list if necessary) Covington Hendrix Anderson Architects - architectural services Gallup Surveyors & Engineers. Ltd - encaineering and surveying services Troutman Sanders LLP - legal services ' "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 Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. ` "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 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 applicatior has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject propery at least 30 days pnor to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions ir, this package. The undersigned atso consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and vie,v the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application. Applic- t Signlalure i( I j Prope .y e�' i lure (if different than applicant) Ctayborn Properties, LLC BY: A. Clavborn Hendricks Print Name Charles BCharles B. Ham Print Name DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CLAYBORN PROPERTIES, LLC January 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Page 10 ?sf CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing a portion of that certain street known as "PORTION OF ALLEY (UNIMPROVED) TO BE CLOSED BY THE VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL 375 SQ. FT. OR 0.0086 AC." as shown on that certain plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF ALLEY WEST OF LOT 14, BLOCK 14, CROATAN BEACH TO BE CLOSED BY THE VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL,,. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant, Timothy Hankins, requests closure of a portion of a 15 -foot wide alley that exists behind single-family dwellings in the Croatan neighborhood, specifically adjacent to his property at 849 South Atlantic Avenue. Many similar requests have been reviewed and approved by City Council for alleys within the vicinity. ■ Considerations: The Viewers have determined that the proposed closure will not result in a public inconvenience; therefore, they recommend closure of the right-of-way. The Department of Public Works has indicated that there is a funded drainage project that is under design and is scheduled to start construction in FY2008-09. The property in question is the low point in the area and will ultimately contain a drainage inlet. It is recommended that a drainage easement over the closed portion of the alley be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach subject to approval by the Department of Public Works and the City Attorney's Office. All funds generated from closures within the Croatan neighborhood are directed to a Croatan Beach Access account, and ultimately, the funds collected are to be used by the City to purchase additional public accesses to the beach in the Croatan area. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the Viewers recommended closure and there was no opposition. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: Timothy H. Hankins Page 2 of 2 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcel. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat must include the dedication of a drainage easement over the closed portion of the alley to the City of Virginia Beach, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and the City Attorney's Office, which easement shall include a right of reasonable ingress and egress. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not' approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Location Map Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: TIMOTHY H. HANKINS Agenda Item 5 December 13, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Abandonment, discontinuance, and closure of a portion of a 15 foot wide alley in Croatan. Map M-8 Timothv K Hankins 1 S4 a fl o.. R-10 f R-10 R-10 I R' 10 R-10 Camp Pprrdferon '4 Street Closure ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located between lots 4 and 14, Block 14 of Croatan, that abuts 849 South Atlantic Street. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 6 - BEACH 375 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant request closure of a portion of a 15 -foot wide alley that exists behind single-family dwellings in the Croatan neighborhood, specifically adjacent to 849 South Atlantic Avenue. Many similar requests have been reviewed and approved by City Council for alleys within the vicinity. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The portion of the alley proposed for closure is part of an undeveloped alleyway that runs north to south along the entire block between South Maryland Avenue and Lockheed Avenue. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family homes/ R-10 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Single-family homes/ R-10 Residential District East: . Single-family homes / R-10 Residential District West: . Single-family homes / R-10 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The majority of the site is grass. There do not appear to be any TIMOTHY H. HANKINS Agenda Item 5 Page 1 CULTURAL FEATURES: significant environmental features on the property; the site is at a low point that the Public Works Department has indicated will eventually be used to collect stormwater runoff. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES WATER & SEWER: There are no public utilities within the portion of the alley requested for closure. PRIVATE UTILITIES: Virginia Dominion Power, Hampton Roads Sanitation District and Virginia Natural Gas have all indicated that they have no objections to the closure nor do these organizations have facilities within the area proposed for closure. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Evaluation: The Viewers have determined that the proposed closure will not result in a public inconvenience; therefore, they recommend closure of the right-of-way. City Council has adopted a policy aimed at disposing of undeveloped right-of-ways to adjoining property owners in the Croatan community. All funds generated from such closures are directed to a Croatan Beach Access account, and ultimately, the funds collected are to be used by the City to purchase additional public access to the beach in the Croatan area. The Department of Public Works has indicated that there is a funded drainage project that is under design and is scheduled to start construction in FY2008-09. The property in question is the low point in the area and will ultimately contain a drainage inlet. As such, a drainage easement over the entire property for future use as deemed necessary by the City of Virginia Beach is recommended in the conditions below. CONDITIONS 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street TIMOTHY H. HANKINS Agenda Item 5 Page 2 closure approval. Said plat must include a drainage easement over the entire property for future use as deemed necessary by the City of Virginia Beach. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. 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 and Standards. 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. TIMOTHY H. HANKINS Agenda Item 5 Page 3 TIM 21 *41 c r / T'- _. `��\�ry'3 t�. `''`'fir. •:w. � _'�., i. t,•.; -od' a9 bu 773,Y.71N 2 _w» & 29X04X7,w77.7Y-s _! 'OVY01 2 . c , ;�Iy& §+�,k §\k}\ &/ < � � k §@ I � 2!N IL IL �!�¥w ■ Ir /&§ § §w3g2 © /3¥ > . k IL > G) &!§)47 ���m■- ��«�\ -od' a9 bu 773,Y.71N 2 _w» & 29X04X7,w77.7Y-s _! 'OVY01 2 . c , §+�,k &/ < §§ , §@ � ; �) 'o § §§a§ rS�� E o \o= $ �L & 2LL. �o�< SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED TIMOTHY H. HANK NS Agenda Item 5 Page 5 1 02/28/06 STREET CLOSURE Granted 2 09/23/03 STREET CLOSURE Granted 3 10/24/04 STREET CLOSURE Granted 4 08/13/91 STREET CLOSURE Granted ZONING HISTORY TIMOTHY H. HANKINS Agenda Item 5 Page 6 Nlly3onaav Hfisou111mus Z W 2 W Q H W w D w 0 U Al _ w om ooc c =- FmtY'8 m 6 mpp O Q W _ eo n.F EpJUL WF�LL� E cer-b E4e{fla 31.2 a 953_ egg tc�ooe`� o2 cwt n-wZ Em E:3 a c£ BtD Z�o�� ppp p C OO C ° g1 �Eaw� tl _Ae9r° ocmQ c aafvolIEomr�c3 9t,EO{7�=O� m C ill! C. -6-B ji l 7 EQ Szm -c m.0Q a °v=i i. 33Q i 7 �C *+w i N 0 �s OGQ c 021 O ay Im p� a7 n w W4jm=�CT1 we of gic w CPoaro Jmem ui3 BSc a$$EuEoP?PS L .b L q r pp M mL�C � I j5it ` E•q • ��FiMS �Z °W£ gas m ° Qpmo H: DD 0 L?� C o 999 O f i I � P c - 4 ' I E � Q 7 L p 762 L le (iWmW Y. €�f x 140I,Lv,jPIddV fl2IRS0'I� L2jrJULS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TIMOTHY H. HANKINS Agenda Item 5 Page i g E ' I E ai i m I c s � m c - r E o m i i c d i � � � a t i m o is c m t m a j `o n n o m Oa o J tNp -� C1E W� a� o 1z accm j I W, to C Cy���� O n <u >R c mE Q. �° O o nm� mo` ma . o _ LL n 3{ C ? N N W €` P 3i 1 m 3. p a aCao.0 o o c �C a tv z r Go ¢ �E L n Vim' nE a, 0.4 °mN°gym n E.Z m f o0.4 s n�� m mm. m L m o 2 . 0 8 d c c w n q c n m c y=EQn 3 n8.m c ` a'Q 'S o �� a° m o u m J 4 J m U O C J J r i U O O r 0 F C-4 I I X O U. 7 .- '.� N j X €�f x 140I,Lv,jPIddV fl2IRS0'I� L2jrJULS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TIMOTHY H. HANKINS Agenda Item 5 Page Item #5 Timothy H. Hankins Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of a 15 -foot wide alley between Lots 4 and 14, Block 14, Croatan and which abuts 849 South Atlantic Avenue District 6 Beach December 13, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item #5. That is the application of Timothy H. Hankins. It. is for a discontinuance and closure of an abandoned 15 -foot wide alley in Croatan, Beach District. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Again, Ms. Anderson, for the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney. The four conditions, as modified, are acceptable. We did think we were getting an early Christmas present, but the earlier condition said that we didn't have to pay for it. We do appreciate being on the consent agenda. If I could, just take 30 seconds? I like to wish all you Commission members and your families a wonderful holiday season, and a healthy and happy 2007. We will, in 2007, very much miss Ron and John. I thank both of you for your thousand of hours of service to this Commission and BZA over many, many years, and the City has benefited greatly by both of you. Thank YOU. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Jay Bemas will review this application. Jay Bernas: Thank you. This is a proposed street closure in the Beach District in the Croatan Subdivision. It is a 15 -foot wide alley located adjacent to 849 South Atlantic Avenue. City Council has adopted a policy aimed at disposing of undeveloped right-of- ways to adjoining property owners in the Croatan community. This is a similar application to several other street closure applications in this neighborhood that we have approved this year. One thing that is different with this application is that there is a low point in this alleyway. So, the City of Virginia Beach will maintain a drainage easement over this alleyway when a future drainage inlet is installed. But other than that, the Commission recommends this item for approval on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Jay. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to approve the following item on the consent agenda. It is agenda item #5. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Kathy Katsias: Second. Item #5 Timothy H. Hankins Page 2 Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor by Jan Anderson and a second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item #5 for consent. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLRY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE. RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item #5 for consent. 1 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND 2 DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN 3 STREET KNOWN AS "PORTION OF ALLEY 4 (UNIMPROVED) TO BE CLOSED BY THE 5 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL 375 SQ. FT. 6 OR 0.0086 AC." AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN 7 PLAT ENTITLED "PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF 8 ALLEY WEST OF LOT 14, BLOCK 14, CROATAN 9 BEACH TO BE CLOSED BY THE VIRGINIA 10 BEACH CITY COUNCIL" 11 WHEREAS, TIMOTHY H. HANKINS (the "Applicant") applied 12 to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have 13 the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and 14 vacated; and 15 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said 16 street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain 17 conditions having been met on or before one (1) year from City 18 Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the 20 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: 21 GPIN: 2426-37-9657 1 22 SECTION I 23 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, 24 closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on 25 or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this 26 ordinance: 27 All that certain piece or parcel of land 28 situate, lying and being in the City of 29 Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and 30 described "PORTION OF THE ALLEY (UNIMPROVED) 31 TO BE CLOSED BY THE VIRGINIA BEACH CITY 32 COUNCIL 375 SQ. FT. OR 0.0086 AC." shown as 33 the cross -hatched area on that certain plat 34 entitled: "PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF ALLEY, 35 WEST OF LOT 14, BLOCK 14, CROATAN BEACH TO 36 BE CLOSED BY THE VIRGINIA BEACH CITY 37 COUNCIL" Scale: 1" = 20', dated August 14, 38 2006, prepared by WPL, a copy of which is 39 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 40 SECTION II 41 The following conditions must be met on or before one 42 (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 43 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final 44 determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The 45 purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined 46 according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest 47 in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City 48 Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning 49 Department. K 50 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and 51 vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into 52 the adjoining parcel. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted 53 and approved for recordation prior to final street closure 54 approval. Said plat must include the dedication of a drainage 55 easement over the closed portion of the alley to the City of 56 Virginia Beach, subject to the approval of the Department of 57 Public Works and the City Attorney's Office, which easement 58 shall include a right of reasonable ingress and egress. 59 3. The applicant shall verify that no private 60 utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. 61 Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that 62 there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed 63 for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall 64 provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 65 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent 66 upon compliance with the above stated conditions within one (1) 67 year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above 68 are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 69 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this 70 approval will be considered null and void. 71 SECTION III 72 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on 73 or before January 22, 2008, this Ordinance will be deemed null 74 and void without further action by the City Council. 3 75 2. If all conditions are met on or before January 76 22, 2008, the date of final closure is the date the street 77 closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 78 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any 79 interest in the underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee 80 is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that may be 81 requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are 82 approved by the City Attorney's Office. 83 SECTION IV 84 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in 85 the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia 86 Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA 87 BEACH as "Grantor" and TIMOTHY H. HANKINS as "Grantee." 88 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 89 Virginia, on this day of CA -10121 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycotni2\Wpdocs\D010\P001 \00021640.DOC R-1 January 8, 2007 4 2007. • •••• :19 • •• APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ta" fti4w City Attorney Exhibit A (ZSL6-L£-9Z.+Z •Nldo) (Lf 'Jd 't*Z -6-N) O Yl 379VOOA 3& 773,fO/N •9 N,(YHI Vy J1 379b'OOA3,l 773NO/N 'd S37YVgo i'l -,f79 Sl -107 21" W , 09'LOl 3 „9P, 9*.99 N W -- rT o js Y o 100,001 N O I J N o V a z AWN 100,001 Q O m ,09'LOl M „9Y,SY.SB S W O Z U V77 a O C kj0� J �I�j�0 LQ gs m O L 4 O Um• NIA Z c Q O ! p �� Q x Q- ccLL H Z r 3 Z ci �mZCl. rL n W z Jo �fj�'oNN JmW w o> m O J 3. � m _ �. m LL .a: 0— z i r �o a aE :+ W Q_UOU c ai >m (n a a a 6m O i CM co m J rU= \ v y Z � m anis _V ?HWU 1 OmQ o yol��' N cW J W o v t co d ,,,,a o '3 J O U.. Om } n N >�� CJ =01Q tin'a� c vQ co _ Q co >c0c r oN o --LWW� o °' U JJJ n �' y N !� a 0. � m � •O ••- -26 - Item V-1.4. PLANNING ITEM # 48398 (Continued) 8. No building permit shall be issued without evidence of permission from the United States Army Corps of Engineers to impact the non -tidal wetlands depicted on the concept plan. 9. No building permit to construct this mini -warehouse facility shall be issued until the billboard identified on the conceptual plan is removed in its entirety. 10. All fencing visible from either a public right-of-way orfrom the adjacent single-family subdivision to the west shall be wrought iron -style. No barbed wire, razor wire or any other fencing devices shall be installed on the roof or walls of the building or on the fence on the property. 11. No storage of flammable or hazardous materials shall be stored in any unit. 12. There shall be no electric or diesel power generator or generator fueled by any other source of energy located outside of any building. 13. There shall be an on-site resident manager at all times, 24 hours a day. 14. Drive aisles shall be at least 18 feet wide to accommodate emergency apparatus. 15.No on-site business shall be conducted such as automobile repair or storage, cabinet shops or similartypes of hazardous operations. 16. The units shall be used only for the storage of goods. The units shall not be used for office purposes, band rehearsals, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. No public assembly or continuous occupancy of the units shall be permitted. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Third of July, Two Thousand One Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 3, 2001 -25 - PLANNING ITEM # 48398 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of M & M CONTRACTORS, INC, for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF M & M CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R07013060 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of M & M Contractors, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit for mini-warehouse/self-storage facility on certain property located on the west side of South Lynnhaven Road, 400 feet more or less south of Lee Highlands Boulevard (GPIN #1496-27-1368). Siad parcel contains 5.08 acres. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL The following conditions shall be required: 1. When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout Plan for Morton Realty Property Self -Storage Facility," prepared by MSA, Inc., dated 510-01. 2. The architectural design elements and exterior building materials shall be substantially in conformance with those depicted on the elevation entitled, "Proposed Street Elevation, Morton Realty Property, Self Storage Facility," prepared by Sampson and Associates Architects, P.C., dated 5-21-01. 3. The foundation landscaping for the units with frontage along South Lynnhaven Road shall be installed as Category 1 as described in the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards Manual. An undulating 10 -foot wide landscape area shall also be installed along South Lynnhaven Road from the southeast property line to the proposed entrance. A mix of trees and shrubs shall be installed within this area and may be grouped or massed to provide visual interest as well as additional screening along the street frontage. 4. Any freestanding sign shall be monument style with a brick base that matches the brick depicted on building elevation. Such sign shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet and shall be externally lit from ground level. There shall be no business identification signage on the walls or roof of the building. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and residential in character and shall not be erected any higher than fourteen (14) feet. According to Section 237 of the City Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the mini warehouse facility. Said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded and focused away from all adjoining properties. 6. The entrance into the facility shall align with the existing Sabre Street extension located on the east side of South Lynnhaven Road. 7. Noland disturbance shall occur within the 100 foot Resource Protection Area buffer. July 3, 2001 -42 - PLANNING ITEM # 49347 Michael Perry, Planner, represented the applicant and advised the buffer has been satisfactorily addressed. Upon motion by Council Lady McClanan, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council MODIFIED, AS CONDITIONED, the July 3, 2001, approved Conditional Use Permit for a mini- warehouse/self-storage in behalf of M & M CONTRACTORS, INC.: Ordinance upon Application of M & M Contractors, Inc., for a modification of conditions placed on the Conditional Use Permit for mini-warehouse/self-storage facility on July 3, 2001. Property is located on the west side of South Lynnhaven Road, 400 feet more or less south of Lee Highlands Boulevard (GPIN #1496-27-1368). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL. The following conditions shall be required: 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 2 and Number 13 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on July 3, 2001 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 2 of the July 3, 2001 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The architectural design elements and exterior building materials shall be substantially in conformance with those depicted on the elevation entitled "Proposed Detail Elevations, Morton Realty Property, Self Storage Facility," prepared by Sampson and Associates Architects, P.C., dated November 21, 2001, 3. An office manager shall be on-site during flexible hours of operation with the site accessible for customer use. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 26. 2002 Item V -K.2. PLANNING WRE ITEM # 54860 Michael Goldmeier, 300 Southport Circle, Suite 103, hone: 671-1710, representing M& MContractors and Wyoming Associates, advised any concerns would be addressed. Attorney R E. Bourdon, representing the Michael D. Sifen Corporation, expressed concerns as to the appearance of the application. The conditions have not all been met. Sifen Corporation developed the Sabre Corporate Park across the street from M & MContractors, Inc. Correspondence expressing concerns was distributed and is hereby made apart of the record. Upon motion by Council Lady McClanan, seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELYApplication of M & M CONTRACTORS, INC. for Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICATION OF M&M CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR A MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordinance upon Application of M&M Contractors, Inc. for a Modi ication of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on February 26, 2002. Property is located at 533 South Lynnhaven Road (GPIN 14962713680000). DISTRICT 3 —ROSE HALL Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None January 31, 2006 Map H-8 EMMI"MM"I U. A,4Fc-pA4 t n-trnrtnrc T",r EM£NMA SCHOOL Mnrfifiratinn of C'nnrlitinnc Q Dp Do I �_ ,m- 0 U U U U O o 1\C� OS —`u �o 3 EM£NMA SCHOOL Mnrfifiratinn of C'nnrlitinnc Q Dp Do I �_ ,m- 0 U U U U O o 1\C� OS —`u a EM£NMA SCHOOL Mnrfifiratinn of C'nnrlitinnc Q Dp Do I �_ ,m- 0 U U U U O o 1\C� OS —`u lu. sy C r CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of M&M Contractors, Inc. for a Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on February 26, 2002. Property is located at 533 South Lynnhaven Road (GPIN 14962713680000). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL. MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: On January 31, 2006, the City Council indefinitely deferred this request to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the exterior elevation of the existing mini - warehouse units, which did not, at that time, meet the conditions of the 2002 Use Permit. Since that time, staff has worked with the applicant to rectify this issue. The applicant has made changes to the exterior of the existing units to bring them into compliance with the conditions of the Use Permit. Thus, the applicant requested that this Modification of Conditions application be returned to the City Council for their consideration. ■ Considerations: The applicant is requesting a Modification to the Conditional Use Permit for a mini -warehouse facility, as approved on July 3, 2001 and as modified on February 26, 2002. The request is to allow an additional 4,225 square feet of additional storage space to the north of the existing facility. The construction of the addition necessitates a change in Condition 1 of the original Use Permit, as it tied the Use Permit to a site plan that did not show such an addition. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the applicant has worked with staff to resolve outstanding issues over the fagade of the building, they found the expansion to be appropriate for this location, and staff recommended favorably. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: All conditions of the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on July 3, 2001, with the exception of Condition Number 1, and all conditions of the Modification of Conditions granted by the City Council on February 22, 2002, shall remain in affect. Condition Number 1 of the July 3, 2001, M&M Contractors, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Wyoming Mini Storage, South Lynnhaven Road, Virginia Beach, VA," prepared by MSA, Inc., dated 9-7-04. 2. The architectural design elements and exterior building materials shall be substantially in conformance with those depicted on the elevation entitled "Proposed Detail Elevations, Morton Realty Property, Self Storage Facility," prepared by Sampson and Associates Architects, P.C., dated November 21, 2001, with one exception: the use of Nichiha fiber cement Brestone — Forest Brown shall be substituted in lieu of the previously required brick on the block fagade facing South Lynnhaven Road and any other block fagade visible from South Lynnhaven Road. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes - Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: S Planning o�Department " M&M CONTRACTORS, INC. Agenda Item #41 December 14, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith Nu, H-1 M&M Contractors Inc. ter----�- © B �0 00 a , cr r - B;2 REQUEST: Modification of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on February 26, 2002 for a mini storage facility. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 533 South Lynnhaven Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14962713680000 3 - ROSE HALL 5.08 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST At the September 14, 2005 Planning Commission Public Hearing, the applicant was instructed to install the new fiberboard panels on the facade of the buildings facing South Lynnhaven Parkway. As of the printing of this report on December 1, 2005, the majority of the work has been done. Staff met with the applicant on site and discussed trim possibilities and a solution of prefinished metal corner trim, satisfactory to Staff, will be installed. Photos of the retrofitted facade will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting on December 14, 2005. The applicant's request for a Modification to the Conditional Use Permit, as submitted for consideration in September, is twofold: (1) Condition 2 of the 2002 approval ties down the architectural elevations; however, during construction of the structures, building materials different from those required were used. Thus, the applicant is requesting that a change to the original architectural elevations be considered. (2) Condition 1 of the 2001 approval dictates the layout of the facility. The applicant proposes to add approximately 4,225 square feet of additional storage space, necessitating a change in Condition 1. The Conditional Use Permit permitting a mini -storage facility was approved by the City Council originally on July 3, 2001 and then modified by City Council on February 26, 2002. The modification approved in 2002 removed the condition regarding the hours of operation and the requirement for a full-time resident M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 1 manager. The 2002 conditions include the alteration of the architectural design of the office due to the elimination of the manager's apartment (from a two-story to a one-story building). The Conditional Use Permit oermittina the self-storaae facilitv was aooroved by the Citv Council on Julv 3 2001 with 16 conditions: 1. When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Morton Realty Property Self -Storage Facility," prepared by MSA, Inc., dated 5-10-01. 2. The architectural design elements and exterior building materials shall be substantially in conformance with those depicted on the elevation entitled "Proposed Street Elevation, Morton Realty Property, Self Storage Facility, " prepared by Sampson and Associates Architects, P.C., dated 5-21-01. 3. The foundation landscaping for the units with frontage along South Lynnhaven Road shall be installed as Category I as described in the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards manual. An undulating 10 foot wide landscape area shall also be installed along South Lynnhaven Road from the southeast property line to the proposed entrance. A mix of trees and shrubs shall be installed within this area and may be grouped or massed to provide visual interest as well as additional screening along the street frontage. 4. Any freestanding sign shall be monument style with a brick base that matches the brick depicted on building elevation. Such sign shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet and shall be externally lit from ground level. There shall be no business identification signage on the walls or roof of the building. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and residential in character and shall not be erected any higher than fourteen (14) feet. According to Section 237 of the City Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the mini warehouse facility. Said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded and focused away from all adjoining properties. 6. The entrance into the facility shall align with the existing Sabre Street extension located on the east side of South Lynnhaven Road. 7. No land disturbance shall occur within the 100 foot Resource Protection Area buffer. 8. No building permit shall be issued without evidence of permission from the United States Army Corps of Engineers to impact the non -tidal wetlands depicted on the concept plan. 9. No building permit to construct this mini warehouse facility shall be issued until the billboard identified on the conceptual plan is removed in its entirety. 10. All fencing visible from either a public right-of-way or from the adjacent single-family subdivision to the west shall be wrought iron -style. No barbed wire, razor wire or any other fencing devices shall be installed on the roof or walls of the building or on the fence on the property. 11. No storage of flammable or hazardous materials shall be stored in any unit. 12. There shall be no electric or diesel power generator or generator fueled by any other source of energy located outside of any building. M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page -2 13. There shall be an on-site resident manager at all times, 24 hours a day. 14. Drive aisles shall be at least 18 feet wide to accommodate emergency apparatus. 15. No on-site business shall be conducted such as automobile repair or storage, cabinet shops or similar types of hazardous operations. 16. The units shall be used only for the storage of goods. The units shall not be used for office purposes, band rehearsals, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. No public assembly or continuous occupancy of the units shall be permitted. The Modified Conditional Use Permit approved in 2002 has the following conditions: 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 2 and Number 13 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on July 3, 2001 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 2 of the July 3, 2001 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The architectural design elements and exterior building materials shall be substantially in conformance with those depicted on the elevation entitled "Proposed Detail Elevations, Morton Realty Property, Self Storage Facility, " prepared by Sampson and Associates Architects, P.C., dated November 21, 2001. 3. Condition Number 13 of the July 3, 2001 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: An office manager shall be on-site during all hours of operation when the site is accessible for customer use. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Mini -storage facility. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Vacant parcel / B-2 Community Business District USE AND ZONING: South: . Brookwood Elementary School / B-2 Community Business District East: . South Lynnhaven Road, office / B-2 Community Business District, 1-1 Light Industrial District West: . Single-family homes / R-7.5 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND This property is located within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and CULTURAL FEATURES: portions are within the Resource Protection Area, the most stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. The original proposal did displace approximately 0.17 acres of nontidal wetlands. The applicant worked with the United States Army Corps of Engineers prior to land disturbance associated with the existing mini M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 3 storage facility. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): South Lynnhaven Road is a four (4) lane urban arterial. No improvements are proposed within the City's MTP for this roadway. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic South Lynnhaven 21,160 ADT 14,800 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Road Service "C") — 22,800 ADT 141 ADT (Level of Service "D") Proposed Land Use s - 151 ' Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 56,300 sf of mini warehouse s as defined by 60,500 sf of mini warehouse WATER & SEWER: This site is connected to City water but no City sanitary sewer is available. This site is located in a Primary Residential Area. The COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Comprehensive Plan Policy document reinforces the suburban characteristics of commercial centers and other non-residential areas for this area. The Plan stated that: "Limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods may be considered acceptable uses on the edge of established neighborhoods provided effective measures are taken to ensure compatibility and non-proliferation of such activities (page 91)." EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request for an expansion to the existing mini -storage facility and for the modification of the approved facade facing South Lynnhaven Road. At the November Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission advised the applicant that the proposal for the expansion of the facility would not be considered until the retrofit is completed. There was concern of how the corners would be trimmed out. A solution, acceptable to Staff, was found after meeting with the applicant on site. The corners will be trimmed with a prefinished metal trim piece. The applicant, at the time of printing, was approximately 90 percent complete with this retrofit. A report of the status of the completion of the work, as directed by the Planning Commission, will be provided at the December 14, 2005 meeting, along with slides and photos of the work. M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 4 During the original review of this Use Permit in 2001, Staff was reluctant to recommend favorably for the mini -storage facility, as the use did not appear consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the configuration of the property and the presence of environmental features contributed to the difficulty the landowner had in marketing this site for an office or retail operation. Understanding the owner's dilemma, Staff worked diligently with the applicant's representative to ensure that the architectural design and materials would be of high quality as the visual impact of this operation would be great. The architectural design, site layout and building materials combined with the exceptional landscape plan were deemed to overcome any negative visual impact that a facility of this type could cause. Upon completion of negotiations with the applicant's architect and landscape architect and engineer, Staff felt confident that the proposal would be superior. Unfortunately, at some point during the construction phase, the primary exterior building material of the fagade was substituted with a blue cementious masonry unit (CMU) block for what was supposed to be a neutral color brick that would match the existing elementary school adjacent to this site. The Zoning Inspector notified the property owner of the discrepancy and attempted to resolve the issue; however, the owner indicated that he was unaware of such a requirement. Since that time, Staff has worked with the applicant and a solution has been found. The applicant is proposing and has almost completed the retrofit of adding fiber cement panels to the facade where brick was originally proposed. These panels resemble brick and have been installed over the concrete masonry units. It is Staffs opinion that this is an acceptable resolution and recommends approving the request. The applicant has agreed to retrofit the facades visible from South Lynnhaven Road. As stated above, the status of this work will be reported to the Commission at the December meeting. Listed below are recommended conditions of approval for the Modification of the Use Permit for the alteration of Condition 1, allowing the expansion of the facility. CONDITIONS 1. All conditions of the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on July 3, 2001, with the exception of Condition Number 1, and all conditions of the Modification of Conditions granted by the City Council on February 22, 2002, shall remain in affect. Condition Number 1 of the July 3, 2001, Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled, "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Wyoming Mini Storage, South Lynnhaven Road, Virginia Beach, VA," prepared by MSA, Inc., dated 9-7-04. 2. The architectural design elements and exterior building materials shall be substantially in conformance with those depicted on the elevation entitled "Proposed Detail Elevations, Morton Realty Property, Self Storage Facility, " prepared by Sampson and Associates Architects, P.C., dated November 21, 2001, with one exception: the use of Nichiha fiber cement Brestone — Forest Brown shall be substituted in lieu of the previously required brick on the block facade facing South Lynnhaven Road and any other block fagade facing South Lynnhaven Road. M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 5 NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City 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. M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 6 I -- D O Q J W F- LU W Q M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 7 _O 0) Z Qa. LLQ W = � J c) D `0 a / W Y� LLI 'r V, M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 8 ! r • \ � i r a !1 y\\ 1 f. t i J i YI 1 it S r 1 Z t1 •4 rb 1 f" a h Y r • _O 0) Z Qa. LLQ W = � J c) D `0 a / W Y� LLI 'r V, M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 8 Bayscape Buffer Planting: -winged Euonymus -Parsons juniper -Uriope -Mulched Bed Foundation Landscaping:- -Camelia ". z Decorative Fence, Typ.---/ ...... . .... Existing Trees To Be Removed (3) Replacement Trees(3): ---- Buffer Restoration Planting: -Groundcover -Herbaceous Plants -Shrubs -Mulched Bed Existing Trees to Remain, Typ. 0MCE 4 I M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 9 z O Q LU J LU O z 0 J_ m W > O w G. a. Q M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item '# 41 Page 10 1 6 3 4 5 6 7 Map H-8 Not to Sr &M I-1 Inc. M & M CONTRACTORS Agenda Item # 41 Page 11 '0 yI 2 0 Z Z N F ,z W 2 w f" U) W U) u U) 13 15 `l G^ 3 G G5 J > r fJ 'J a C O L1 Y. Q n r � '"-4 ff n v v T 4ZZ N cw j d> O O r c 2� zs c 76 6,5 f G^ 3 G G5 J > r fJ 'J a C O L1 Y. Q r � '"-4 ff T 4ZZ f Y. J T 4ZZ o c 2� c 4 r NOIJ,V�I'IddV EMU �SRWNO[1.IQN03 M & M CONTRACTORS AgendaItem# 41 Page 12 w Item #41 M & M Construction, Inc. Modification of Conditions 533 South Lynnhaven Road District 3 Rose Hall December 14, 2005 CONSENT William Din: My last item is Item #41. This is M & M Contractors, Inc. This is an application for a Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit that was previously approved by the City Council on February 26, 2002. The property is located at 533 South Lynnhaven Road in the Rose Hall District and there are two conditions there. Michael Goldmeier: Hi. Michael Goldmeier, President of M&M Contractors and also part owner of Wyoming Associates, the owners of the mini -storage and we accept all the conditions. William Din: Thank you. Michael Goldmeier: Thank you and thank the staff for their help. William Din: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you for doing the work on the building. William Din: Is there any objection to placing this item on the consent agenda? If not, Mr. Barry Knight will explain this item. Barry Knight: Yes. This is an agenda item that has come before us before. We requested the contractors and the owners and the applicant to meet a preexisting condition that was put on the original Conditional Use Permit, which is put up a brick fagade and paint and some earth tones on the building. They have since done that so now we're placing this on the consent agenda and recommend that it be approved. William Din: Thank you Barry. I'd like to make a motion to approve the following consent agenda item. Item #41 is M&M Contractors, Inc. This is a request to modify conditions on a Conditional Use Permit previously approved by City Council. This is on property located on 533 South Lynnhaven Road in the Rose Hall District with two conditions. Donald Horsley: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: A motion by Mr. Din and a second by Mr. Horsley. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item #41. My firm is working on that project. Item #41 M & M Construction, Inc. Page 2 Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. AYE 9 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ABS ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved Item #41 for consent. William Din: Thank you Mr. Weeden. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Item #16 M & M Contractors, Inc. Modification of Conditions 533 South Lynnhaven Road District 3 Rose Hall November 9, 2005 REGULAR Dorothy Wood: Mr. Strange, would you please call our item that is to be heard today? Joseph Strange: The item to be heard today is Item #16, M & M Contractors, Inc. An Ordinance upon Application of M & M Contractors, Inc. for a Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on February 26, 2002. Property is located at 533 South Lynnhaven Road, District 3, Rose Hall with three conditions. Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone here representing M & M? Michael Goldmeier: Good afternoon. I'm Michael Goldmeier, President of M & M Contractors. I also represent a portion of the ownership of the mini -storage. I have read the conditions and we have been working very hard with staff to solve the problems we have and I think we're well on the way to doing that right now. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: When you do anticipate having the fagade completed on the building? Michael Goldmeier: I would say about 80-85 percent complete basically within the next two weeks. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions? I believe we have someone in opposition. Please, if you don't mind. Joseph Strange: We have one person speaking in opposition, Eddie Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Madame Chair and members of the Board. I don't generally don't like to be in this position but I hope you all will listen and I'm sure you will and take heed. My client, Mr. Sifen purchased a large track of land that is across South Lynnhaven Road from this property located behind Wal-Mart and behind the strip shopping center on the north side of the mall. That piece of property has, when he bought it, had Navy restricted easements. AICUZ easements they acquired the right way to do things. Mr. Sifen designed and has developed the highest quality development that piece of property under those restrictions could possibly have. He's been provided design awards from this Planning Commission for the beautiful office buildings he has constructed there. He's in the process of developing a Navy Federal Credit Union Branch on the corner of Sabre Street and South Lynnhaven at this very time. When this application first came up for rezoning a number of years ago, we were a little skeptical and my client was a little bit skeptical about this land use across from where he is trying to develop property to its highest use. Not just putting industrial uses on there, which he could clearly have done and next to a couple of schools where this property is located. However, after going through the process and meeting with Stephen White and spending a lot of time with this application it was designed in a way that we were comfortable that it was going to be of the highest quality. In explicably, this developer went in and built something that didn't comply with those proffers and certainly was not of the highest quality appearance. We now have been through this yo-yo process of coming before the Planning Commission. This is like the fourth time where this applicant has been trying to expand this facility. The last meeting, I thought it was made very, very clear to the applicant or his representative that before this body was going to pass this on to the City Council the problem was going to be corrected. And up to about a week ago, nothing had been done. Now in the course of about the last week or so, some brick panels have been basically sealed to the side of the building and it has not been completed. And, I would ask you all if this fact pattern were present across the street from Town Center or across the street from Corporate Landing, would you all just simply pass it on? Oh, well, there going to get it done. It's going to look better than it does look. We'll trust that they're going to get it done. I don't think you would. I think you would make sure that it was done and it was done right before it got passed on. And that is the way we feel about it. We have a significant investment across the street. We don't appreciate the lack of compliance that has been present here. They should finish the job and we would see what it looks like. We would see how good it was going to be cornered. We're going to see that the blue underneath is going to be gone. Maybe, it's okay. But I don't see giving them a benefit of anything. They had plenty of time to straighten this problem out and they still haven't straighten it out so, we would suggest that it needs to be deferred yet again until they get it right. Thank you very much. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Would you like to come back and respond sir? Michael Goldmeier: Yes. I think the gentleman already asked us about our time frame. I just also wanted to say that we also have a major investment across the street. We're building our own office building across the street from the mini -storage office. William Din: Mr. Goldmeier? Michael Goldmeier: Yes. William Din: I guess there has been some question as to how you're going to finish your panels and the side, and the corner and the bottom pieces that are not covered by your brick fagade. Can you go through that? Michael Goldmeier: A little bit. Yes sir. Just one second. Basically, it will be, as I like to call window framed when they are done, which is compatible with the color of the materials above and the panels in between the panels. You had a picture of up there earlier. You cannot put this material right down to the base. So will paint that material, which is hidden about 95 percent landscaping at this point right now. At this time, we have not gone around the corners just because we haven't completed that work yet. Dorothy Wood: What would be on the corners? I believe is the question. Michael Goldmeier: This is what is on the corners. Dorothy Wood: The vinyl? Michael Goldmeier: Yes. That is suggested. Dorothy Wood: That was the problem this morning. William Din: So what you're saying is that the blue pieces that are sticking. Michael Goldmeier: You will not see any blue anymore. William Din: The corners are going to be covered by the vinyl portion all the way down to the bottom? Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. William Din: It's going to be painted at the bottom? Michael Goldmeier: Right. William Din: Behind the landscaping? Michael Goldmeier: Right. William Din: And you anticipate that being finished when again? Michael Goldmeier: In about the next two weeks weather permitting. William Din: Two weeks? Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. The reason why we didn't get the panels until last Tuesday or Wednesday and they have been working, and as a matter of fact they worked Saturday and Sunday to try to get as much done. I didn't schedule this meeting. I got a note that said the meeting was scheduled for this day. In trying to accelerate everything that we have done so that is why we tried to get to this point. If anybody wanted to go out there they could see for themselves. William Din: This item has been postponed several meetings now because of this issue. Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. William Din: Were you aware of that before? Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. William Din: It was just an issue of? Michael Goldmeier: Just trying to solve the problem right to get it right the next time we did it right. Dorothy Wood: I think this morning the comments were that it was supposed to have had the brick on it to start with and it wasn't. You built it Mr. Goldmeier and if someone else did. I wonder why that didn't happen when it was originally built. Michael Goldmeier: It's a good question and I'm not sure through some architectural trends things happen. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Waller. John Waller: How do those panels secure to the masonry? Michael Goldmeier: They are clipped. John Waller: What do you mean clipped? Michael Goldmeier: There is a clip that goes up here and the next piece goes and fits right over it. John Waller: May I see that? Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. John Waller: I want to see that. Dorothy Wood: Do you have a comment Mr. Waller? John Waller: I just wanted to see it. It doesn't look very substantial. Michael Goldmeier: This isn't what holds this to the wall. John Waller: Pardon? Michael Goldmeier: This is not what holds this to the wall. It's a steel clip that holds this to the wall. This is just a piece of trim. John Waller: There is a clip at the top and at the bottom. Michael Goldmeier: These panels come 18" tall and 6' long. There is a clip about every two feet. It hooks right on top of this piece and the next panel fits right over it. If you can see how it is grooved there. They are all shipped lapped all four sides. It has a 50 year guarantee life. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: The corners could have been a brick corner to match this, could it not? Why did you not do this? Why did you choose this material? Michael Goldmeier: We haven't done the corners yet. This was a solution that the manufacturer has. Ronald Ripley: Will the corners stick out farther than the edge of the next plane to the wall? Michael Goldmeier: No sir. Ronald Ripley: On this application it wouldn't but I'm asking. What's this material called? Michael Goldmeier: It's a cement fiber board. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Will this cement fiber board if the corner was a brick, would that look odd on the ends or would it look right or what? This is where I'm coming from. I think it would be good if Planning could look at that and make some decision as to what fits best and doesn't look best. You can reach a mutual agreement. Michael Goldmeier: That is what we have been trying to do that. We haven't addressed the corners yet. We haven't done the corners yet. That is one of the reasons why it hasn't been done yet. Ronald Ripley: I could envision it. I'd rather see a brick corner but it may not work right to what you're trying to do because you're only putting the brick on the face aren't you? Michael Goldmeier: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: You're not wrapping it? Michael Goldmeier: Only on the very sides because we have metal in between the panels. Ronald Ripley: But your not wrapping this cement? Michael Goldmeier: We have about an 8" return. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You're not wrapping that? Michael Goldmeier: We can. Ronald Ripley: If you wrap that and you did the corner in brick it would look very good. I think Mr. Scott needs to be involved and his staff in making some decisions what they like or don't like. Robert Scott: Okay. Sure. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Miller has the next question. Robert Miller: I have to abstain. Mr. Goldmeier is a client and an excellent man. I want to make a couple of statements because it's important for you to understand within the history of this what has happened. It's an absolute statement about the quality of this man and his father also. But we tried months and months ago and I'm sure how long but probably 6 — 8 months ago to come to a resolution when this became very, very critical and making sure we got it done right. And I was told to talk to Mrs. McClanan, which I proceeded to try to do. And Mrs. McClanan and I have seen each other socially probably four times since then but have never been able to talk on the phone for whatever reasons. And I'm not giving you an excuse. Some of you know that I may not be the easiest person to get a hold of but I think I tried. She is very respectful of Mr. Goldmeier's efforts. I just want to make a statement that this delay is not something that he intended. Much of it came from trying to make sure that I talked to her prior to being able to tell him this would be okay or not okay. Then obviously he has to work with staff. So, it's not fair to sit here and criticize him. Part of this is my fault so you can criticize me. Dorothy Wood: I think Mr. Goldmeier was really telling us that he did not ask to come today. He probably rather have it fixed and I don't know how he happened to end up on our agenda today. But I think that Mr. Goldmeier would probably wait and have it finished and then come. Eugene Crabtree: I live in back of the property and I have also tried to discuss this and haven't been able to but since we've drawn this out for so long. Bob, if we were to send this on, how long would it be before this gets to City Council? Robert Scott: Approximately 30 days. Eugene Crabtree: So I ask you. Will this project be completed before this would reach City Council regardless of how you and the Planning Department get together to do this? Michael Goldmeier: Right. Eugene Crabtree: Before this item would come to City Council it will be completed? Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. Are you talking about in 30 days? Eugene Crabtree: With Planning Department's approval? Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. John Waller: I got one more question. I'm still trying to work that corner with the plastic node. Michael Goldmeier: Yes sir. John Waller: It looks mighty fragile. Do they have a more substantial comer that you can put on? Michael Goldmeier: The manufacturer doesn't but I believe part of the comments were to try to work with the Planning Department to come up with perhaps a better solution than what we have come up with at this moment. And we will diligently pursue that. John Waller: If you're pursuing the direction that you're going you'll end up with that. Michael Goldmeier: I don't propose to do anything that I think that I'm going to have any conflict. That would be against my better judgment. And the concern that everyone on this panel has and I'm sure that City Council has the same concerns. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Knight did you have anything? Barry Knight: Not yet. Dorothy Wood: Someone over there? Joseph Strange: Well, I'm ready to make a motion to have it deferred until they finish this. It's being going on and on and on for so long. Dorothy Wood: I think that Mr. Goldmeier would probably feel the same way. John Waller: I'll second the motion. Eugene Crabtree: I would prefer to approve it to send it on to City Council with the stipulation that it has to be completed prior to reaching City Council and that way we don't have to deal with it again. Dorothy Wood: Is that a substitute motion? Eugene Crabtree: Yes ma'am. I'd like to make that as a substitute motion. Dorothy Wood: Is there a second to his substitute motion? Kay, help me out with this one. Kay Wilson: It fails for a lack of a second. Dorothy Wood: Okay. I guess we'll vote on the original motion? Would you like to restate the motion please? Joseph Strange: I make a motion that we defer this item until the building is completed. Ed Weeden: Does Mr. Waller still second that? Dorothy Wood: Yes he did? You still second that sir? John Waller: Yes. Ed Weeden: Mr. Miller abstained correct? Dorothy Wood: Yes. Mr. Miller abstained. AYE S ANDERSON CRABTREE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 1 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 NAY ABS ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-1-1, with the abstention so noted, the application of M & M Contractors, Inc. has been deferred. Dorothy Wood: Meeting adjourned. 1z__ !, n T • Irl4k I /%r CUP for Motor Vehicle Rental CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals on property located at 3680 Holland Road (GPIN 1486543888). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant is proposing to operate a motor vehicle rental establishment in an existing building, previously used for motor vehicle repair, on a developed site. ■ Considerations: The applicant proposes to rent no more than ten automobiles at any one time. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, Saturday 9:00 am to 12:00 pm. The business will not be open on Sunday. A maximum of 4 full-time and 2 part-time employees will be working at any one time. "Light washing" of the automobiles will be done on the paved surface in the rear of the building. Vacuuming will occur in the service bays. Currently, there are 16 parking spaces on site, leaving ample parking for employees and prospective customers. The existing building on the site will be renovated to reflect the Enterprise corporate colors and image. The colors are earth -tones and are an improvement over the distracting color scheme used on the existing building. The operation of the motor vehicle rental is acceptable, as the site is separated from the neighborhood to the north by Alabama Avenue, which is a 50 -foot wide undeveloped right-of-way and is actually classified as a park on the recorded plat. Since the neighborhood is buffered by this right-of-way, and since the use is located on the edge of an established neighborhood, it is in keeping with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to commercial uses in the Primary Residential Area. Additionally, the preexisting use of the property was an auto repair facility with direct access on Holland Road. The change of use from auto repair to auto rental provides a less intensive use, and thus, a lessened impact to the adjacent community. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt it is an appropriate use for the site and there was no one in opposition. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Page 2 of 2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 am until 6:00 pm, Saturday, 9:00 am until 12:00 pm. 2. The vehicles shall be parked and cleaned in designated areas on site. 3. There shall be no panel trucks, utility type trailers or moving type trucks available for rent at this site. 4. There shall be no vehicle repair performed on this site. There shall be no storage of inoperable, wrecked or dismantled vehicles on this site. 5. There shall be no signs placed within the windows or on the doors. There shall be no pennants, banners, streamers or portable signs placed on the site or on the vehicles. 6. The proposed building elevation shall be in substantial adherence with the submitted rendering. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager. !L ENTERPRISE RENT - A -CAR Agenda Item 1 December 13, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Jeff Manuel REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rental ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: 3680 Holland Road GPIN: 1486543888 \T��� asr��a� �:,�Oa: _=��9sc'i' ��i.•— '� �r� �= � S= r7fY7 /. �.. ■Y V ■ COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 3 — ROSE HALL 20,608 square feet The applicant is proposing to operate a motor vehicle rental SUMMARY OF REQUEST establishment in an existing building on a developed site. The applicant proposes to rent no more than 10 automobiles at any one time. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, Saturday 9:00 am to 12:00 pm. The business will not be open on Sunday. A maximum of 4 full-time and 2 part-time employees will be working at any one time. "Light washing" of the automobiles will be done on the paved surface in the rear of the building. Vacuuming may occur in the service bays. Currently, there are 16 parking spaces on site, leaving ample parking for employees and prospective customers. The amount of projected traffic is not anticipated to negatively impact the area. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Developed site with a vacant structure that previously contained an auto repair facility. SURROUNDING LAND North: • Townhouse Dwellings / A-12 USE AND ZONING: South: • Bank / B-2 Community Business District East: • Auto Repair/ B-2 Community Business District West: • Auto Repair/ B-2 Community Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no significant environmental resources on the site, as it is CULTURAL FEATURES: developed and almost entirely impervious. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)• Holland Road is a four -lane divided major suburban arterial. It is shown on the Master Transportation Plan as a 130 -foot wide right-of-way. A CIP project (2-008) for improvement of the roadway is in the "Requested but not Funded" category. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Holland Road 31,898 ADT 34,900 (Level of Service Existing Land Use — 0 "D") ADT Proposed Land Use 3 - unknown Average Daily Trips z as defined by vacant business a Traffic Engineering reports there are no known traffic generation standards for a motor vehicle rental business WATER AND SEWER: This site is already connected to City water and sewer. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Evaluation: The operation of the motor vehicle rental is appropriate, as the site is separated from the neighborhood to the north by Alabama Avenue, which is a 50 -foot wide undeveloped right-of-way and is actually classified as a park on the recorded plat. Since the neighborhood is buffered by this right-of-way and since the use is located on the edge of an established neighborhood, it is in keeping with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to commercial uses in the Primary Residential Area. Arthur Avenue, directly to the east of the site, is a paved street that terminates at Alabama Avenue, preventing traffic from the site and Holland Road from entering the neighborhood directly behind it. The ingress and egress points from the site on to Arthur Avenue and Holland Road will not change as a result of this use. The preexisting use of the property was an auto repair facility with direct access on Holland Rd. The change of use from auto repair to auto rental provides a less intensive use, and thus, a lessened impact to the adjacent community. ENTERPR CONDITIONS 1. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 am until 6:00 pm, Saturday, 9:00 am until 12:00 pm. 2. The vehicles shall be parked and cleaned in designated areas on site. 3. There shall be no panel trucks, utility type trailers or moving type trucks available for rent at this site. 4. There shall be no vehicle repair performed on this site. There shall be no storage of inoperable, wrecked or dismantled vehicles on this site. 5. There shall be no signs placed within the windows or on the doors. There shall be no pennants, banners, streamers or portable signs placed on the site or on the vehicles. 6. The proposed building elevation shall be in substantial adherence with the submitted rendering. 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 and Standards. 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. ENTERPRI '150d a0 . _ F Q$ Y5 r.4��.^g fa$"furca a< Y if ¢ f 177yk'� -11 gir Loci ' y �{ X �r Ru R 10-7 1 F Jf Mk i F •N z + � ivy - h Ell I z. LU;�,. m Tat T f - a — Zia t � 3 , ' _ t � a I lot •�Z S s€Y�� �A '''�.� c�t�b .� � �,� ,esu �,. *�;�-ry, +� ' 0 3680 HOLLAND Facility Elements Exterlor Colors The exterior color palette is comprised of the core logo and Swipe calors plus other light neutral colors. Examples appear throughout this guide. Color Samples Color Name Sherwin V41liams ICI (Europe) PROPOSED BUILDING ENTERPRI Light Beige Moderate White -SY-16140 40YY751084 Brown Carnelian - SW 2708 90RR 09,,1060 Building White Pure White - SW7005 90YY 83f 36 Dark Beige Cubist Gray - SIN 1022 30YY 58,082 PROPOSED BUILDING ENTERPRI map u-6 Cin Map Not to Scale ooi • r A n C�iIMIIC74i =W!4 035 033 6 CUP for Motor Vehicle Kentaj "2 1 2/25/2003 Use Permit fuel sales Granted 6/10/2003 Use Permit car wash Granted 2 9/26/1988 Rezoning A-12 Apartment to B-2 Business) Granted 9/26/1988 Use Permit Auto Repair) Granted 3 4/23/1996 Use Permit Auto Repair) Granted 4 7/5/2000 Use Permit (Motorcycle Sales Granted 5 11/28/1988 Street Closure Granted 6 1/9/1996 Rezoning A-18 Apartment to R -5S Residential Granted 7 4/23/1996 Rezoning A-18 Apartment to R -5S Residential Granted 8 12/3/1996 Rezoning A-18 Apartment to R -5S Residential Granted 9 11/14/1995 1 Use Permit Fuel Sales with Convenience Store Granted -- Mika qj :E gills A Id MIK a gill -1 lux e ul aim OE CA - � ,a y en �-aa..e�"' c ' j o � � o �a w 15 ENTERPRIS Item #1 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Conditional Use Permit 3680 Holland Road District 3 Rose Hall December 13, 2006 CONSENT Barry Knight: The next item of business will be the consent items. These are items, which we deem to be on consent. The Vice Chair will handle this portion of the meeting. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Today, we have six items on the consent agenda. The first item is agenda item #1, Enterprise Rent-A-Car. It is for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals on property located at 3680 Holland Road, in the Rose Hall District. Is there any representative on this application? Please come forward. Welcome. Could you please state your name? Trish Mohar: Trish Mohar. Kyle Ellis: It's Kyle Ellis. Janice Anderson: Welcome. This is placed on our consent agenda with six conditions. We added one last item during the informal. Have you reviewed those, and are they acceptable? Kyle Ellis: Yes Trish Mohar: Yes. They're fine. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you very much. Kyle Ellis: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Is there any opposition to this application being placed on the consent agenda? The Chairman has asked Gene Crabtree to review this application for us. Eugene Crabtree: This application is a proposal to operate a motor vehicle rental on Holland Road. The existing business there now is an auto repair shop. The Enterprise rental agency will greatly improve the appearance of the property. Visually, it will fit in to the area. It is an appropriate use for this property. In back of this is a housing development, but there is a 50 -foot easement or right-of-way behind this building, -- between the building and existing residential area, which serves as a good buffer; so, it won't disturb any of the residents. The hours of operation for this business also will be Item #1 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Page 2 such that it will not disturb any of the residents in the area. It is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, we put it on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Gene. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to approve the following item on the consent agenda. It is agenda item #1. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Kathy Katsias: Second. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor by Jan Anderson and a second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item #1 for consent. -52 - Item V -K.4. PLANNING ITEM # 55932 (Continued) Voting: I1-0 Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, John E. Uhrin, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None December 12, 2006 -51 - Item V -K.4. PLANNING ITEM # 55932 Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Pembroke Office Park — Building One, 281 Independence Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant and advised the following BECO Development representatives were in attendance: Eric G. Olson, Managing Member, Jeff Miller — Director of Development and Lynn Rhodes, Director — Asset Management and Manager of the proposed Project. The proposal is for high quality, moderately priced senior housing on this 4 -acre site, known as College Square Senior Apartments. The application will consist of two (2) residential buildings of 4 -stories), as well as a club house and swimming pool. The total number of units will be one hundred forty four (144), seventy-two (72) of which will be one -bedroom units, each comprising 772 square feet , the other seventy-two (72) units will contain approximately 1,161 square feet. Attorney Bourdon distributed sketches of various floor plans and a phamplet concerning Alexander Heights, a BECO Development in Fredericksburg. Said information is hereby made apart of the record. Information relative a similar application of RHBuilders for Senior Housing in the Bayside District (this facility was a larger 5 -story building). Robert Scott, Director of Planning, advised the staff was concerned re the mass and size of the building. There are single-family dwellings to the south across Providence Road that will face the "mass " of the building. This application will benefit through additional work concerning the design to fit better with the surroundings. Upon motion by Councilman Dyer, seconded by Councilman Villanueva, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of January 23, 2007, Ordinances upon application of BECO EVELOPMENT, L.L. C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: A ND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROMB-2 TO CONDITIONAL A-36 Ordinance upon application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District on property located at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SENIOR HOUSING Ordinance upon application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for senior housing on property located at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE This deferral will enable the applicant to address the concerns of staff. December 12, 2006 1Nmn R_0 p Not to Scale 0� qzmqw, NOR V m Conamonai Loring Cnange: trom B -Z to Conditional A-36 CUP for Senior Housing a 0 o v° -Z �s> CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEMS: (a) Application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District on property located at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE (b) Application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for senior housing on property located at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: The City Council deferred these applications on December 12, 2006, providing staff and the applicant time to discuss possible revisions to the site plan that would make it more compatible to the surrounding area and consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has revised the plan as discussed with staff, and the revised plan was submitted in a timely manner as necessary for the City Council to hear the matter. ■ Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone a 4 -acre site to Conditional A-36 for the development of 144 senior housing, independent living units within two (2) buildings. Senior housing is defined as facilities with dwelling units where at least one (1) family member is 62 years of age or older. The project will have a density of 36 dwelling units per acre. The proposed units will not be subsidized but will be available at market rental rates. There will be eight (8) models, both one (1) and two (2) bedroom units with rent rates ranging from approximately $800 to $1,200 per month. Also proposed on-site are a 1,600 square foot community center and an outdoor pool. The four (4) story buildings, up to 61 feet high, will be constructed with brick and vinyl exteriors. The facility will include an activity room on each floor, a library, a small store and a beauty shop. Two (2) elevators are planned for each building. Van transportation service will be provided. There are no parcels in the vicinity above 18 units to the acre. However, it must be remembered that this proposal is for a senior housing facility, which somewhat lessens the potential negative impact of the 36 units per acre at which this project is proposed. Additionally, the applicant has worked with staff to provide a site design that places the mass of the buildings adjacent to the Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 existing multi -family residential area to the west, which has the largest mass of any of the buildings in the surrounding area. Such a design leaves the open space and parking field of the site adjacent to Providence Road, reducing the impact of the building from the roadway, and presents a sense of entry to the site since the front of the buildings face toward Providence Road. The design of the buildings is compatible to the surrounding area, and the applicant has provided site amenities, including a swimming pool and clubhouse, that will provide recreational opportunities to the residents. As previously noted in this report, the Senior Housing Review Committee met in September and determined the proposed project is suitable for providing independent living housing for moderate -income seniors. The distance of the facility from useful services typically needed by this age group is adequate and meets the guidelines of the "Senior Housing Development Guidelines" as provided in the City's Report on Senior Housing Multi -family Issues: A Policy Report, dated July 1997. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention to approve the requests. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentfAgency: Planning Department Y� City Manage • k , � 0 BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. Agenda Items 15 & 16 November 8, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUESTS: 15) Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District. 16) Conditional Use Permit for senior housing development. i' ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 6226 Providence Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1456335185 1 - CENTERVILLE 4.0 acres B-2 Nvwh, The applicant proposes to rezone the four (4) acre site to SUMMARY OF REQUEST Conditional A-36 for the development of up to 144 senior housing, independent living units within two (2) buildings. Senior housing is defined as facilities with dwelling units where at least one (1) family member is 62 years of age or older. The parking requirement is modified for these facilities to only one (1) space per independent dwelling unit. These proposed units will not be subsidized but will be available at market rental rates. There will be eight (8) models, both one (1) and two (2) bedroom units with rent rates ranging from $800 to $1,200 per month (approximately). Also proposed on-site are a 1,600 square foot community center and an outdoor pool. The four (4) story buildings, up to 61 feet high, will be constructed with brick and vinyl exteriors. The facility will include an activity room on each floor, a library, a small store and a beauty shop. Two (2) elevators are planned for each building. Van service will be provided. The Senior Housing Review Committee met in September and determined the proposed project suitable for providing independent living housing for moderate - income seniors. The distance of the facility from useful services typically needed by this age group is adequate and meets the guidelines of the "Senior Housing Development Guidelines" as provided in the City's Report on Senior Housing Multi -family Issues: A Policy Report, dated July 1997. BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A church is utilitzing a rehabilitated barn structure for their use SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwellings/ R-10 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Providence Road, single-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residential District East: . Vacant / B-2 Community Business District West: . Multifamily/ A-18 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The property is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There do not CULTURAL FEATURES: appear to be any significant environmental features on 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): Providence Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a four (4) lane divided minor urban arterial. The MTP proposes a four (4) lane, divided facility with a bikeway within a 100 foot right-of-way No Capital Improvements are slated for this area. Old Providence Road is considered a two (2) lane, undivided local street. No Capital Improvements are slated for this area. Traffic Engineering staff indicated that while the applicant's engineer has agreed to provide a left turn lane, it is not depicted on the proffered plan. In addition, full right-of-way improvements along Old Providence Road will be required. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Providence Road 17,843 ADTT 14,800 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Service "C") — 22,800 ADT 429 ADT (Level of Service "D") Proposed Land Use 3- 512 ADT ' Average Daily Trips Zas defined by church use a as defined by 147 senior housing units WATER: There is an existing 5/8 -inch water meter that will need to be upgraded for this development. There is an existing 16 -inch water main in Providence Road and an existing 8 -inch water main in Old Providence Road. BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 2 SEWER: This site currently is connected to City sewer. Analysis of Pump Station #425 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an existing 8 -inch City sanitary sewer gravity main in Old Providence Road. There is an 8 -inch City sanitary sewer gravity main and a 16 -inch City sanitary sewer force main located in Providence Road. There is also an existing 36 -inch HRSD force main that crosses through the property paralleling Providence Road. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. Page 91 of the Primary Residential Area chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states "Limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods may be considered acceptable uses on the edge of established neighborhoods provided effective measures are taken to ensure compatibility." Evaluation: Upon reviewing the Zoning Map, it is clear that there are no parcels in the vicinity above 18 units to the acre. However, it must be remembered that this proposal is for a senior housing facility, which somewhat lessens the potential negative impact of the 36 units per acre that this project is proposed at. Additionally, the applicant has worked with staff to provide a site design that places the mass of the buildings adjacent to the existing multi -family residential area to the west, which has the largest mass of any of the buildings in the surrounding area. Such a design leaves the open space and parking field of the site adjacent to Providence Road, reducing the impact of the building from the roadway, and presents a sense of entry to the site since the front of the buildings face toward Providence Road. The design of the buildings is compatible to the surrounding area, and the applicant has provided site amenities, including a swimming pool and clubhouse, that will provide recreational opportunities to the residents. As previously noted in this report, the Senior Housing Review Committee met in September and determined the proposed project is suitable for providing independent living housing for moderate - income seniors. The distance of the facility from useful services typically needed by this age group is adequate and meets the guidelines of the "Senior Housing Development Guidelines" as provided in the City's Report on Senior Housing Multi -family Issues: A Policy Report, dated July 1997. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 3 as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the property is developed, it shall be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary Site Plan entitled "COLLEGE SQUARE SENIOR APARTMENTS, 6226 PROVIDENCE ROAD" dated 08/02/06, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: When the property is developed, the residential structures depicted on the Site Plan shall have the architectural design and utilize the building materials substantially as depicted and designated on the exhibit entitled, "PROVIDENCE ROAD SENIOR LIVING UNITS, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," dated 08/22/06, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department ("Elevations"). PROFFER 3: When the property is developed, there will be no more than one hundred forty-four (144) independent senior housing units provided within the building depicted on the Site Plan. PROFFER 4: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they ensure that the proposed density, mass of the building, and site layout are compatible with surrounding properties. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated August 25, 2006, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. 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. BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 4 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 5 Z4 aX R �i{ov _gg 'd' �ts (s* acsrrl B a 3 avo 3a d1.nD�d n _ — PROPOSED SITE PLAN BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 1-5 & 16 Page 6 { rr, p3" i N 0 ��G *`fil h n arra" AFEW Z4 aX R �i{ov _gg 'd' �ts (s* acsrrl B a 3 avo 3a d1.nD�d n _ — PROPOSED SITE PLAN BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 1-5 & 16 Page 6 PROPOSED FRONT & RIGHT BUILDING ELEVATION BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 1-5 & 16 Page 7 PROPOSED REAR & LEFT BUILDING ELEVATION BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 8 1 01/11/05 CHANGE OF ZONING (R-10 to B-2) Granted 2 04/23/02 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2 to A-18) Granted 3 01/08/02 STREET CLOSURE Granted 4 10/10/00 CUP church Granted 5 08/11/98 CUP auto repair) Granted 6 04/27/93 CUP (motor vehicle sales) Granted ZONING HISTORY BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 9 )i z am Lu LL7 co LU it 3�5 !0 C) CJ) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items15& 16 Page 10 G C N C a Ci mxm E Zi 52 c 'o >—y �Q C, s uff y y ? F 6 N M c d Q X m o Q - 0 U M-- WLEo eoi a��D<-asa.ar»a o u� ti a m m C ma m c °i o, ci oma 2 m cn cr 3 a m J Y ea` E c w o m'o o c^ ar u' v -8--- J » s x .- C N ,C S. ?�csm,w cCLc ZE 0=0 s'mao D � �Dou mo TO E yLc ar `DN gLc oR%, n y n NNW' ... A5 _3 u to, 2CNN y G `m o o Q a ; O le -G m c." c= c a EjE to o m y _r 0�; a 2:2v c c c v m v as i cmfli m tt m O G V N m _o ©a orn = o o> m.W c o-0 0 m m m t o G7 •C '.. o7 �� ° II O .: O v Y y Jt L; m d � � '� � is d «cm, m ._ 73 V L D W m o i1tf C N c u O—m C QucEu�m�Lsa� DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items15& 16 Page 10 G C E _ c a ci ui 2 m t ZE r£ E yLc C H Oc N cs a ; O m_1 _ CUM1 as i LLi o i1tf a a ,uj V m U 4: 2.� a, CL �, ❑ L = _ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items15& 16 Page 10 Item #15 & 16 Beco Development, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit 6226 Providence Road District 1 Centerville November 8, 2006 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next items are items #15 & 16, Beco Development, L.L.C. Application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District on property located at 6226 Providence Road and an application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for senior housing on property located at 6226 Providence Road, District 1, Centerville with four proffers. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Secretary, Chairman and members of the Commission, for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm here this afternoon with the privilege of representing Beco Construction on this application that has just been read to you. With me is Mr. Jeff Miller, who is the Director of Development for Beco and Ms. Lynn Rhodes who is the head of Asset Management, who will be the manager of this project. Earlier in the informal session, you were given pictures of the proposed building that is the exact building that has been built by Beco up in Fredericksburg, very, very similar project. By using the computer, we have been able to project that on to this piece of property. The background information is not completely accurate. It's an artist computer generated but the building itself is 100 percent accurate, as is the clubhouse as well. There was not in the application an actual elevation of the clubhouse but this will serve as that, and we're happy to have a condition, if it is approved, the Use Permit that it be in substantial accordance with these submitted visual renderings of the building. The proposed College Square senior apartments is on a piece of unconditional B-2 property located on Providence Road between Indian Road and Military Highway next to Banberry Lake Apartments, located to the west of the property. The proposal for senior housing on this 4 -acre site is for two residential structures, each of which is a four-story building. Each of the two buildings contains two elevators for a total of four elevators in the project. Each building contains 72 units. The interesting part of this development is that of those units, 144 units, half of the time will be one -bedroom units. I think that is an important factor to keep in mind as you look at this project is that one half of the units are one bedroom units. The project is a non -subsidized project. It is a market project however, it fits a very definite need in our city, and that we have a lot of high-end senior housing and we have some subsidized housing. These apartment units, again, half of them being one bedroom units rent for the lower figures at $800 to $950 a month, which if you work the math it works out to something that is very affordable for someone whose fixed income or income annually is in the upper $30,000 to $45,000 dollars, which is a moderate income range for seniors. It's not the low end, the very lowest end, but it is far from the high end. It is something that the City needs very much, in terms of its affordability. In addition to that, the number of units is important from a standpoint of economics to make this project work. If you look on the package that I just passed out which has floor plans of the different units, it also has a list of the amenities of each building. In each building, in addition to the clubhouse, the pool, the walking path around the BMP, and outdoor amenities, there are a tremendous amount of indoor amenities. Each building has a library, a computer room, an indoor recreation room, there is a massage room, a salon, and a sauna. The list of amenities is very significant. In fact, the Senior Housing Committee, I think it is safe to say, was very impressed with the large array of amenities that have been provided with this project, also concierge service, van service. There will be a van on site. Most of these residents after they have moved in and have been there for six months or so, will no longer need a car and the car that they wanted for independence feeling, they won't need or use. There are not that many vehicles that wind up being utilized. Some sit in the parking lot for a standard period of time. There is also commercial nearby. It is in a good location as far as shopping and other amenities. It will actually help some of the commercial in the area. All of the units are ADA accessible. Some that they are building are ADA compliant. All of the units will be convertible to meet the requirements of ADA if a resident needed that to take place. It is a structural steel building. It is all sprinkled. It is a HUD financed project but not a subsidized project. Let me also point out the port cache in the front is 11 feet high which allows ambulances to get underneath them. That was one of the things that the Senior Housing Committee really liked and appreciated. They also appreciated the two elevators. These are four-story buildings. The height of these buildings from foundation to eve is 41 feet. It is the peek of the roof, the large angle of the roof that gets the height up actually 60 feet. The building itself is only 41 feet in height as a four-story building. The issue that was addressed somewhat in your write up about the building frontage on Providence Road is 190 feet. If you could, put up the site plan? Stephen White: Sorry Eddie. I don't have the site plan. I have to apologize. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. It's in your package. The building frontage on Providence Road is 190 feet. The closest point to Providence Road on the north end of the building is 40 feet from the road. On the south end of the building, because of the angle of the property, the building is actually back to 72 feet from the road. The peek of the roof is only 130 feet in length. The peek of the roof is setback from the north end 82 feet from Providence Road and 100 feet from the south end. It is only 130 feet wide. So, the idea that the building is 190 feet and it is 60 feet in the air is not the case. It is 41 feet in the air and of that 190 feet, and then the roof pulls back from that into the middle where the peek is. Now contrast that with case #1 on your agenda today that you approved on the consent agenda. Those buildings on those two properties on Centerville and Lynnhaven, those buildings are 40 feet tall, and they are right on those roads. They are beautiful buildings. I'm not going to say anything to the contrary. We could shorten the building here but it would only be making the roof flatter because a four-story building, 41 feet in height, and it is not like were dealing with 12 foot ceilings or anything like that. It is just standard height of the building. So, we think it is more attractive because of the type of roof that is shown on there versus having some type of a flatter roof. Also contrast that with the application that this Commission and City Council approved earlier this year over in Bayside, where we had Diamond Springs and Wesleyan. We had a five -story building that had A -12/A-18 around it, and had 32 units per acre. Yet, there were only a handful of one -bedroom units. All but less than 10 units were two bedroom units. So, from my perspective, the density here is actually less because of the number of bedrooms and the number of people than can reside in them on per acre basis. So, the use, I think everyone is familiar with the use. It is a quiet use. It is a wonderful use of property with little traffic. There are no children to educate. In this case, no government subsidies and it definitely meets a need in the community for affordable, not the lowest and the affordable but certainly affordable housing for seniors. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. We're fine with the proffers. Obviously, were happy with any conditions that you want to add to the pictures that have been provided as well as the floor plans that we have provided. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bourdon, you don't have any access from Old Providence Road do you? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Barry Knight: You do? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. We do. Barry Knight: Okay. Do you intend to use any access off of Old Providence Road. Eddie Bourdon: Yes. We are showing access from both roads, which the Public Safety folks think is excellent. There is an entrance on both roads. Barry Knight: I had just seen that it had been closed but evidently further to the right or further to the north. Eddie Bourdon: Correct. The portion that was closed actually was for a commercial venture that didn't happen. There was going to be a Walgreens on the corner but it had some issues and it didn't materialize. That is out towards Indian River but the portion that we have access to is open. That is a secondary entrance. It is not the main entrance but from a public safety standpoint that was applauded. Barry Knight: Does your client own the adjoining property? Eddie Bourdon: No. The person owned this property for many, many, many years and Beco is acquiring this property from the church. The adjacent property is under different ownership. It is also unconditional B-2. Barry Knight: Okay. That is fine. Are there any further questions of Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bernas? Jay Bernas: Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with what the project that you're trying to do is senior housing. I agree with your argument about the one bedroom units because you can have a four bedroom unit that will still be considered one unit so I agree with your argument about that. My only question is that typically usually solicit large projects like this you go to the surrounding neighborhoods, especially with something that doesn't have favorable staff recommendation on its impact with the surrounding neighborhoods. So, I just wanted to confirm that you haven't gone out to the College Park Civic League, the Banberry Apartments or anyone else? Eddie Bourdon: I do believe the Banberry Apartments owners are pretty much aware of the application. But in terms of the communities to the north and south, I do not believe that my client has been in direct communication with the leadership of those groups. The experience that we've had, these type of facilities versus a commercial development are embraced because you've got people who have eyes and ears for the community during the daytime and a vast majority of them are retired. I have done a number of senior housing facilities and neither to my recollection has anyone opposed any. We had one in London Bridge a number of years ago and it was opposed by NAS Oceana because of the noise issue, but that was many, many years ago. We are not aware of any. The property has been posted. It has been on the internet. I am not aware of any opposition given the nature of this use versus unconditional B-2. I think it benefits the community it affords. I think there is reason why there isn't any opposition. But, if there is anyone who has contacted the City, we would have been happy to talk with them, and we still are. We will be happy to talk to anyone about that but we are in no way ashamed or embarrassed about this application. I think it's an excellent one. Jay Bernas: I agree. I just think like that is the only missing piece to me to this application. I agree with everything and all the merits. To me, that is the only small piece that is missing. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bernas. Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I probably know your answer. Did you consider toning down the density at any design is this his only product? Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Anderson. The reason and this is why we have the senior housing provisions is in order to able to afford to create the amenities that we are talking about here, it is numbers of renters that drive that train. It is all economically driven. This isn't a subsidized project. We can't provide these types, which are as good as they get in this field. That is why the Senior House Committee consented to that. It is excellent. You can't provide all those things economically to residents unless you have enough residents to cover those fixed costs so that is provides the need. That is why we have this type of housing as a separate special kind of housing. I'm getting ahead of myself. If there is a fear that this somehow sets precedence to the property next door, and I don't see how that can possible. No one has ever suggested that so I am just totally shooting in the dark. This type of a project doesn't create the same level of needs for services and provides a possible tax generation for the City. On top of that, we have to have the number of units in order to provide the income to provide the amenities that are present here. If you compare it to other projects of this type, I don't think we've had any that has had as many amenities provided in this price range. Some lower that can provide because of the tax credit issues and subsidies and there are some obviously Westminster Canterberry, Atlantic Shores and those type where you have very high affordability. Barry Knight: Are there any more questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Barry Knight: Oh. Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. Is there anyone else? Barry Knight: I'll ask Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: There are no other speakers. Barry Knight: No other speakers. Okay. We will open it back up for discussion. Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Although I would like to see this as a smaller unit and I would like to see it all brick, but I realize that this is a private ownership and it is driven by economics. I think we have a definite need for this product. The price is right and there is no impact on the schools. There is little impact on traffic. Maybe there is a slight impact. Because of that, I think it is a wonderful application and I wholeheartedly support it. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Wood. Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I would side on that but with a couple of other things. In the fact that I deal on a routine basis with retired people on fixed incomes that are I think I could adequately say that most of the people that I counsel in the retired community, I can honestly tell them that there is something in the City that they could afford that they could live in that would fit their needs, which we don't have now. If more projects like this were to go forth consequently, I am going to support it. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Is'there any other discussion? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I am still concerned that it is still a little dense for the surrounding area. But I mean that is my only concern. I feel better about it with the statement that there are only going to be 72 of the units will be one bedroom. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. I would like to mention that the other 72 are only two-bedroom. There is nothing more than two. I failed to mention that. So there are half that are one and half that are two, and nothing more than two. Janice Anderson: Okay. I do believe it is a little dense. I think it is a little high. I think there are other benefits to this project. The density, I think I could go along with their proposal with just one and two bedroom units. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: I just would like to say that I do support the application. I just wish and I know the sign was out there, and if there were opposition they would contact the City. I would of just like to have the input from the adjacent property owners but I do support the application. Barry Knight: The Chair will entertain a motion. Eugene Crabtree: I make a motion that we approve the application. Barry Knight: Okay. Do I have a second? Now, Mr. Crabtree, is this a motion it is brought forward? The attorney has offered up the elevation. Do you feel confident to approve it the way it is? It is totally your call. Just like it is? Eugene Crabtree: Just like it is. Barry Knight: Okay. Fine. There is a motion on the floor to approve by Gene Crabtree and a second by Dot Wood. I will open it back up. Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Chairman. I need to abstain from this matter. I have an ownership in a company that provides telecommunication services as a subcontractor and this company, which is a fine company, has provided a number of systems, so I need to abstain from this. Barry Knight: Thank you. A motion to approve on the floor made by Gene Crabtree and seconded by Dot Wood. I'll call for the question. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY ABS STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved the application of Beco Development, L.L.C. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much. BF.A r ' V 2 O ?? rs NS OF OUR NPt�p In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -6487 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilson CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: January 12, 2007 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Beco Development LLC The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 23, 2007. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated August 25, 2006 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/als Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen PREPARED BY: 019 SYKES. ROUPDON, Wil A14&RN & $.M R.C. BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company JOHN ZYZAK and ELBERT WATSON, TRUSTEES OF TRINITY TABERNACLE TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this �5cn day of August, 20o6, by and between BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, Grantor; JOHN ZYZAK and ELBERT WATSON, TRUSTEES OF TRINITY TABERNACLE, party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the third part, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 4.o acres as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which parcel is referred to herein as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, as contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from B-2 Commercial District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and GPIN: 1456-33-5i85 1 WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the ening Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the A-36 Zoning District by the isting overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the Lysical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said .1endment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a asonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, signs, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any quirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element compulsion or -quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or bdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions hich shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property id hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running ith the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and arsons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, ,signs, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be substantially in accordance with ie Preliminary Site Plan entitled "COLLEGE SQUARE SENIOR APARTMENTS, 6226 ROVIDENCE ROAD", dated o8/02/06, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., which has een exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach lepartment of Planning ("Site Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, the residential structures depicted on the ite Plan shall have the architectural design and utilize the building materials substantially s depicted and designated on the exhibit entitled "COLLEGE SQUARE SENIOR .PARTMENTS PROVIDENCE ROAD", dated o8/22/06, which has been exhibited to the rirginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department "Elevations"). 3. When the Property is developed, there will be no more than one hundred orty-four (144) independent senior housing units provided within the building depicted on PREPARED BY: a Site Plan. M cc3� 5. WURDON, M9 AUERN & Lam. P.C. 2 PREPARED BY: Q� SYKES, ROUPDON, VA AHPRN & LEVY. P.C. 4. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 195o, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and 3 (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: b5M SYKES, BOURDON. Nil AmN & LEvy. P.C. al WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: Beco Develop nt A.C., a Virginia lime 'ability c BY:Title: son, Managing Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30th day of August, 2oo6, by Eric G. Olson, Managing Member, of Beco Development, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2oo6 PREPARED BY: SYK£S, BOURDON, Mil Ajim & L£vY. P.C. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: TRUSTEES OF TRINITY TABERNACLE (SEAL) 1 John Zyz�, � s e l (SEAL) Elbert Watson, Trustee STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25th day of August, 20o6, by John Zyzak, Trustee of Trinity Tabernacle, Grantor. Notary Public I My Commission Expires: August 31, 2oo6 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th day of august , 20o6, by Elbert Watson, Trustee of Trinity Tabernacle, Grantor. My Commission Expires: August 31, 2oo6 PREPARED BY: Offi SYKES. ROURDON, f HERN & LEVY. P.C. ` - Notary Public 9 PREPARED BY: QCT SWES. ROURDON, 6M AHERN & IM. P.C. EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 4 acres, as shown on that certain plat (the "Plat") entitled; "Subdivision of Property for COLEMAN FARMS, INC., Kempsville Borough — Virginia Beach, Virginia Scale: 1" = loo' December, 1976", made by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., Surveyors & Engineers, Virginia Beach, Virginia; then Plat is intended to be recorded contemporaneously herewith in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; said property being more particularly bounded and described with reference to the Plat as follows: To ascertain the point of beginning (the "Point of Beginning"), state at the southwest intersection of (Old) Providence Road and Providence Road; thence N 790 36' 39" W along the southern line of (Old) Providence Road a distance of 166.28 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road N 78° 45' 31" W a distance of 336.88 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road N 761 12' 24" W a distance of 183.93 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road, along a curve to the right having a radius of 500 feet, an arc distance of 18.24 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence from the Point of Beginning S 16° 48' 55" E a distance of 652.39 feet to a point in the northern line of Providence Road; thence along the northern line of Providence Road, along a curve to the right having a radius of 931.42 feet, an arc distance of 378.40 feet to the property designated as Banbury Lake Village Section 1 on the Plat; thence the following courses and distances along said Banbury Lake Village Section 1: N 100 53' 30" W a distance of 8o feet to a point, N 130 14' 48" E a distance of 147.05 feet to a point, N 030 55'41" W a distance of 130.73 feet to a point, N 87° 22' 49" E a distance of 41.44 feet to a point, N 030 53' 41" W a distance of 377.15 feet to a point, N 250 29' 1o" W a distance of 31.65 feet to a point, N 26° 16' 59" E a distance of 65.34 feet to a point in said southern line of (Old) Providence Road; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road S 630 43' o1" E a distance of 36.93 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road, along a curve to the left having a radius of 500 feet, an arc distance of 9o.75 feet to the Point of Beginning. GPIN: 1456-33-5185 ConditionalRezone/BecoDevelopment/CollegeSquare/Proffer2.Clean Rev.8/30/o6 7 Conditional Zoning Change R-20 to H-2 and R-40 O .« V j �u ) ! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Hickman Plantation Shoppes for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-20 Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District and R-40 Residential District on property located at the northeast intersection of General Booth Boulevard and Nimmo Parkway (GPINs 2414170309 — part of; 2414172167; 2414173206; 2414174511; 2414077143). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: The applicant proposes to consolidate and rezone the existing R-20 properties in order to develop a commercial shopping center with one outparcel. Also, a one - acre parcel has been allotted around the existing historic home. The applicant was to make changes to the proffers between the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council meeting to address the concerns and recommendations of the Planning Commission. The applicant, however, did not meet the deadline established in the City Zoning Ordinance for the submission of proffers prior to a City Council meeting. This item, therefore, must be deferred. ■ Considerations: The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to develop the site with a commercial strip center consisting primarily of specialty shops. The site design attempts to be sensitive to and compatible with the adjacent residential area by providing landscaped buffers utilizing existing mature trees and new plant materials between the existing residential and the proposed non-residential. The applicant has also provided buffering between the historic home site and the commercial center. Pedestrian crossings and open plaza areas are strategically situated throughout the center. The Comprehensive Plan specifically mentions the proposed development parcel as follows: "The tract on the northeast corner of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard should preserve and integrate into the site design the historic Hickman House, an 18th Century tavern. The portion of the parcel on which the house is situated and the surrounding property is suitable for a range of compatible residential and non-residential uses including neighborhood office, a quality restaurant and limited retail uses. The site and building design must respect and complement the integrity of the Hickman House." (p. 106) Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 2 of 2 Staff has been working with the applicant during the past year in an attempt to develop site and building designs that preserve and complement the Hickman House, protect the adjacent residential area, provide for a quality retail center, and result in a land use that is the most compatible with operations at NAS Oceana. This site is within the 65 to 70 dB AICUZ, an area not regulated by the City's AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), however, emphasizes that the Navy's AICUZ Instruction deems residential development not compatible within the 65 to 70 dB AICUZ. The plan proposed by this application was developed and reviewed by Staff under the JLUS Interim Guidelines, which noted that residential units in the 65 to 70 dB AICUZ are "not compatible and should be prohibited." Staff efforts over the past year and the applicant's work have resulted in a specialty retail center that is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations and AICUZ concerns. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request, with changes made to the proffers between the hearing and the City Council meeting to address the concerns and recommendations of the Planning Commission. The applicant, however, did not meet the deadline established in the City Zoning Ordinance for the submission of proffers prior to a City Council meeting. This item, therefore, must be deferred. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Indefinite Deferral Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager:c tr 4x , w>,j HICKMAN PLANTATION SHOPPES Agenda Item 10 December 13, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Chamuv of Zoning District Classification from R-20 Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District and R-40 Residential District. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at the northeast intersection of General Booth Boulevard and Nimmo Parkway. GPIN: 24141703090000 (part of) 24141721670000 24141732060000 24141745110000 24140771430000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 7 — PRINCESS ANNE Total site 12.1 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to consolidate and rezone the existing R-20 properties in order to develop a commercial shopping center with one outparcel. Also, a one -acre parcel has been allotted around the existing historic home. The applicant has provided landscaped buffers utilizing existing mature trees and new plant materials between the existing residential and the proposed non-residential. The applicant has also provided buffering between the historic home site and the commercial center. Pedestrian crossings and open plaza areas are strategically situated throughout the center. The applicant had opposition to this request at the March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing. At that time the Planning Commission recommended deferral of the application and requested the applicant revise their proposal to create more of a mixed use environment. The applicant has made significant revisions to the building elevations and minor adjustments to the site plan as shown on the submitted exhibits; however, there remains no mixed use element to the plan as requested by the Planning Commission. Based on the revisions, the applicant has requested that HICKMAN PLANTA the item be returned to the Planning Commission for action. The applicant has informed staff that he has made attempts to contact the adjacent civic league. A new president for the civic league was appointed, however, and the applicant has not received a reply at the time of writing this report. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Residential home sites and undeveloped field. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single -Family Residential / R-10 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Across Nimmo Parkway is a retail greenhouse and nursery / AG -2 Agricultural District East: • Across General Booth Boulevard are retail and office uses / B- 1 A Community Business District and 0-2 Office District West: . Single-family homes / R-7.5 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The large portion of the site is an open field once used for farming. CULTURAL FEATURES: Centrally located on the site are two single-family homes. One home is the family homestead, which has historic significance. The other is a more recent home built similar in scale and design to the original home. There are a few out buildings and period landscaping associated with the original home. AICUZ• The site is in an AICUZ of 65 - 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The Navy considers this application compatible with airfield operations. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): General Booth Boulevard in the vicinity of this application is a four -lane divided minor urban arterial. This section of General Booth is shown as a six -lane roadway in VDT's 2026 Long Range Model; however, it is not included in the current CIP. Nimmo Parkway in the vicinity of this application is a four -lane divided major urban arterial. There is currently CIP 2-151.001 on Nimmo Parkway from Upton Road to the Lago Mar neighborhood. Nimmo Parkway, connecting General Booth Boulevard to Holland Road, is anticipated to begin constructed in 2007 (CIP2-121.000). TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume HICKMAN PLANTA Average Daily Trips z as defined by residential zoning Sas defined by retail center It is anticipated that the intersection of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard to be highly traveled. Average Daily Trips (ADT) will increase and improvements to the intersection will be required. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was performed for this application. Based on the TIS, a right -turn lane is required and the applicant is responsible for building the entire right turn lane. STORM WATER: A storm water management plan for water quantity and quality in accordance with the Public Works Specifications and Standards must be developed prior to construction. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 20 inch City water main fronting the site in General Booth Boulevard. There are a 16 inch City water main and a12 inch City water main fronting the site in Nimmo Parkway. There is a 4 inch water line in Agecroft Road. There is an 8 inch City gravity main fronting the site in Agecroft Road. SEWER: Site is not within an existing pump station service area. Pump station analysis for potential of receiving pump station. There is an 8 inch City gravity main fronting the site in Agecroft Road. There is a 42 inch HRSD force main in Nimmo Parkway. There is a 30 inch HRSD force main in General Booth Boulevard. FIRE: A detailed Fire Department review will be completed during the site plan review process. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers provided below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area, Site 4.2 Nimmo Parkway / General Booth Intersection Area. Proposed development within this area should focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. General 36,382 ADT 14,800 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Booth Service "C") 286 ADT Boulevard 22,800 ADT' (Level of Proposed Land Use 3— Service "D") 4,148 ADT 27,400 ADT' (Level of Service "E" Nimmo 11,831 ADT 17,300 ADT (Level of Parkway Service "C") 27,300 ADT' (Level of Service "D") 31,700 ADT' (Level of Service "E" Average Daily Trips z as defined by residential zoning Sas defined by retail center It is anticipated that the intersection of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard to be highly traveled. Average Daily Trips (ADT) will increase and improvements to the intersection will be required. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was performed for this application. Based on the TIS, a right -turn lane is required and the applicant is responsible for building the entire right turn lane. STORM WATER: A storm water management plan for water quantity and quality in accordance with the Public Works Specifications and Standards must be developed prior to construction. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 20 inch City water main fronting the site in General Booth Boulevard. There are a 16 inch City water main and a12 inch City water main fronting the site in Nimmo Parkway. There is a 4 inch water line in Agecroft Road. There is an 8 inch City gravity main fronting the site in Agecroft Road. SEWER: Site is not within an existing pump station service area. Pump station analysis for potential of receiving pump station. There is an 8 inch City gravity main fronting the site in Agecroft Road. There is a 42 inch HRSD force main in Nimmo Parkway. There is a 30 inch HRSD force main in General Booth Boulevard. FIRE: A detailed Fire Department review will be completed during the site plan review process. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers provided below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area, Site 4.2 Nimmo Parkway / General Booth Intersection Area. Proposed development within this area should focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The Comprehensive Plan speaks specifically to the proposed development parcel as follows, "The tract on the northeast corner of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Blvd. should preserve and integrate into the site design the historic Hickman House, an 18th Century tavern. The portion of the parcel on which the house is situated and the surrounding property is suitable for a range of compatible residential and non- residential uses including neighborhood office, a quality restaurant and limited retail uses. The site and building design must respect and complement the integrity of the Hickman House." (p. 106) Although the historic Hickman House has been preserved with Residential zoning, it has not been adequately recognized in the design of the proposed development due to the proposed high intensity of use and layout of the site. This could have been accomplished by designing a more campus -oriented site with smaller, unattached building footprints in order to emulate and complement the historic building. The proposed commercial outparcel on the corner adjacent to the Hickman House and directly fronting Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard should be designed to architecturally address the corner of the site while also relating to proposed on-site development. The outparcel should architecturally complement the Hickman House as well as "complement the historic character of this area as defined by Nimmo Church." (p.106) Evaluation: Staff has been working with the applicant during the past year in an attempt to develop site and building designs that presence and complement the Hickman House, protect the adjacent residential area, provide for a quality retail center, and result in a land use that is the most compatible with operations at NAS Oceana. The recently adopted AICUZ Overlay Ordinance applies only to AICUZ greater than 70 dB Ldn, directing the City Council to approve only those discretionary applications in which the use is deemed compatible by the AICUZ Land Use Compatibility Table or in which the proposed use is the lowest reasonable intensity or density. This site is within the 65 to 70 dB AICUZ, an area not regulated by the Overlay Ordinance. The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), however, emphasizes that the Navy's AICUZ Instruction deems residential development not compatible within the 65 to 70 d6 AICUZ. The plan proposed by this application was developed and reviewed by Staff under the JLUS Interim Guidelines, which noted that residential units in the 65 to 70 dB AICUZ are "not compatible and should be prohibited." Thus, the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan should be tempered with some appreciation for the JLUS. Staff efforts over the past year and the applicant's work have resulted in a specialty retail center that is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations and AICUZ concerns. Staff finds that the submitted proffers provide assurance that this project will become a quality addition to the area. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this proposal. The proffers are provided below. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "The HICKMAN PLANTA Colonnade's Center Proposed Site Plan" Sheet A-2, dated December 12, 2005, revised September 11, 2006, prepared by Lemole Pointon Architects, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: When the property is developed, the building elevations of the retail shops shall be similar in appearance and quality of materials as depicted on the exhibit entitled "The Colonnade's Center Proposed Elevations" Sheets A-1 and A-2, dated December 12, 2005, revised September 11, 2006, prepared by Lemole Pointon Architects, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Elevations"). PROFFER 3: When the property is developed, no internally illuminated building mounted signage will be permitted. Out parcels depicted on the "Site Plan" shall be restricted to building mounted signs only. The only freestanding signage permitted on the Property shall be one along the frontage of General Booth Boulevard and one along the frontage of Nimmo Parkway. PROFFER 4: The following uses shall not be permitted on the Property: automobile repair facilities, automobile service stations, bingo halls, carwash facilities, flea markets, mini -warehouses, motor home sales and motor vehicle sales and rentals. In addition, on out parcels no drive through uses shall be permitted except for banks. PROFFER 5: The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any structure located on the Property will be constructed and maintained aesthetically compatible with the existing residential structure. PROFFER 6: The existing driveway on the residential property will be modified to only one curb cut on General Booth Boulevard in a location suitable to Traffic Engineering. PROFFER 7: If residential use terminates, access to General Booth Boulevard will be eliminated and access to the parcel will be through the shopping center. PROFFER & The rezoning of the remaining property zoned R-20 for the house shall be rezoned to Conditional R-40 and that the house would remain as long as the property is zoned residential and not be subdivided into less than an acre for residential purposes at any time in the future. PROFFER 9: Site lighting, including parking lot lighting, shall be coordinated by the Planning staff and the applicant. PROFFER 10: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they aid in providing a level of quality for the project. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated November 14, 2006, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. 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. l zWs z U!g 3 a o 0z -Z U': 55, ZZ aoC® am g St sdoHs 11V73216lsojoad PROPOSED S17'PtAN.. HICKMAN PLANTATION SHOPPES Agenda IU� 10 Page 8 -41 HICKMAN PLANTA R-20 -' r51� 0 1 ,��' rte■ , i Hickman Plantation r 0 o.z Conditional Zoning 1 08/14/01 Conditional Use Permit Communications tower Granted 12/07/99 Conditional Rezoning from 0-2 to B-1 A Granted 2 03/14/00 Modification to Proffers Granted 3 01/09/00 Conditional Use Permit Church Granted 4 10/12/99 Modification to Proffers Granted 03/24/98 Conditional Rezoning from 0-2 to B -1A Granted 5 08/25/99 Conditional Rezoning from AG -1 & AG -2 to R-20 Granted 6 12/09/97 Conditional Rezoning from 0-2 to A-12 Withdrawn 7 08/08/95 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-2 Granted 8 06/27/95 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to R-10 Granted 9 11/23/93 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Granted 10 10/26/93 Conditional Rezoning from 0-2 to B-2 Granted 11 08/25/92 Subdivision Variance Granted 12 01/28/92 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-1 Granted 13 10/23/89 Conditional Use Permit Home occupation) Granted HICKMAN PLANTA DRS " Benda Itetri-10 -Page 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT' APPLICANT DISCLOSURE 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) Hickman Plantation Shoppe LLC 1. Kim G. Hickman 2. Douglas C. Hickman 3. Mary H. Hickman 4. Corie E. Hickman 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a 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: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Hickman Plantation Shoppes LLC 1. Kim G. Hickman 2. Douglas C. Hickman 3. Mary H. Hickman 4. Corie E. Hickman 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) 13 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. ' & 2 See next page for footnotes conditional Rezoning Application page 11 of 12 Revised 9(1/2004 HICKMAN PLANTA 0 0 V DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 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 services: (Attach list if necessary) Listing Attached "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 Government Conflict of 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 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, l am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing accordin to the instruc�tioonns 'n th' package. Signature (if different than applicant) Kim G. Hickman Print Name Kin G Y ickm r. ?rusWe :Ler' Print Name Dmoas Q HOnm rC.fer' R t1� "'O" Print Name HICKMAN PLANTA LPA Architecture Salvatore R. Lemole, AIA 2833 North Kings Road Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-631-0312 Gallup l Gallup rveyors & Engineers, LnI A / 323 First al Road Virginia Beach, 23454-4605 757-428-8132 Moms H. Fine Attorney at Law 2101 Parks Avenue, Suite 601 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 757422-1678 TowneBank A. LeLand Simmons 2101 Parks Avenue Virginia Beach, Va. 23451 757-417-6215 New Horizons Construction, Inc. Jonathan O. Van Daalen 325 Sea Scape Road Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-426-2691 Ted Colan Zukerman & Associates, LTD 168 Business Park Dr. suite 202 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 757-473-3777 DISCLOSURE HICKMAN PLANTA Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Change of Zoning District Classification Northeast intersection of General Booth and Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne December 13, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary. The next item please. Joseph Strange: The next application is item #10, Hickman Plantation Shoppes. An application of Hickman Plantation Shoppes for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-20 Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District and R-40 Residential District on property located on the northeast intersection of General Booth Boulevard and Nimmo Parkway, District 7, Princess Anne, with 10 proffers. Barry Knight: Mr. Fine. Welcome sir. Morris Fine: Ladies and gentlemen. I am Morris Fine for the record. I represent the Hickmans, who are here today, who are seeking to rezone this property. They are not developers. They are a family that owns the property. They want to develop it. They want to build it and they are going to rent it. I must say that we made a full presentation of this whole issue sometime ago, a little over a year. In that time, I've had the pleasure of meeting with Karen Prochilo about this matter many times. She is very pleasant. She has embraced and recommended this to you. In the meantime, there have been revisions to the plans, and according to what Karen has suggested, and we hope we have met all of those. We have an architect. Mr. Hickman has told me that there has been 17 revisions to this plan. It seems to be a win-win situation. When we were here before and the main reason why it was deferred was because there was opposition from the civic league. I understand that the civic league now has dropped their opposition. This zoning presently is residential. It is in the noise zone. If we came before and it wasn't zoned residential, it couldn't be zoned because it would be blocked, and that was noted by Karen in her report to you. All around that particular piece of property is we know there is commercial. One of the things that we have to think in this particular zoning is that the Hickmans are going to keep this house. This house is a historic house, one of the few that is still standing from the 19th century. This house was built in 1832, and one of the Hickmans still live in the house. So, that is going to be preserved as one of the proffers in this rezoning. I know that you debated on this in the early session this morning, and I've talked to some of you about the debate. I wasn't there but it seemed to me, that the debate centered around whether or not there would be access in back of the property. Well, there was an objection to that, and because of the objection there was a revision in the plan to meet the objection. So, we can't have it both ways. We can access in the back or we can keep it out of there. The noise was a factor. I'm told to have access in the back of the property Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 2 so we revised it to eliminate it. The other objection I understood was picking up garbage with dumpsters. We can deal with that on a time basis if we wanted 8:00 a.m. as the earliest pickup or 9:00 a.m. as the earliest pickup, 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. That can be dealt with in a proffer, and we would suggest that avenue. I'll be happy to answer. I have the Hickmans here. I have the architect here. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Fine? Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: You mention that you do have civic league support. Morris Fine: That is what I understand. Henry Livas: Was the condtion of that support that we eliminate the access in the back? Morris Fine: I haven't seen any letter Mr. Livas. Maybe Karen could comment on it. I don't know. I haven't seen anything. Henry Livas: In other words, are we going to lose the support if we go back and put the access back there? Morris Fine: It seems to me the thing to do is approve this. If the civic league wants to come forward, in the meantime before we get before to City Council, we can do some adjustment. This has been going on now for two years. Maybe, to some degree they lost some timing and development of this shopping center. We need to move it along and get it behind us. Barry Knight: Ms. Prochilo, would you like to weigh in on this? Karen Prochilo: Yes. We did receive an email from one of the board members (of the Red Mill Farm Civic Association), the secretary Mario Rosales, who was here at the previous March hearing, he did say there was no opposition, generally speaking from the board. Although, we did hear individually from neighbors who are adjacent property owners that did have some objection. The board did see the latest plan, which is up on our screen now. Barry Knight: Ms. Prochilo, do you believe the reason they withdrew their objection is because of the removal of the service road in the back? Karen Prochilo: They didn't give me any indication at this time. The president had just resigned and they had just elected a new president, who was not familiar with the project at all. The only thing that the statement said was they did not have any objections to this _ plan. Barry Knight: Thank you. Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 3 Morris Fine: I spoke with them and the Hickmans have spoke to them. I wrote them a letter and I brought the letter with me. As of October 26, 2006, and I asked them if they had any objections to call me and I would meet with them or the Hickmans would meet with them. I haven't heard anything from them. Barry Knight: Mr. Waller? John Waller: Does it make any different with the Hickmans whether they have the access road or don't have the access road? Morris Fine: It didn't. We would be glad to do it one-way or the other. John Waller: Either way. In looking at the elevations and all, they look very nice. They look very much like the courthouse. They look very nice. One thing I would like to see you add in there that you use red bricks. So it would be compatible with the house. Morris Fine: Mr. Waller, since you are able to suggest and you are an architect but I will make that suggestion. Kathy Katsias: It is a red brick. Morris Fine: Is it red brick? John Waller: I don't know. Karen Prochilo: The original plans did show red brick. Morris Fine: I think it did. I don't remember the plans. The architect can tell you. He is here but I can't remember. We would be happy to incorporate that. I agree. John Waller: This morning at the discussion there was discussion whether or not to put that service road in. I don't know if we reached any conclusion but there was also discussion about trash pickup being right at the front of the entrance. But the issue to me was the access in the back and the trash in the back. I would like to see the access road like you have it on the old one but use the front of the building in the latest edition. The improvements that you made to the front elevations are very nice and very compatible and much like pictures of the Harris Teeter place. If you put the road in the back in, and use the front of the building and everything else like you got on the plan (new). Morris Fine: I would think they can, and it is not a Conditional Use Permit. This is just a zoning. We could incorporate that when the site plan gets back to the City. We would be happy to do that one way or the other. I think in the proffer we agreed that we would have the elevations in accordance with the plan so that we could adjust it when it got back to the City. Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 4 Barry Knight: Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: I agree with Mr. Waller. I liked last years plan much better than this years plan. I am in favor of the service road and having delivery trucks, trash pickup or whatever, going in the rear of the property. I don't remember what the objection was last year but we could also put a time when deliveries having a time element. Otherwise, I think the plan looks beautiful. Morris Fine: Thank you Ms. Katsias. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Fine at this time? Thank you sir. Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: Okay. Our first speaker in opposition is Kathy Ritchie. Mary Clemons: She had to leave to take her sick child to the doctor's office. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Mary Clemons. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Mary Clemons: Good afternoon. My name is Mary Clemons. I live at 1240 Hickman Arch. When I received word that a new proposal was coming before the Commission, I expected to see a different elevation and site plan. I was astonished when I saw the buildings were now 15 feet closer to my property line, and the total square footage of the buildings had increased by almost 1,500 square feet. I know the Commission does not advise redundancy, however, there is no other way to approach or oppose this application. First issue is traffic. Ms. Prochilo reminded the Commission at the informal meeting this morning that land use ADT would increase to 6,746, a number that has still not been updated on the City's Services Impact Study. With an additional 1,500 square feet of building space, I am concerned that number will increase even further. My main issue at the informal meeting this morning was the removal of the service road and an insufficient number of dumpsters with the amount of retail space proposed. I want to make clear that the issue was not necessarily the service road itself. I'm not sure where that was heard or whether that came from although the hours of delivery and smell, and all that are concerns for sure are the concerns of proximaty of the buildings to our property lines. In a letter to the Hickmans from the civic association dated February 25, 2006, which I have a copy for everyone. You all have probably seen it. But just to remind you of that. We asked and proposed, among other things that a 45 foot heavily landscaped buffer be placed between the service road and the property line, which I believe the service road is 15 feet, which gives us a 60 foot buffer between our property lines and the buildings. Another huge issue for me and the rest of us is the reason why this application was deferred in March, or it seemed to me the reason was that every Commissioner making comment in March referred to a mixed use option, of which Mr. Scott indicated that there Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 5 is a mechanism available to do that. I also want to make clear that the Navy does not - oppose residential development on the site. They just don't want a decrease from the R- 20 zoning. In other words, they don't want it to get to R-10 or R-7.5. They want it to remain R-20. Obviously, there is no mix use before you. The site plan is worse than the one proposed in March. There hasn't been any regard to the adjacent property owners real concerns or the Planning Commission's suggestions that mix use. As a matter of fact, the need up here has been a blatten disregard. I would suggest that the only course of action at this point would be to deny the application. I, also would like to say, that there are two other speakers who were suppose to be here today. Kathy Ritchie and Karen Cure and for personal reasons, and I think the length of the workforce housing presentation, they had to leave. Barry Knight: Thank you. Ms. Katsias has a question. Kathy Katsias: Can you show us where you live? Barry Knight: There is a laser right there. Mary Clemons: My home is this one. Did you see it? Kathy Katsias: No. Mary Clemons: Right here. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Ms. Clemons? Mr. Bernas? Jay Bemas: Basically, what you are asking for in this letter is a 45 plus a 16 foot buffer from the property line to the edge of the building? Mary Clemons: At least. We oppose it. Ideally, to see this as out parcel commercial. That is obviously a fabulous idea. It is a fine location. We see no reason to look into and at least propose residential in here much like our property is and was done over here on the R-20. But single-family homes accessed from here (pointing to map) and no access from Nimmo Parkway and no access from General Booth but single-family homes from here and here would be, I think beautiful. It would be in keeping with the adjacent to Red Mill Farm and the Meadows of Red Mill. That is what that corner is. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Mr. Crabtree? Mary Clemons: Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: Do I understand you correctly that you just said that basically you don't want the shopping center there at all? Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 6 Mary Clemons: Absolutely. I'm trying to be fair. Eugene Crabtree: But if the shopping goes in and what you would like to see is a sufficient buffer between the back of the buildings and your property so that you will not have any disturbance whatsoever. You have no objection to the service road that might go in back of the building? Mary Clemons: We never had objections to the service road. Eugene Crabtree: As long as that buffer is provided? Is that correct? Mary Clemons: Heavily landscaped. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you ma'am. Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Fred Wadley. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Fred Wadley: Greetings. My name is Fred Wadley. I live at 1232 Hickman Arch. That would be right there, and I think that is a dumpster right next to my back gate. And, I'm here with my wife in opposition to the development as it is proposed. I would like to identify a couple of items here in the proffers. The study indicates that what was done here on Page 4, on agenda item #10, the second paragraph that the Hickman house has been preserved with residential zoning. It has been adequately recognized in the design of the proposal due to the proposed high intensity and use and layout of the site. Of course, they provide some other recommendations there. It has already been mentioned that the intent was to keep the Hickman house as a residential. The entire development of all this property, all the way around here is residential. It is residential... shoot all the way down that way. Anyway, you're looking at building a strip mall here, parking lot, a whole lot of traffic and residents right here. So, we have this little island of residential in the middle of a parking lot. I'm just wondering how is that in keeping with the rest of the development in that area? It just doesn't make sense. And, of course they plan to keep it as a residence. Then you will be having a house in the middle of the shopping mall. I've seen that in other places when I go visit relatives in Pennsylvania. You drive through there and you see really the difference between Virginia Beach planning and the lack of planning in other places. You will see a gas station and a house and somebody is living in the house next door. I am kind of seeing that going on here, a nice historic landsite even though it really wasn't officially a landmark. It is intended to be kept as a residence, but we're going to stick a shopping mall right in the middle of that. And, then I'm done, I guess. Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 7 Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: Yes. Would the 45 -foot buffer satisfy your concerns a little? Fred Wadley: Yes in part. I was comfortable with the 45 foot buffer but I also don't like the idea of a parking lot right there, right next to my backyard and gate and primary access to the area that I have to maintain along General Booth. That would be a heavily traveled area, and probably an accident-prone area. I don't know if you have ever been over by Red Mill Commons over there by Starbucks and what not. That parking area is a mess. It is hard to get through there and I don't see that any different. I see it probably worse because there is only one way out. So, you will have big trucks going in through there, through a parking lot to get to the back. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: Okay. Our next speaker is Bruce Donnelly. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Bruce Donnelly: Good afternoon. My name is Bruce Donnelly. I live at 1236 Hickman Arch, which is between the two other houses you were shown. I just wanted to point that out. It makes it a little easier. I have many concerns about this project. Most importantly is the size of the buffer. I'm pretty much say that 60 foot would be good. The service road doesn't bother me. All it is doing now it seems like it is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. It is down to 20 feet. Have you looked at a 20 -foot wall right against your property? It is there. Alright. The next is that I have big concerns about the dumpsters. I am in the painting business. I go to a lot of apartment communities and I've learned one thing from dumpsters. The closer it is to the road everybody uses it as their dumping site. They just drop by and dump it off, and also, the smell of the trash. Also, with the dumpsters, on the site it actually seems like they may be about 150 -foot from the property line. They seem pass the buildings. And, the parking lot, the same parking lot right here that really concerns me deeply. Our neighborhood is full of young kids. That just makes it an area to park or maybe migrate into our neighborhood. I have a 7, 13 & 15 year old. My neighbors have younger and other neighbors even have younger. And that really scares me. That pretty much covers it. The other thing that I have to say is that we did have two other people that were waiting but they had things to do and had to leave earlier. I really feel like the timing of this meeting wasn't the best time meeting, around the holidays. All of people can't make it. I actually had to come back here just to do this. So, thank you for your time. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Donnelly? Mr. Donnelly, the other two neighbors that couldn't here do they live close by? Bruce Donnelly: They live on Warner Hall actually. One of her big concerns were the dumpsters also because she is the corner lot. She has pretty much the same concerns as Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 8 me. The other lady, I think she is a couple of houses in, and for the other people, I'm pretty sure they are busy. Barry Knight: Thank you sir. Bruce Donnelly: Thank you. Barry Knight: Okay. Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Karen Khen. Fred Wadley: She had to leave. Joseph Strange: That concludes our speakers. Barry Knight: Okay. Mr. Fine? Morris Fine: Well, I'm sorry that we can't please everybody. In this situation, we tried to accommodate all of the rules of the city, as well as people that live nearby. The intent is to put a fence in the north, south; east, west run of the property. We will also have a landscaped buffer in the 15 -foot between the fence and the development. So, I would think that should stop any visual problems that the neighbors might have there, and also noise issues. The dumpsters that we have proposed to put between the two buildings that the city has an ordinance that you shouldn't put them there. That is why the dumpsters were moved where they are. We have a regard for these property owners and we tried to accommodate everything in all of these plans that have been changed. As you can see, since the last time we were here have been three plans that have been submitted to the city to accommodate these issues. We think this is the best plan that we can come up with at this time. The City still has control over the plans. The plans themselves, although they are proffered, they can be changed by the City in the site plan approval issues, and I would suggest that we go forward today. Let's rezone it and get this behind us so that it can be moved on to a shopping center. Barry Knight: Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: We're always cognizant of neighbors when they are not in favor of something and their privacy. I was looking at last years plan versus this years plan. I see that this years plan you have 30 -foot landscaped buffer. Last years plan, by having a service road, which was a 30 -foot service road, you had a 15 -foot landscape buffer. You have more parking than you need. Would it be a consideration if, in order to make everybody happy put back the service lane and increase the buffer 30 -feet? Morris Fine: Restore it to what it was before? Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 9 Kathy Katsias: No. Increase it by 15 -feet with the service lane so it would it give 60 -feet buffer from the neighbors to the building? Morris Fine: It seems to me and I just trying to look at it from the practical standpoint. It seems to me that if you have a fence and then you have a landscaped buffer, and I think we are going to add some cedar trees. You will block any noise or visibility from the neighbors. It wouldn't make any difference whether it is a 15 -feet buffer or a 60 -feet buffer if you have sufficient landscaping, and that is something that gets through the site plan review the type of material they put into the landscape buffer. It seems to me that it is not going to make any difference whether it is 15 or 60 foot. Kathy Katsias: Well, if you add a service lane and you leave the 15 -foot buffer, you are 45 -feet from the property of the neighbor? Correct? Morris Fine: That is correct. What difference does it make if they can't see it or hear it anyway? Barry Knight: Mr. Fine, Ms. Wood has a question? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Fine, how big is the fence? What type of fence sir? It must be a big fence if they are not going to see? Morris Fine: Those are the kinds of things that go through the site plan review and they get over the city for the site plan review. I would assume that it would be high enough to block any vision from the neighbors. I would assume it would be 15 to 20 foot high. Dorothy Wood: Karen, what type of fence is it? Karen Prochilo: There is no actual determination of what the fence would look like at this point. They just proposed a fence. It would have to be a privacy fence of materials that would stand for a long period of times, very durable, virtually no maintenance, and a minimum of 6 feet high. Dorothy Wood: Six feet? And the buildings are how high? Karen Prochilo: The rear of the buildings? Dorothy Wood: No. Karen Prochilo: I would have to check the elevations. Dorothy Wood: But it is a lot more than that. I think, Mr. Fine, I would feel more comfortable if it was moved back because we have had a lot of neighbors here. You know you can see it of course, if it is the fence is six feet. Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 10 Morris Fine: We could put a 10 -ten foot fence with the same materials, I_assume. That can be put in to a proffer if you so desire. The problem that I have is, and we designed this and going back to the old plan, it is going to mean that we would have to stop the process and go back to the old plan because the proffer includes the new plan. We would have to change all of that. We would have to redesign the center again, which I don't think is very desirable. We have people say two or three different things and we tried to accommodate whatever it was. This was the last plan what was felt that accommodated, at least the city planners. I know you on the Commission have the final say, and we would have to defer to you of course, but and if somebody would have said go back to the first plan, we would have gone back to the first plan. Dorothy Wood: What Ms. Katsias was saying that the first plan is still doesn't have the buffer that the neighbors want. We think it is a wonderful plan, and I think it is a fantastic looking shopping center, personally, but I can understand the neighbors concern about having the back of it so close to their property. Barry Knight: Mr. Waller. John Waller: Yes. There may be some room for compromise. That landscaping buffer, if you made it instead of 15 -feet, add another 5 foot to that, 20 -feet? Morris Fine: We would be happy to accommodate a 20 -foot landscape buffer. Dorothy Wood: With the service road. Morris Fine: With the service road? Kathy Katsias: Yes. Morris Fine: With the service road of how many feet? Dorothy Wood: Fifteen feet. Morris Fine: A 15 -foot service road? Kathy Katsias: No. It's a 30 -foot service road. Morris Fine: Thirty feet? Ken Hickman: Hi. My name is Ken Hickman. The reason why we moved things back was because the city wanted the streetscape, so we had this massive sidewalk area in front _. of the shops. In our effort to try to accommodate the city and everybody, we had take from here and give here. I want to also say that the Leylands that we are going to plant grow 30 feet tall, and in 5 or 6 years, you won't even see the building. You won't see Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 11 anything. You will just see green, green, and green. We don't mind. We put the service road in the back because we felt that it was good. You had 15 -foot. We plant the Leylands. There are big tall pines back there now. And on the ditch on the other side, there is nothing but trees. I mean, you're not going to see anything. I understand their concern but we can't, in all fairness be able to build enough building with the requirements for the parking, and then we give the neighbors 60 -feet, and then have a 30 - foot streetscape on top of it. John Waller: Can you guarantee that you will put the Leylands? Ken Hickman: We will! They are there! Morris Fine: We can put that as a proffer Mr. Waller. Ken Hickman: I mean. Barry Knight: Mr. Hickman, you have Pine trees on the edge now don't you? Ken Hickman: Correct. Barry Knight: And you are intending on leaving those there? Don't you? Ken Hickman: Well, I asked the neighbors because I think in the future it is going to be a bad idea, and in the hurricanes they are going to blow over. So, I say lets cut them down and plant Leylands all the way done. In 5 or 6 years, if you look next to my house, which I live on the property, I have Leylands on my north side and they are like seven years old. They are 25 feet tall. The back of the building is only going to be about 14 feet tall. Barry Knight: When you say the fence on there (speaking about map), I agree with Mr. Fine that I personally don't have to have this much of a buffer if you have a six or ten foot privacy fence. Ken Hickman: The fence is all the way up except on both ends. We have told them that we would put a light fence that is already up with all the other neighbors. Barry Knight: I understand what you are saying. I personally agree with that and that part I don't have any heartburn myself over the buffer. But I do agree with what my fellow commissioners say. I know that you don't want to hear this but probably the service road back there is probably the right way to go. To have, like Mr. Waller said, when he first started off, the new elevations on the front, because you have done those and they looked very nice and, then have the service road. The old site plan with the new _ elevation, and I would be happy with that. Does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Hickman or Mr. Fine? Mr. Crabtree? Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 12 Eugene Crabtree: Mr. Hickman, I know that one of the controversies is how much of a buffer can be back there. If you put the service road back there, what is probably the maximum amount of distance, and can you put a service road and a buffer back and still be able to do your building? And have the number of buildings? And have the start design? How many feet can you live with? Ken Hickman: I can put more buffer there. Eugene Crabtree: How many feet can you live with? Ken Hickman: Listen to me! The streetscape area is going to go away some. If you want me to take 10 -foot extra for buffer then I'm going to have take 10 -foot of streetscape away. Are you following me? In front of the shops. Eugene Crabtree: Yes sir. Ken Hickman: It really doesn't matter to me. I'm here to work with you in any event. It is just that people tell me one thing and then they change their minds and then they tell me something else. I'm like, come on, I've done this thing 17 times. Make up your mind. Eugene Crabtree: That is why I asked you what you could live with. Ken Hickman: I'm saying that we got basically, I think 30 -feet now. I would say lets not do a service lane because they don't want a service lane. They just want more buffer. I mean, how much more buffer do you need? I mean, you got Leylands, and them I'm going to have to take care of cutting all this grass and doing all this stuff in the back of this building when these people have 60 -foot backyards anyway. So, you want a 120 feet? Well, why don't we give them 100 yards? Where does it end? I mean. Morris Fine: What he is asking is what buffer? Ken Hickman: I would have to look at the drawings and see how much streetscape I can take away, and still have at least some streetscape. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree, were you done with your question? Eugene Crabtree: Yes and no. Barry Knight: Okay. Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: Sir, did you say that the fence is already there? Did I misunderstand you? Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 13 Ken Hickman: Except for pieces. Dorothy Wood: So you already built a fence? Ken Hickman: No. The neighbors already have a fence. Dorothy Wood: Well, how tall is that fence? Ken Hickman: Six foot. Dorothy Wood: So, you didn't plan on putting in a fence? You were going to use the six-foot fence that was there? Ken Hickman: Well that is what they said. We were just going to extend the fence out on the area where there was no fence. Dorothy Wood: It is all the same fence all the way up and down? Ken Hickman: We just have one fairly new fence. Dorothy Wood: Fairly new fence? It looks good? Ken Hickman: Yes. It is a new project. We'll put the Leylands in. They want to cut the Pines down and we're going to put Leylands between the pines and go from there. I would much rather put all ground back there to where we could put a swale in for part of our BMP replies. Dorothy Wood: We want you to be successful sir, but we also have to listen to the neighbors. That is our job. You know that? Ken Hickman: I understand. Dorothy Wood: I appreciate it. Karen, what did you think about the fact when you were working on it? Karen Prochilo: Well, we had discussed the fact that there are certain requirements. First, there needs to be a category for landscape requirement that is a minimum of 15 feet. That is what we had discussed when they originally had the plan with the service road in it. They needed a minimum to meet. They were looking at doing more based on the civic league's opposition where they would ask for a greater than 15 -feet landscape buffer. At this time, they removed the service lane based on some of the discussions that were going on during the meeting on March 2006. They came up with this plan that shows no service lane and a slightly wider buffer. That buffer is 25 -feet on one side and 30 -feet on the other side of the landscape buffer. They have to still meet the Category IV landscape Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 14 requirements. Now, if they want to add the Leyland Cypress in, we have to actually include in the proffers because we want to make sure that it is stated in there if in goes Category IV. The other item is they can't remove buffering from the street, (General Booth or Nimmo) because those are requirements based on the Retail Design Guidelines. You have to have those in there. Where they could remove (for the buffering) is that they have excess parking. Their building is slightly larger then it was when they started with their initial plan they had their service lane so they could reduce and get back to the size that they were when they had the service lane. Just looking at the two plans right now, as they are side-by-side, right in front of me. Barry Knight: Mr. Waller? John Waller: The old plan, does staff recommend that 30 -foot service and the 15foot landscape buffer. That is what it was on the old plan. Did the staff approve of that? Karen Prochilo: Originally, staff recommendation was for approval on this. The previous plan in March. John Waller: You don't have a problem with it. Karen Prochilo: We didn't have at that time you had opposition from the civic league. Concerns about that buffer, and that is how this plan, that you now have in front you, was addressed. Dorothy Wood: Because the buffer was smaller? Is that what you were saying Karen? Karen Prochilo: The buffer was shown as 15 feet at that time in the previous plan. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange? Did you have a question? Joseph Strange: The distance from the property line from the building is shorter now than it was before. Dorothy Wood: It's 30 now. It was 45. Joseph Strange: Yeah. I mean, I think by definition, if you including the service road as part of the buffering area between the building. Morris Fine: I think they want to eliminate the service road. Now some people want to put it back in. So, they designed it eliminating the service road. We can expand the buffer some if you want to do that, I would assume. Barry Knight: Ms. Katias? Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 15 Kathy Katsias: I just think it would be a lot more attractive. You are going to have some specialty shops and they get similar to some upscale, like we have a Hilltop. You know, seeing delivery trucks in the front of an establishment and having them traipse through while people are shopping is not very attractive. So, when I looked a this plan this morning, it seemed like the plan last year with the service road was more conducive to having an upscale shopping center, and that is why the question was brought up. I understand that the two center buildings total 25,000 square feet, where as the rest of the shopping center you have about 75,000 square feet. Having two areas with two trash pickups doesn't seem suitable. It doesn't seem like there is enough area for these big containers for the trash. I mean, I lease them at shopping centers and that is the biggest complaint with the tenants and that is they don't have enough trash containers for their trash. And, so by hiding the compact trash containers in the rear of the property will just make it a little more attractive. That was the reasoning why we went back with the old plan. Ken Hickman: We wanted to do that originally. Kathy Katsias: I think if we put back the 30 -foot service lane and have the 15 -foot landscape buffer along with the fencing and along with the Leyland Cypress and whatever, I would be able to support the application. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. Al Henley: I have a few comments. One, I'm in favor of the service lane but I was wondering if the service lane is 30 feet? Was that something Mr. Hickman, that you would prefer or that something staff recommended. Ken Hickman: No! We put it in there. Morris Fine: It was in the original plan. Al Henley: My question is this. Can you live with a smaller service lane? Ken Hickman: Sure. Al Henley: A 30 -foot service lane is just as wide as a city street. A typical lane for federal traffic control is only 12 feet, so a typical traffic lane on Virginia Beach Boulevard for two-lane highways is only 24 feet. We got a 30 -foot road in the back of this place. That is one comment. And I notice going one way. I know one thing that was particularly brought out is Loblolly Pines and if anyone lets Loblolly pines grow the are going to get 125 feet easily. The day a big.hurricane comes. He is right. It is going to crash into somebody's house. I would have a problem with that. I don't know about the rest of them but I know you will. I would recommend those pine trees be cut down and plant those Leyland Cypress, and they will be a virtually green wall within five to seven years. Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 16 You won't even see daylight between those things. I know the dumpsters are a concern. And likely so, and I'm not familiar with commercial properties. I don't have any but I think it definitely needs more garbage pickup containers. If you do, and like I say, I am thinking out loud now. If you decide to go with the less width on the lane, thereby you can also expand on the landscaping from 15 -foot to possible 20 -foot or maybe even greater, and you can accommodate possibly and work in the swale that you were talking about as well. It still puts in the Leyland Cypress. That is all my comments. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Al Henley: One other thing. I know it is very frustrating for the Hickmans. Senior Mr. Hickman you see put a lot of love and care in this. He is no longer with us unfortunately. They are not getting any younger like I a.m. I think they need some closure on this thing. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any more questions? Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: I think that is the best suggestion that we heard. Reduce the width of the street and increase the width of the buffer. You won't be able to do what you want to but the Leyland Cypress work wonders to what you need. That is the best suggestion that I've heard yet if the Hickmans are willing to do that, and just the rest of it the way it is. I would strongly support it. I support that very strongly. Barry Knight: Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: My only question that I have is the width of the street, can those large waste management or whatever trucks go back there and pick up? Eugene Crabtree: Yes. Fifteen feet, and 20 -foot road, they can go all over the place. Ken Hickman: Or we can increase it from 15 -feet to 25 -feet like it is now and decrease it. What is it now, 20 -feet, and then if we need to put a little aisles for the trash that won't be a problem either. Dorothy Wood: And you said you would make a 10 -foot fence. Mr. Fine said that I believe. Morris Fine: You won't really need the fence if you have the Leylands. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Hickman or Mr. Fine? Mr. Macali? Bill Macali: I observed to the extent that he changed the proffers. The proffers do have to be modified. That can be done prior to the City Council meeting so long as they are filed at least 10 days before the Council. Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 17 Morris Fine: We can do that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Fine or Mr. Hickman? Ms. Wood, did you have something? Dorothy Wood: The gentleman in the back is raising his hand. I'll sponsor him. Barry Knight: Do you have new information? One minor Ed Weeden: Sir, you have to come up to the mic? Identify yourself for the record again? Dorothy Wood: This is new information sir? Fred Wadley: Fred Wadley. I live at 1232 Hickman Arch. You're looking at building the access road around the back. You know, you already addressed the traffic in and out of there. One concern that I didn't mention here, and I didn't hear any follow up on it was parking in access by those large trucks to go around the back and do the delivery through those sides. If it is only made one way, there is going to be impact on parking in that particular area. I would think that parking on each end of that building should be somewhat limited or restricted. This parking right there because you're looking at moving the large vehicles around the back here, and the parking right there. So, if you have any large vehicles going through this area, you're looking at those vehicles hitting cars. You know, potential for accidents, and then the dumpsters. I don't know. Maybe it is me, but I'm wondering about this area over here (pointing to site plan). There is a whole lot of space back in there. Dorothy Wood: To far. Fred Wadley: To far? Alright. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Barry Knight: Oh. Mr. Henley? Al Henley: Karen. I'm sorry. It is for staff comment. Karen, lets just assume that this alleyway will be reduced. However, to answer the point that gentleman just made and he was concerned about traffic coming out and cars backing out. That area would remain the same in width. The area that I am speaking of is where those dumpsters are, so on the original plan, plan #l, that when traffic comes around there and the gentleman was concerned about there being an accident with cars backing up into that parking area. I Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 18 would recommend that area remain the same, which would be adjacent to the street scaping. Karen Prochilo: So remove the parking? Is that what you are saying? Al Henley: Leave it as it is. The only area that would be reduced would be directly behind the complex and that the one way would be reduced but those areas where parking will remain the same. Karen Prochilo: Okay. Barry Knight: Okay. I'll close the public hearing now and just open it up for discussion among the Commission members. Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: I would be willing to make a motion that we approve it with the stipulations and the changes that Al Henley has recommended. Barry Knight: Well. We will open it up for discussion. Mr. Henley, if you have your proffered changes, if you would like to tell those and put that motion on the floor, we will entertain it. Al Henley: I was afraid you were going to ask me that. Okay. The recommendation would be to reduce the proposed alleyway from 30 -feet to 20 -feet. The existing pines on the north property line would be removed and replaced with landscaping consisting of Leyland Cypress, open green space, and depending on the site plan review, to recommend an additional Swale to be incorporated in that site plan review. The point of entrance and exit at the alleyway would remain same in width to accommodate parking, as well as entering and exiting. The time of delivery and pickup, I think needs to be addressed. I'm going to leave it up to some other Comrnissioner to recommend what those hours of operation will be. Dorothy Wood: What size is the buffer? Al Henley: The buffer would be increased from 15 -foot to 25 -feet. Barry Knight: We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Henley, if you would like to suggest or Mrs. Kastias suggest the time for the service road. Kathy Katsias: I guess from 8:00 to 5:00. Deliveries are usually in the morning anyways SO. Barry Knight: Does that conclude your motion Mr. Henley? Okay. Mr. Ripley would you like to weigh in. Item #10 Hickman Plantation Shoppes Page 19 Ronald Ripley: Al, does that include the elevation and circulation? Al Henley: The elevation on the new plan would remain the same with solid red brick. Barry Knight: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Al. Mr. Crabtree has already given me the second. So, Mr. Crabtree is on the second. I'll open it up back for discussion. I sure hope we don't have any. Eugene Crabtree: Let's go. Barry Knight: Okay. A motion on the table to approve by Al Henley and a second by Gene Crabtree to approve agenda item #10 with the changes to be made between Planning Commission and City Council to the proffers. I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of Hickman Plantation Shoppes with changes to the proffers as stated. In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -6317 TO: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay y Wilson p CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: January 12, 2007 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Hickman Plantation Shoppes, LLC The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 23, 2007. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated November 14, 2006 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/als Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen This Document Prepared by: Fine, Fine, Legum & McCracken, LLP THIS AGREEMENT made this 14th day of November, 2006, by and between KIM G. HICKMAN. a/k/a KIM GORDON HICKMAN; CORIE E. HICKMAN; MARY HUNTER HICKMAN; DOUGLAS CARLTON HICKMAN a/k/a DOUGLAS C. HICKMAN and GLORIA J. BOND HICKMAN, husband and wife and HICKMAN PLANTATION SHOPPES. L.L.0 , a Virginia limited liability company, Property Owner, herein referred to as Grantor, parry of the first part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the second part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of certain parcels of property located in the Princes Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit "A" said parcels hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R20 to Conditional R-40 indicated as Proposed Parcel B on the exhibit entitled "The Colonnade's Proposed Site Plan: Sheet C-1 and Conditional B-2 which is the remaining property on the same exhibit. WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only -for' the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit different types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will GPIN Nos.2414-17-0309-0000 (part of); 2414-17-2167-0000; 2414-17-3206-0000; 2414-17-4511-0000; and 2414-07-7143-0000 —1— be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, Grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, whi:"-' shall. by hi -ding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, Grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "The Colonnade's Center Proposed Site Plan" Sheet C-1, dated December 12, 2005, revised September 11, 2006, prepared by Lemole Pointon Architects., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning -2- (hereinafter "Site Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, the building elevations of the retail shops shall be similar in appearance and quality of materials as depicted on the exhibit entitled "The Colonnade's Center Proposed Elevations" Sheets A-1 and A-2", dated December 12, 2005, revised September 11, 2006, prepared by Lemole Pointon Architects., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Elevations"). 3. When the Property is developed, no internally illuminated building mounted signage will be permitted. Out parcels depicted on the "Site Plan" shall be restricted to building mounted signs only. The only freestanding signage permitted on the Property shall be one along the frontage of General Booth Boulevard and one along the frontage of Nimmo Parkway. 4. The following uses shall not be permitted on the Property: automobile repair facilities, automobile service stations, bingo halls, carwash facilities, flea markets, mini -warehouses, motor home sales and motor vehicle sales and rentals. In addition, on out parcels no drive through -uses shall be permitted except for banks. The existing residential structure shall be maintained and exterior improvements of any structure located on the Property will be constructed and maintained aesthetically compatible with the existing residential structure. 6. ThP existing driveway on the residential prover; : il': be modified to only one curb cut on General Booth Boulevard in a location suitable to Traffic Engineering. 7. If residential use terminates, access to General Booth Boulevard will be eliminated and access to the parcel will be through the shopping center. 8. The rezoning of the remaining property zoned R-20 for the house shall be rezoned to Conditional R40 and that the house would remain as long as the property is zoned residential and not be subdivided into less than an acre for residential purposes at any time in the future. -3- 9. Site lighting, including parking lot lighting, shall be coordinated by the Planning staff and the applicant. 10. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to the B-2 and R-40 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that such instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument IM shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. -5- WITNESS the following signatures seals: , KIM G. HICKMAN, a/k/a KIM GORDON HICKMAN CORIE E. HICKMAN MARY HUKTER HICKMAN �...� tea.... _ . LORIA"OND HICKMA HICKMAN PLANTATION SHOPPES, L.L.C. � u Kim G. Hickman, Co -Manager By Mary Hunter Hickman, Co -Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: I, Arlene A. Kilgore, a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kim G. Hickman a/k/a Kim Gordon Hickman, whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument dated the 1�1``' day of November, 2006, did personally appear before mein my City and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same before me. GIVEN under my hand and seal this "-` day of November, 2006. CIZ Notary Public My commission expires: September 30, 2007 01 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: I, Arlene A. Kilgore, a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Corie E. Hickman, whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument dated the 14`' day of November, 2006, did personally appear before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same before me. GIVEN under my hand and seal this �� day of November, 2006. Notary Public — My commission expires: September 30, 2007 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: I, Arlene A. Kilgore, a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Mary Hunter Hickman, whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument dated the 14' day of November, 2006, did personally appear before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same before me. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of November, 2006. otary Public (' d My commission expires: September 30, 2007 N STATE OF VIRGINIA ,�i S CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: S 1'�l /' /�`� �► GL I Arlene A. Kilgore, a Notary Public in and for they and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kim G. Hickman and Mary Hunter Hickman,. vw ose names are signed to the foregoing instrument dated the 14`h day of November 2006, did personally appear before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same before me. GIVEN under my hand and seal this r day otovember, 2006. Notary Public My commission expires: September 30, 2007 -7- STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF 4 _ , to -wit: a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Douglas Carlton Hickman, a/k/a Douglas C. Hickman and Gloria J. Bond Hickman, whose names are signed to the foregoing instrument dated the 14`h day of November, 2006, did personally appear before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same before me. GIVEN under my hand and seal this 2 day of November, 2006. Notary Public My commission expires: 1-31-019 10 Harry E. Diezel Item i!M.7. PLANNING -57 - ITEM # 55382 The following registered in OPPOSITION: Attorney Kevin Martingyle, 2101 Parks Avenue, Suite 801, represented a number of small restaurants and ABC license holders, who oppose the concept of the Conditional Use Permit Attorney Neal Insley, 800 Seahawk Circle, Suite 100, Phone: 368-4300, former ABC Agent assigned and responsible for portions of the Oceanfront, and former Prosecutor for the City. Attorney Insley represented the interests of the business owners in the area. Louie Ochave, 800 Seahawk Circle, Suite 110, Phone: 544-1303, owner of four (4) locations in the Beach area and actively involved with the Virginia Beach Restaurant Association, the Resort Retailers Association and the Oceanfront Enhancement Committee Andrew W. Edwards, 800 Seahawk Circle, Suite 110, Phone: 544-1299, expressed concern re lack of equal rights. Upon motion by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution DIRECTING the Planning Commission to study means of regulating bars and nightclubs, including requiring conditional use permits (CUP) for these establishments and make recommendations to the City Council within sixty (60) days after the date of adopting this Resolution Voting: 7-2 Council Members Voting Aye: Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Peter W. Schmidt, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: Richard A. Maddox and Ron A. Villanueva Council Members Abstaining: Jim Reeve Council Members Absent: Harry E. Diezel June 27, 2006 Item i!J.10. PLANNING -46 - ITEM # 55696 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution DIRECTING the Planning Commission study means of regulating bars and nightclubs, TRANSMITTING to City Council recommended amendments no later than the Planning Commission's November 8, 2006 meeting, re: (Ordinance to AMEND §§111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance [CZOJ to DEFINE the terms 'Alcoholic Beverage" and "Bar" or "Nightclub", REQUIRE Conditional Use Permits for same and ESTABLISH other regulations in the H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, B -4C, B -4K, I-1, I-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts) Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Oberndorf, John E. Uhrin, R Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. m A. Villanueva, James L. Wood and Rosemary October 10, 2006 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance, Defining the Terms "Alcoholic Beverage" and "Bar or Nightclub," Requiring Conditional Use Permits for Bars or Nightclubs, Adding Standards for the Consideration of Applications for Conditional Use Permits, and Establishing Other Regulations Pertaining to Bars or Nightclubs in the H-1, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, B -4C, B -4K, 1-1, 1-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts. MEETING DATE: January 23, 2007 ■ Background: On June 27, 2006, the City Council passed a resolution directing the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to bars or nightclubs. In response, the Planning Commission appointed a committee to study and discuss the proposed amendment. The committee met with community and industry representatives, and developed a proposed amendment, which the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed at their September 13, 2006 public hearing. At that time, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. On October 10, 2006, the City Council discussed the amendment recommended by the Planning Commission. At that time, it was determined that additional work on the amendment was necessary, as new information became available regarding the determination of occupant load. The City Council also desired that the amendment include specific standards to be used in the evaluation of Use Permits for a bar or nightclub. Thus, the City Council referred the amendment back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. ■ Considerations: Section 111 of the amendment adds a definition of the term "alcoholic beverage," (essentially the same definition as appears in Virginia Code Section 4.1-100) and clarifies that the term "restaurant" is used interchangeably with "eating and drinking establishment in the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment also establishes a distinction between `restaurants' and `bars' or 'nightclubs.' A bar or nightclub is defined as an establishment, including a private club, that: (a) Serves alcoholic beverages at any time between midnight and 6 a.m., except for establishments in which service of alcoholic beverages is incident City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 2 of 3 to a wedding, banquet or similar function not open to the general public and in which BOTH of the following conditions are met: (1) the combined area of the dance floor and any other standing space exceeds 15% of the public floor area of the establishment; AND (2) amplified music, other than prerecorded background music intended solely as an accompaniment to dining, is provided between midnight and 6 a.m. The amendment to Section 233.1(a): (1) Expands to the entire city the area where the enumerated conditions apply, consistent with the requirement that any bar or nightclub in the city would need a conditional use permit under the proposed ordinance; (2) Deletes the reference to the Virginia Code definition of "alcoholic beverage" in light of the addition of the definition of that term to Section 111; (3) Requires that noise from any establishment located within 500 feet of a residential or apartment district or use or hotel not be audible from outside the building or, if freestanding, the lot on which the establishment is located, except when people are actually entering or exiting the establishment; (4) Requires fencing to be kept free of graffiti; (5) Clarifies that doors may be opened when persons are actually entering or exiting the establishment; and (6) Requires City Council approval for any increase in the combined area of dance floors and public standing space where such increase results in the combined area exceeding 15% of the total public floor space. The amendments to Section 233.1(b) establish the procedure for the handling of violations of conditional use permits by bars or nightclubs. The procedure is identical to that in other zoning violation cases, except that for a first violation, the Zoning Administrator must notify the owner or operator and allow a reasonable time to correct the violation prior to instituting proceedings for the revocation of the use permit. Section 233.1(c) prohibits bars or nightclubs as accessory uses in all zoning districts. Section 233.1(d) allows existing bars or nightclubs to be expanded, enlarged, etc. one time under the circumstances set forth. The most significant limitation is City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 3 of 3 that any such expansion, etc. may not increase the occupant load of the establishment. The proposed amendments are a major improvement over the existing regulations regarding bars and nightclubs and are recommended for approval. Currently, bar and nightclub owners can avoid the conditional use permit process simply by not excluding minors. This exacerbates the problems caused by bars and nightclubs and our Police Department finds it to be unworkable. Under the new definition, any establishment that serves alcohol after midnight would need a conditional use permit unless it has a dance floor that is less than 15% of the public floor space and has no amplified music. The new regulations do allow bars/nightclubs existing prior to the adoption of the amendments to expand once, provided that occupant load does not increase. This would encourage existing bar and nightclub facilities toward becoming restaurants with more space for each patron. In addition, where a bar/nightclub takes advantage of the one-time expansion opportunity, it will bring the establishment under the provisions of Section 233.1(a), giving the City more control over any problems resulting from the operation. In conclusion, although the amendments do allow for expansion of existing bars/nightclubs, they are superior to the regulations currently existing and provide the City with a better tool for regulating such uses. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to approve the request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manage • WL CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH — AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE — BARS AND NIGHTCLUBS Agenda Item 9 December 13, 2006 Public Hearing REQUEST An Ordinance to Amend Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance, Defining the Terms "Alcoholic Beverage" and "Bar or Nightclub," Requiring Conditional Use Permits for Bars or Nightclubs, Adding Standards for the Consideration of Applications for Conditional Use Permits, and Establishing Other Regulations Pertaining to Bars or Nightclubs in the H-1, B-2, B-3, B - 3A, B-4, B -4C, B -4K, 1-1, 1-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT On June 27, 2006, the City Council passed a resolution directing the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to bars or nightclubs. In response, the Planning Commission appointed a committee to study and discuss the proposed amendment. The committee met with community and industry representatives, and developed a proposed amendment, which the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed at their September 13, 2006 public hearing. At that time, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. On October 10, 2006, the City Council discussed the amendment recommended by the Planning Commission. At that time, it was determined that additional work on the amendment was necessary, as new information became available regarding the determination of occupant load. The City Council also desired that the amendment include specific standards to be used in the evaluation of Use Permits for a bar or nightclub. Thus, the City Council referred the amendment back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. Section 111 of the amendment adds a definition of the term "alcoholic beverage," (essentially the same definition as appears in Virginia Code Section 4.1-100) and clarifies that the term "restaurant" is used interchangeably with "eating and drinking establishment" in the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment also establishes a distinction between `restaurants' and `bars' or `nightclubs.' A bar or nightclub is defined as an establishment, including a private club, that: (a) Serves alcoholic beverages at any time between midnight and 6 a.m., except for establishments in which service of alcoholic beverages is incident to a wedding, banquet or similar function not open to the general public and in which BOTH of the following conditions are met: (1) the combined area of the dance floor and any other standing space exceeds 15% of the public floor area of the establishment; AND (2) amplified music, other than prerecorded background music intended solely as an accompaniment to dining, is provided between midnight and 6 a.m. The amendment to Section 233.1(a): (1) Expands to the entire city the area where the enumerated conditions apply, consistent with the requirement that any bar or nightclub in the city would need a conditional use permit under the proposed ordinance; (2) Deletes the reference to the Virginia Code definition of "alcoholic beverage" in light of the addition of the definition of that term to Section 111; (3) Requires that noise from any establishment located within 500 feet of a residential or apartment district or use or hotel not be audible from outside the building or, if freestanding, the lot on which the establishment is located, except when people are actually entering or exiting the establishment; (4) Requires fencing to be kept free of graffiti; (5) Clarifies that doors may be opened when persons are actually entering or exiting the establishment; and (6) Requires City Council approval for any increase in the combined area of dance floors and public standing space where such increase results in the combined area exceeding 15% of the total public floor space. The amendments to Section 233.1(b) establish the procedure for the handling of violations of conditional use permits by bars or nightclubs. The procedure is identical to that in other zoning violation cases, except that for a first violation, the Zoning Administrator must notify the owner or operator and allow a reasonable time to correct the violation prior to instituting proceedings for the revocation of the use permit. Section 233.1(c) prohibits bars or nightclubs as accessory uses in all zoning districts. Section 233.1(d) allows existing bars or nightclubs to be expanded, enlarged, etc. one time under the circumstances set forth. The most significant limitation is that any such expansion, etc. may not increase the occupant load of the establishment. RECOMMENDATION The proposed amendments are a major improvement over the existing regulations regarding bars and nightclubs and are recommended for approval. Currently, bar and nightclub owners can avoid the conditional use permit process simply by not excluding minors. This exacerbates the problems caused by bars and nightclubs and our Police Department finds it to be unworkable. Under the new definition, any establishment that serves alcohol after midnight would need a conditional use permit unless it has a dance floor that is less than 15% of the public floor space and has no amplified music. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - BARS AN The new regulations do allow bars/nightclubs existing prior to the adoption of the amendments to expand once, provided that occupant load does not increase. This would encourage existing bar and nightclub facilities toward becoming restaurants with more space for each patron. In addition, where a bar/nightclub takes advantage of the one-time expansion opportunity, it will bring the establishment under the provisions of Section 233.1(a), giving the City more control over any problems resulting from the operation. In conclusion, although the amendments do allow for expansion of existing bars/nightclubs, they are superior to the regulations currently existing and provide the City with a better tool for regulating such uses. 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 111, 233.1, 2 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 AND 1521 OF THE 3 CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, DEFINING THE TERMS 4 "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE" AND "BAR OR NIGHTCLUB," 5 REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BARS 6 OR NIGHTCLUBS, ADDING STANDARDS FOR THE 7 CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ESTABLISHING 9 OTHER REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BARS OR 10 NIGHTCLUBS IN THE H-1, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, 11 B -4C, B -4K, I-1, I-2, RT -1, RT -2 AND RT -3 12 ZONING DISTRICTS 13 14 SECTIONS AMENDED: City Zoning Ordinance 15 Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 16 1511 and 1521 17 18 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 19 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 That Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 21 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended and 22 reordained to read as follows: 23 24 Sec. 111. Definitions. 25 For the purpose of this ordinance, words used in the 26 present tense shall include the future; words used in the 27 singular number include the plural and the plural the singular; 28 the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders; the 29 word "shall" is mandatory; the word "may" is permissive; the 30 word "land" includes only the area described as being above mean 31 sea level; and the word "person" includes an individual, a r 32 partnership, association, or corporation. 1 33 In addition, the following terms shall be defined as herein 34 indicated: 35 . . . 36 Alcoholic beverage. Alcohol, spirits, wine and beer, or any a private 37 one or more of such varieties containing one-half of one percent 38 (0.5%) or more of alcohol by volume, including mixed alcoholic 39 beverages, and every liquid or solid, patented or not, 40 containing alcohol, spirits, wine, or beer and capable of being 41 consumed by a human being. 42 . . . . 43 Bar or nightclub. An establishment, including a private 44 club as defined by this ordinance, that serves alcoholic 45 beverages at any time between midnight and 6 a.m., except 46 establishments in which the service of alcoholic beverages is 47 incident to a wedding, banquet or similar function not open to 48 the general public, and in which both of the following 49 conditions are met: 50 (1) the combined area of the dance floor and an 51 other standing space exceeds 150 of the public 52 floor area of the establishment; and 53 (2) amplified music, other than prerecorded 54 background music intended solely as an 55 accompaniment to dining, is provided between 56 midnight and 6 a.m. 2 57 "Public floor area" shall include the entire floor area of 58 an establishment except for rest rooms, offices, storage areas, 59 kitchen areas and other areas in which patrons do not 60 ordinarily congregate. "Standing space" shall include the 61 entire public floor area of an establishment except for areas 62 designated for seating or egress. The permits and inspections 63 administrator of the department of planning shall make such 64 determination based upon the floor plan of the establishment in 65 accordance with the provisions of the International Building 66 Code. Once such a determination has been made, the standing 67 space of an establishment shall not be increased so as to be in 68 excess of fifteen (15) per cent of the public floor area except 69 in accordance with Section 233.1 (a) (5) of this ordinance. 70 . . . 71 Eating and drinking establishment or restaurant. A 72 commercial establishment where food, beverages and meals are 73 served and consumed, including any areas set aside for their 74 storage or preparation, but not including bars or nightclubs. 75 COMMENT 76 The amendments add a definition of the term "alcoholic beverage" (essentially the same 77 definition as appears in Virginia Code Section 4.1-100), and clarify that the term "restaurant' is 78 used interchangeably with "eating and drinking establishment' in the City Zoning Ordinance. 79 80 The amendments also define "bars or nightclubs." N 83 Sec. 233.1. Eating and drinking establishments- serving 84 aleehelie beverages Bars or nightclubs. 85 (a) Requirements. In addition to general requirements, 86 bars or nightclubs eating and Eifin!Ed:ng estdb]:35hFaents iih:ie 87 eerae-a l eeh e l l e beverages, as-aefiTedin seet i e n 4— 2 o f the-Gede 01 92 ifi the R�-- 1,-ems--with-the RT 2 ei= RReser-t-=edrist Bistr-d:et, 93 shall be subject to the following requirements, which shall be 94 deemed to be conditions of the conditional use permit: 95 +a+ (1) Category VI landscaping shall be installed along any 96 lot line adjoining a residential or apartment district 97 without an intervening street, alley or body or water 98 greater than fifty (50) feet in width. The fencing 99 element of such landscaping shall not be less than six 100 (6) feet nor more than eight (8) feet in height and 101 shall be free from graffiti. Landscaping and fencing 102 shall be maintained in good condition at all times-; 103 4b}(2) The operation of such establishments shall not disturb 104 the tranquility of residential areas or other areas in 105 close proximity or otherwise interfere with the 106 reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring property 2 107 by reason of excessive noise, traffic, overflow 108 parking and litter. Noise from any establishment 109 located within five hundred (500) feet of any 110 residential or apartment district or use or hotel 111 shall not be audible from outside the building in 112 which such establishment is located or, where such 113 establishments are located in a freestanding building, 114 from any location not on the same lot, except when 115 exits are opened to allow patrons, employees or other 116 persons to exit; 117 {e} (3) Operators of such establishments shall not allow 118 loitering or congregations of individuals in the 119 parking lot or other exterior portions of the 120 premises, except for areas in which the consumption of 121 alcoholic beverages is specifically permitted by the 122 terms of the establishment's Alcoholic Beverage 123 Control license, and shall keep all entrance and exit 124 doors closed at all times of operation, except when 125 patrons, employees or other persons are actually 126 entering or exiting the establishment—; 127 -(d}- (4) Such establishments shall be required to implement any 128 other reasonable measures the city council deems 129 necessary or appropriate to minimize noise or other 5 130 potential adverse effects upon neighboring y sides ;,� 131 areas; and 132 (5) No increase in the combined area of the dance floor 133 and any other standing space shall be allowed without 134 the approval of the City Council if, after such 135 increase, the combined area of the dance floor and 136 other standing space exceeds fifteen (15) per cent of 137 the total floor area of the establishment. 138 (b) Violations. A violation of any of the aforesaid 139 requirements shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional 140 use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 221(h); 141 provided, however, that where a bar or nightclub has not 142 previously been found to be in violation of the conditional use 143 permit, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice of the 144 violation to the property owner or operator of the establishment 145 alleged to be in violation of the conditional use permit and 146 allow a reasonable time for the violation to be corrected or 147 remedied prior to the institution of proceedings to revoke the 148 conditional use permit under Section 221(h). Any finding b 149 the Zoning Administrator that a bar or nightclub is in violation 150 of the conditional use permit may be appealed to the Board of 151 Zoning Appeals in accordance with Section 106. 152 (c) Accessory uses. Bars or nightclubs shall not be 153 allowed as an accessory use in anv zoning district. X 154 (d) Expansions, etc. Notwithstanding any other provision 155 of this ordinance, no conditional use permit or resolution 156 pursuant to Section 105(d) shall be required for the 157 enlargement, extension, reconstruction or structural alteration 158 of a bar or nightclub lawfully in existence as of [date of 159 adoption of amendments], provided that: 160 (1) it has not previously been found to be in 161 violation of the conditional use permit 162 authorizing it, if any; 163 (2) the net occupant load of the bar or nightclub is 164 not increased as a result of the enlargement, 165 extension, reconstruction or structural 166 alteration; 167 (3) the bar or nightclub has not been expanded or 168 extended since [date of adoption of amendments]; 169 and 170 (4) except with respect to structural alterations or 171 reconstructions not resulting in an increase in 172 occupant load,such bar or nightclub is not located 173 within an Accident Potential Zone (APZ). 174 It shall be a condition of any enlargement, extension 175 176 reconstruction that the bar or structural alteration pursuant to this or nightclub shall thereafter be subject section to the 177 standards and conditions set forth in Subsection (a) hereof. 7 178 Any enlargement, extension, reconstruction or structural 179 alteration of a bar or nightclub not meeting the criteria set 180 forth herein may be allowed by the City Council in accordance 181 with Section 105(d) or by conditional use permit, as the case 182 may be. In the event any such standard or condition is found b 183 the City Council to have been violated, it may revoke the 184 permission to enlarge, extend, reconstruct or structurally alter 185 the establishment. Any enlargement, extension, reconstruction 186 or structural alteration of a bar or nightclub not meeting the 187 criteria set forth herein may be allowed by the City Council in 188 accordance with Section 105(d) or by conditional use permit, as 189 the case may be. 190 COMMENT 191 The amendments to subsection (a): 192 193 (1) Expand the area in which the enumerated conditions apply to the entire City, consistent 194 with the requirement that any bar or nightclub in the City would need a conditional use 195 permit under the proposed ordinance; 196 197 (2) Delete the reference to the Virginia Code definition of "alcoholic beverage" in light of 198 the addition of the definition of that term to Section 111; 199 200 (3) Require that noise from any establishment located within 500 feet of a residential or 201 apartment district or use or hotel not be audible from outside the building or, if 202 freestanding, the lot on which the establishment is located, except when people are 203 actually entering or exiting the establishment; 204 205 (4) Require fencing to be kept free of graffiti; 206 207 (5) Clarify that doors may be opened when persons are actually entering or exiting the 208 establishment; and 209 210 (6) Require City Council approval for any increase in the combined area of dance floors 211 and public standing space where such increase results in the combined area exceeding 212 15% of the total public floor space. 213 214 The amendments to subsection (b) set forth the procedure for the handling of violations of 215 conditional use permits by bars or nightclubs. The procedure is identical to that in other cases, 216 except that for a first violation, the Zoning Administrator must notify the owner or operator and 217 allow a reasonable time to correct the violation prior to instituting proceedings for the revocation of 218 the use permit. 219 220 Subsection (c) prohibits bars or nightclubs as accessory uses in all zoning districts. 221 222 Subsection (d) allows existing bars or nightclubs to be expanded, enlarged, etc. one time 223 under the circumstances set forth. The most significant limitation is that any such expansion, etc. 224 may not increase the occupant load of the establishment. 225 226 227 Sec. 701. Use regulations [Hotel District]. 228 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart 229 lists those uses permitted within the H-1 Hotel District. Those 230 uses and structures in the district shall be permitted as either 231 principal uses indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses 232 indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X" 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 shall be prohibited in the district. No uses or structures other than as specified shall be permitted. Use Bars or nightclubs, subject to the provisions of subsection (b)(1) H-1 C 244 (b) Accessory uses and structures. Uses and structures 245 which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and We 246 subordinate to principal uses and structures, including but not 247 limited to: 248 (1) Within the H-1 Hotel District, establishments for sale 249 of gifts, clothing, drugs, photographic supplies, 250 newspapers, and magazines and convenience goods, 251 eating and drinking establishments and professional 252 and personal service establishments; provided that 253 such uses are accessory to hotels having fifty (50) or 254 more dwelling or lodging units for sale or for rent; 255 and provided further, that all such establishments 256 shall be designed and scaled only to meet the 257 requirements of occupants and their guests; and 258 provided also that there shall be no evidence of the 259 existence of such establishments from outside the 260 property line; and provided finally that the floor 261 area occupied by such establishments shall not exceed 262 twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the hotel or 263 motel. 264 COMMENT 265 The amendment allows bars or nightclubs as conditional uses in the H-1 Hotel District, 266 subject to the requirements which are set forth in (b) (1). While those requirements expressly 267 pertain to accessory uses, they would also apply to bars or nightclubs that are allowed as 268 conditional uses in the H-1 District. 270 Sec. 901. Use regulations [Business districts]. 10 271 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart 272 lists those uses permitted within the B-1 through B-4C Business 273 Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective business 274 districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated 275 by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and 276 structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the 277 respective districts. No uses or structures other than as 278 specified shall be permitted. Use B-1 BB-2 3 B-3A 4 A B-4C 4K Bars or nightclubs Eating and drinking establishments without drive-through windows, when not freestanding and incorporated inside a mixed use building, except as otherwise specified in this section X a X M C C X X C C C P X P C 19 Eating and drinking establishments with drive-through windows, X X P P X P X X except as specified below 11 12 Eating-and drinking establishments without drive-through windows, P P P P X P X X except as specified below ebb iishfften4c-s whea'e all -t hE ee-e f the f e l l ew erg e eed r- . . 1 T , eeh l 'T�TC teThe- stab, t is l e eaten-,-shi-rive hian4Eed of :a - - - - el eetial-e-r 'rrtmerl�d�:striet -3. 279 Thes bl i slime 1. establishment 'elieliades 15eL=eens en the-basis ef �}& dldEing any paEt of Iche day e"E pEeviele'S entertainffint a,seibl e fiYefft an adj 280 (al) Outdoor cafes and outdoor plazas in the B-3A Pembroke 281 Central Business Core District. 282 (al) Outdoor cafes and outdoor plazas in the B-3A Pembroke 283 Central Business Core District. 284 (a) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this 285 ordinance, outdoor cafes within the B-3A Pembroke 286 Central Business Core District shall not occupy more 287 than one thousand (1,000) square feet of area outside 288 of an enclosed building. 12 289 (b) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this 290 subsection, outdoor plazas within the B -3A Pembroke 291 Central Business Core District shall be subject to the 292 following criteria: 293 (1) Outdoor plazas should be located at the 294 entrance to major buildings and other appropriate 295 areas to provide safe, attractive and accessible 296 public urban open spaces for those who live, work 297 and visit the area. The size and configuration of 298 outdoor plazas and attendant amenities shall be 299 reviewed by the Planning Director to ensure 300 conformance with these and other related 301 objectives as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan 302 and Pembroke Central Business District Master 303 Plan; and 304 (2) The architectural design shall conform to 305 the purpose and intent of the Central Business 306 District Master Plan. 307 (b) Accessory uses and structures. Uses and structures 308 which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and 309 subordinate to the principal uses and structures, including, but 310 not limited to: 13 311 (1) An accessory activity operated for profit in a 312 residential dwelling unit where there is no 313 change in the outside appearance of the building 314 or premises or any visible or audible evidence 315 detectable from outside the building lot, either 316 permanently or intermittently, of the conduct of 317 such business except for one nonilluminated 318 identification sign not more than one square foot 319 in area mounted flat against the residence; where 320 no traffic is generated, including traffic by 321 commercial delivery vehicles, by such activity in 322 greater volumes than would normally be expected 323 in the neighborhood, and any need for parking 324 generated by the conduct of such activity is met 325 off the street and other than in a required front 326 yard; where the activity is conducted on the 327 premises which is the bona fide residence of the 328 principal practitioner, and no person other than 329 members of the immediate family occupying such 330 dwelling unit is employed. in the activity; where 331 such activity is conducted only in the principal 332 structure on the lot; where there are no sales to 333 the general public of products or merchandise `334 from the home; and where the activity is 14 335 specifically designed or conducted to permit no 336 more than one patron, customer, or pupil to be 337 present on the premises at any one time. The 338 following are specifically prohibited as 339 accessory activities: Convalescent or nursing 340 homes, bars or nightclubs, tourist homes, massage 341 or tattoo parlors, radio or television repair 342 shops, auto repair shops, or similar 343 establishments. 344 (c) Special restrictions in Accident Potential Zone 1 345 (APZ-1). No use or structure shall be permitted on any property 346 located within Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1) unless such use 347 is designated as compatible in APZ-1 in Table 2 ("Air 348 Installations Compatible Use Zones Land Use Compatibility in 349 Accident Potential Zones") of section 1804; provided, however, 350 that any use or structure not designated as compatible shall be 351 permitted as a replacement of the same use or structure if the 352 replacement use or structure is of equal or lesser density or 353 intensity than the original use or structure. 354 COMMENT 355 The amendments set forth the Business Districts in which bars or nightclubs are allowed as 356 conditional uses. They also prohibit bars or nightclubs as accessory uses. 357 358 359 sec. 1001. Use regulations [Industrial Districts]. 15 360 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists 361 those uses permitted within the I-1 and I-2 Industrial 362 Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective 363 industrial districts shall be permitted as either principal uses 364 indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." 365 Uses and structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in 366 the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as 367 specified shall be permitted. 368 Use 369 . . . . 370 Bars or nightclubs 371 372 . . . . 373 Eating and drinking establishments, e)Eept a& 374 spee±fieel bc'_..: 375 376 Eating anel EiL=; nkc' g estzab3 stents wheLce all 377 three-rthe fellewing eeeidLc! 378 1. Al ee h e-1 l e -b ewe -Sage s are 379 servedf 380 2. The e s4eablibFfteftTe eater 0d:t1-Lj:n-five 381 hidndE ems -(-5 9 9) feet e f a reed -ntiar-eE 382 en dist =< et 383 3. The establishFfient exam s -peens --en the 384 basis --ef-- age --dam rg-any part= of the 385 day, -e E ja Ee-,i-ides-enlceLtainRe n t a orb l e 386 £rem ad_ eininy plaepeEty. 387 388 . . . . 389 C C P P G G 390 COMMENT 391 392 The amendments require conditional use permits for bars or nightclubs located in the I-1 and I- 393 - 393 2 Industrial Districts. 394 395 . . . . 16 396 Sec. 1501. Use regulations [RT -1 District]. 397 (a) The following chart lists those uses permitted within 398 the RT -1 Resort Tourist District as either principal uses, as 399 indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses, as indicated by a 400 "C." Conditional uses shall be subject to the provisions of Part 401 C of Article 2 (section 220 et seq.). No uses or structures 402 other than those specified shall be permitted. All uses, whether 403 principal or conditional, should to the greatest extent possible 404 adhere to the provisions of the Oceanfront Resort Area Design 405 Guidelines. Use RT - 1 Bars or nightclubs, except as specified below X Bars or nightclubs operated in conjunction with hotels or C motels Facing and ding establishments,tivarre}hire=Eekc net „i +- d zrr—een�:af3et;ren with a hetel: ermete',wheLce beth of t fellewang ee i eehelie—be-eeicages—are ser- eEarc (ii) the est-ablishfaent exelide}es per-sens en the i s--ef age during any i9aft efhe--day 407 . . . . 408 (b) Structures enclosing uses permitted in conjunction 409 with hotels and motels shall be subject to the following 410 requirements: 17 411 (1) Such structures shall be located entirely within 412 and shall be fully enclosed at all times by solid 413 exterior walls and roof with no exterior opening, 414 other than passageway doors as may be required by 415 the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; 416 (2) Except with respect to boardwalk cafes as 417 permitted by franchise agreements approved by the 418 city council, no entrance or exit to the use 419 shall be located on the side of any structure 420 facing the boardwalk, unless such entrance or 421 exit provides access to a courtyard or 422 intervening open area, in which case such open 423 area shall be fully fenced or walled to a height 424 of at least four (4) feet and without any 425 entrances or exits facing the boardwalk; and 426 (3) Parking structures shall be permitted in 427 conjunction with hotels and motels provided that 428 any ground level parking within the structure 429 fronting on Atlantic Avenue, the boardwalk, or 430 any public park or open space is prohibited 431 except for necessary access drives and ramps. 432 (c) Proposed conditional uses shall be evaluated for X433 consistency with the following criteria regarding general land 434 use, transportation, and aesthetic provisions in order to further 435 the legislative intent of the RT -1 District and the goals of the 436 Comprehensive Plan and Oceanfront Resort Area Plan: 437 (1) Any development or redevelopment in this area 438 should contribute to creating an attractive 439 wholesome family resort destination; 440 (2) The use should be consistent with the resort area 441 goal to promote a safe, day and night, year round 442 resort destination; 443 (3) The use and structure should complement resort 444 activity' centers and corridors and advance the 445 area's public and private investments; 446 (4) All development and other physical improvements, 447 such as landscaping, signs, lighting, and other 448 similar elements should strive to achieve a high 449 level of design excellence and contribute to a 450 quality image as expressed in the Oceanfront 451 Resort Area Design Guidelines; 452 (5) All transportation improvements should be 453 designed to shift the dominant transportation 454 mode in the area from vehicular to pedestrian and 455 transit; and 19 456 (6) The use should be appropriate for both local 457 residents and visitors to the area. M'f:3 COMMENT 459 The amendments allow bars or nightclubs in the RT -1 Resort Tourist District only as a 460 conditional use in conjunction with hotels or motels. 461 Subsection (c) is shown for reference purposes only. 462 Sec. 1511. Use regulations [RT -2 District]. 463 (a) The following chart lists those uses permitted within 464 the RT -2 Resort Tourist District as either principal uses, as 465 indicated by a "P," or as conditional uses, as indicated by a 466 "C." Conditional uses shall be subject to the provisions of Part 467 C of Article 2 (section 220 et seq.). Buildings within the RT -2 468 District may include any principal or conditional uses in 469 combination with any other principal or conditional uses. No 470 uses or structures other than those specified shall be 471 permitted. All uses, whether principal or conditional, should to 472 the greatest extent possible adhere to the provisions of the 473 Oceanfront Resort Area Design Guidelines. 474 Use RT - 2 Bars or nightclubs C Eating and drinking establishments, eiEeept as _1___ficd belewEat-i:ng and— P —E:E�iiklng establishffiente ovrrere—be �—or--trrc fellewing ee��(i) Aleehelie me agem--a rcrved7 and (id:) The=estab3iehment exelade 475 476 (b) Accessory uses and structures: Uses and structures 477 which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and 478 subordinate to the principal uses and structures; provided, 479 however, that drive-through facilities shall not be permitted: 480 (1) An accessory activity operated for profit in a 481 residential dwelling unit where there is no 482 change in the outside appearance of the building 483 or premises or any visible or audible evidence 484 detectable from outside the building lot, either 485 permanently or intermittently, of the conduct of 486 such business except for one (1) nonilluminated 487 identification sign not more than one (1) square 488 foot in area mounted flat against the residence; 489 where no traffic is generated, including traffic 490 by commercial delivery vehicles, by such activity 491 in greater volumes than would normally be 492 expected in the neighborhood, and any need for 493 parking generated by the conduct of such activity 494 is met off the street and other than in a 495 required front yard; where the activity is 21 496 conducted on the premises which is. the bona fide 497 residence of the principal practitioner, and no 498 person other than members of the immediate family 499 occupying such dwelling unit is employed in the 500 activity; where such activity is conducted only 501 in the principal structure on the lot; where 502 there are no sales to the general public of 503 products or merchandise from the home; and where 504 the activity is specifically designed or 505 conducted to permit no more than one (1) patron, 506 customer, or pupil to be present on the premises 507 at any one (1) time. The following are 508 specifically prohibited as accessory activities: 509 Convalescent or nursing homes, bars or 510 nightclubs, tourist homes, massage or tattoo 511 parlors, body piercing establishments, radio or 512 television repair shops, auto repair shops, or 513 similar establishments. 514 (c) Proposed conditional uses shall be evaluated for 515 consistency with the following criteria regarding general land 516 use, transportation, and aesthetic provisions in order to 517 further the legislative intent of the RT -2 District and the 518 goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Oceanfront Resort Area Plan: 22 519 (1) Any development or redevelopment in this area 520 should contribute to creating an attractive 521 wholesome family resort destination; 522 (2) The use should be consistent with the resort area 523 goal to promote a safe, day and night, year round 524 resort destination; 525 (3) The use and structure should complement resort 526 activity centers and corridors and advance the 527 area's public and private investments; 528 (4) All development and other physical improvements, 529 such as landscaping, signs, lighting, and other 530 similar elements should strive to achieve a high 531 level of design excellence and contribute to a 532 quality image as expressed in the Oceanfront 533 Resort Area Design Guidelines; 534 (5) All transportation improvements should be 535 designed to shift the dominant transportation 536 mode in the area from vehicular to pedestrian and 537 transit; and 538 (6) The use should be appropriate for both local 539 residents and visitors to the area. 23 540 COMMENT 541 The proposed amendments allow bars or nightclubs as a conditional use in the RT -2 Resort 542 Tourist District. The treatment is similar to the existing treatment of eating and drinking 543 establishments where alcoholic beverages are served and where persons are excluded from the 544 premises on the basis of age. 5 4 5 Subsection (c) is shown for reference purposes only. 546 547 Sec. 1521. Use regulations [RT -3 District]. 548 (a) The following chart lists those uses permitted within 549 the RT -3 Resort Tourist District as either principal uses, as 550 indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses, as indicated by a 551 "C." Conditional uses shall be subject to the provisions of Part 552 C of Article 2 (section 220 et seq.) . Except for single-family, 553 duplex, semidetached and attached dwellings, buildings within 554 the RT -3 District may include any principal or conditional uses 555 in combination with any other principal or conditional use. No 556 uses or structure s other than those specified shall be 557 permitted. All uses, whether principal or conditional, should to 558 the greatest extent possible adhere to the provisions of the 559 Oceanfront Resort Area Design Guidelines. 560 Use RT - 3 Bars or nightclubs C Eating and drinking establishments, e�Ee_pt as speeificd �,� P 33g --and dr-inks:ng esiab=lishiaeni--s wliciFe be}-sir—of the G W, rem l e w l n Ej e Eca r—( j: ) Aleehelie b ey eta g co—a-3- e -` e i= e (ii) The es�:abiishffient eieel:ades per-sens en the basis ef age 561 562 (b) Accessory uses and structures : Uses and structures 563 which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and 564 subordinate to the principal uses and structures; provided, 565 however, that drive-through facilities shall not be permitted as 566 an accessory use: 567 (1) An accessory activity operated for profit in a 568 residential dwelling unit where there is no 569 change in the outside appearance of the building 570 or premises or any visible or audible evidence 571 detectable from outside the building lot, either 572 permanently or intermittently, of the conduct of 573 such business except for one (1) nonilluminated 574 identification sign not more than one (1) square 575 foot in area mounted flat again against the 576 residence; where no traffic is generated, 577 including traffic by commercial delivery 578 vehicles, by such activity in greater volumes 579 than would normally be expected in the 580 neighborhood, and any need for parking generated 581 by the conduct of such activity is met off the 25 582 street and other than in a required front yard; 583 where the activity is conducted on the premises 584 which is the bona fide residence of the principal 585 practitioner, and no person other than members of 586 the immediate family occupying such dwelling unit 587 is employed in the activity; where such activity 588 is conducted only in the principal structure on 589 the lot; where there are no sales to the general 590 public of products or merchandise from the home; 591 and where the activity is specifically designed 592 or conducted to permit no more than one (1) 593 patron, customer, or pupil to be present on the 594 premises at any one time. The following are 595 specifically prohibited as accessory activities: 596 Convalescent or nursing homes, bars or 597 nightclubs, tourist homes, massage or tattoo 598 parlors, body piercing establishments, radio or 599 television repair shops, auto repair shops, or 600 similar establishments. 601 (c) Proposed conditional uses shall be evaluated for 602 consistency with the following criteria regarding general land 603 use, transportation, and aesthetic provisions in order to 604 further the legislative intent of the RT -3 District and the 605 goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Oceanfront Resort Area Plan: 26 606 (1) Any development or redevelopment in this area 607 should contribute to creating an attractive 608 wholesome family resort destination; 609 (2) The use should be consistent with the resort area 610 goal to promote a safe, day and night, year round 611 resort destination; 612 (3) The use and structure should complement resort 613 activity centers and corridors and advance the 614 area's public and private investments; 615 (4) All development and other physical improvements, 616 such as landscaping, signs, lighting, and other 617 similar elements should strive to achieve a high 618 level of design excellence and contribute to a 619 quality image as expressed in the Oceanfront 620 Resort Area Design Guidelines; 621 (7) All transportation improvements should be 622 designed to shift the dominant transportation 623 mode in the area from vehicular to pedestrian and 624 transit; and 625 (8) The use should be appropriate for both local 626 residents and visitors to the area. 27 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 COMMENT The amendments allow bars or nightclubs as a conditional use in the RT -3 Resort Tourist District. The treatment is similar to the existing treatment of eating and drinking establishments where alcoholic beverages are served and where persons are excluded from the premises on the basis of age. Subsection (c) is shown for reference purposes only. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Jrm,ov--, /42� Pla ing Depar ent , 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office CA -10067 OID\Land Use\ordres\bar-nightclub ordin.doc R-16 November 22, 2006 28 Y •tee J�' � � _ n n .� �� � � .. 7 CaseFinder Search Results: 12/13/2006 11:18:25 AM Found 8 documents in Virginia Code searching on "abating public nuisances" Virginia Code Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, § § 48-1— 48-6 Investigation of complaint by special grand jury. § 48-1 Presentment against person causing nuisance. § 48-2 Permitting continuation of nuisance; presentment against premises. § 48-3 Service of copy of presentment; defense by person interested. § 48-4 Fine and costs; judgment of abatement. § 48-5 Enforcement of judgment in rem. § 48-6 3 3 3 3 3 3 17 L t.tv c t (�S L' Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919 & 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1 —48-6 § 48-1. Investigation of complaint by special grand jury. — When complaint is made to the circuit court of any county, or the corporation court of any city of this Commonwealth, by five or more citizens of any county, city or town, setting forth the existence of a public or common nuisance, the court, or the judge thereof in vacation, shall summon a special grand jury, in the mode provided by law, to the next term of such court, to specially investigate such complaint. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919. & 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1 — 48-6 § 48-2. Presentment against person causing nuisance. — If upon a full investigation of the complaint mentioned in § 48-1 the grand jury is satisfied that the nuisance complained of is of a public nature, it shall proceed to make presentment against such person or persons as they may find have created or caused such nuisance. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919 & 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1 — 48-6 § 48-3. Permitting continuation of nuisance; presentment against premises. — If any such nuisance be upon premises the owner of which did not create or cause such nuisance, but permitted its continuation, such owner shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed responsible for such nuisance, and if such owner be not a resident or citizen of this Commonwealth, or one whose residence is not known, such presentment shall be against the premises upon which such nuisance is. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 �_ L�y .- .• '- t: i" \i �`•, ,f� Ci it .`: l�f� tv'. l� it� t?iJl;'3� � Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919, & 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 § 484. Service of copy of presentment; defense by person interested. — Upon any such presentment the court shall order a copy thereof to be served upon the person or persons presented, or whose property is presented, in the manner prescribed by law as to the service of notices. To any such proceeding, if it be in rem, any person interested, or for and in behalf of the owner of such premises, may make defense. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Printed from CaseFinderg, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 t ` ii e" is 1,��j'-�it�5 C ti tl i tCCLi;sS Text in effect from and after July 1, 1996 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 § 48-5. Fine and costs; judgment of abatement. — Upon the trial of any such presentment the person or persons who have created, caused or permitted the continuation of such nuisance, if found guilty, shall be fined, in the discretion of the jury, not more than $10,000; and upon such verdict the judgment of the court shall be for the amount of fine imposed and the costs of such proceeding, and also that such nuisance be forthwith removed and abated. (Code 1919, § 1520; 1996, cc. 291, 808.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919, § 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 § 48-6. Enforcement of judgment in rem. — Every judgment in rem under this chapter shall be enforced in the same manner as an attachment levied on real estate. (Code 1919, § 1520.) printed from CaseFinder®. Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 Item #9 City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs An Ordinance to amend Sections 111, 23 3.1, 701, 901 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance, defining the Terms "Alcoholic Beverage" and "Bar or Nightclub," requiring Conditional Use Permits for Bars or Nightclubs, Adding Standards for the Consideration of Applications for Conditional Use Permits, and Establishing Other Regulations Pertaining to Bars or Nightclubs in the H-1, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, B -4C, B4K, I-1, I-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts December 13, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary, the next item to be heard. Joseph Strange: The next item is item #9, City of Virginia Beach — Bars or nightclubs. An ordinance to amend Sections 111, 233.1, 701, 901, 1001, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, defining the terms "Alcoholic Beverages" and "Bar or Nightclub," requiring Conditional Use Permits for Bars or Nightclubs, adding Standards for the Consideration of Applications for Conditional Use Permits, and Establishing other Regulations Pertaining to Bars or Nightclubs in the H-1, B-2, B-3, B -3A, B-4, B -4C, B - 4K, 1- 1, I-2, RT -1, RT -2 and RT -3 Zoning Districts. Barry Knight: Thank you. The applicant is the City of Virginia Beach. Joseph Strange: The speaker is Bill Macali. Barry Knight: Mr. Macali? Bill Macali: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. As you know, for several years we struggled to arrive at a suitable way of distinguishing between restaurants and establishments that although they serve food because they are required to by ABC regulations, are essentially bars or nightclubs. We have, recently brought forward an amendment to the Planning Commission recommended for approval to the City Council. Pretty much at the 11th hour, we discovered that it was not a workable amendment, so we went back to the drawing board, and arrived at what we think is a very workable, very fair, very practical solution to the problem of distinguishing between bars and nightclubs. In what we've done, and I should mention that the primary purpose of this ordinance, the meat of this ordinance, is to distinguish between bars and restaurants, and to do so is the primary thing about this ordinance. What I will talk about today is the definition of how you distinguish between the two. In order for an establishment to be considered a bar or nightclub, three things all have to occur. One is that the establishment serves alcohol anytime between midnight and 6:00 am, except incidental to a wedding or a bar mitzvah or a banquet, something like that, which is not generally attended by the public. The second thing is that the combined area of the dance floor and other standing space in the Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 2 establishment, as determined by the international building code exceeds 15 percent of the public floor area of the establishment. We have defined the terms "standing space" and "public floor space" in the ordinance. There won't be any kind of discretion in determining what is standing space, what is public floor space. It is resolved by reference to the International Building Code and by reference to the ordinance definition itself. The other thing that has to happen in order for an establishment to be considered a bar as opposed to a restaurant, in addition to the other two, is that amplified music, other than pre-recorded background music intended just as a complement to dining is provided between midnight and 6:00 am. If all three of those factors coincide in an establishment it is deemed a bar or nightclub, in terms of interchangeable in our zoning ordinance. It would require a Use Permit in the areas in which they are allowed as conditional uses. If anyone of those three factors is not present, the establishment is not considered a bar or a nightclub, it is considerable a restaurant and would not obtain a Conditional Use Permit. The remainder of the ordinance is essentially the same as the one that the Commission recommended approval on in October, the provisions for the one time expansion, as a matter of right under certain conditions, is still in there. Pretty much everything else is the same. The only distinguishing factor between this ordinance and the one that you already approved is that the key factor is the amount of standing space compared to the public area ratio of the establishment, that is the substance of the difference. I should mention that we have been involved with the Restaurant Association in working out some of these figures. I understand that they are not entirely comfortable with that but we have taken the position from the beginning, and we take it now, that if the 15 percent is a figure that justifies some adjustment at a later time prior to the City Council meeting, we will be happy to do that. The last thing that I want to mention is that this ordinance is separate and apart, and entirely distinct from two other things that the Commission has heard about and been briefed on. The first is that, as you recall, there was a public safety ordinance that the staff was bringing forward, which would have been good. It had some stringent requirements placed upon the establishments, which came under these provisions. Things like security cameras, security guards. It would have been expensive and difficult to comply with. We have, however, taken another tact, and that is that we have, and City Council adopted, a resolution last night asking the General Assembly to do this, to go forward with legislation that would provide that upon application of the City, if the City, or really the police department had put together enough evidence of, and I won't say bad behavior. It's more than bad behavior, of crimes being committed, such that establishment had become a danger to the public, that the City could apply to the Circuit Court for a temporary injunction against the establishment serving alcoholic beverages. That injunction, if granted, would remain in effect until the ABC Board finished its determination, and at which point, the ABC's Board determination replaces that of the Circuit Court. That is entirely separate from this ordinance even if that fails. We will be going forward with this ordinance. If the proposed legislation is adopted by the General Assembly and becomes law, then the public safety permit, the stringent one, we will not be pursing that. This ordinance, essentially as most zoning ordinances really controls the -� location of new establishments. It does not require that any bar that is in existence now get a Conditional Use Permit because under State law they have an vested right to Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 3 continue unless the use is discontinued for a period of two years. This simply applies to new establishments. In one respect in which it applies to existing establishments, it actually goes a little bit further in avocation to existing establishments by allowing them to expand one time without the City Council approval, which is different from other non- conforming uses. So, in essence, we feel that this is about the best idea that we have brought forward. It represents thinking of the Police Department, the Fire Marshal, the Building Official, the Zoning Administrator, and our office. We think that with this proposal, we really have hit the sweet spot, as far as distinguishing what makes a bar and what makes a restaurant. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Macali. Are there any questions from the Commission for Mr. Macali at this time? Thank you. Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Kevin Martingayle. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Kevin Martingayle: Thank you. I've got something if I can hand it around. I think I have enough copies. Thank you very much. My name is Kevin Martingayle. I'm a local attorney, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of Hammerhead's, which is an establishment located on Atlantic Avenue in the City of Virginia Beach. The first thing that jumped out at me when I looked at the agenda item #9, when you look at Page 1, it says in the second paragraph under summary of amendment near the end that "the City Council also desired that the amendment include specific standards to be used in the evaluation of Use Permits for a bar or nightclub." In looking at what has changed from last time and this time, basically I think we have been told that it start talking about standing specs. Perhaps, things like that. I don't believe that is what the City Council had in mind. I can tell you that certainly not with my clients, and I represent a lot of other licensees, restaurants, as well. That is not the kind of standards that they had in mind. They want to know what kind of conduct is going to land them in hot water and suddenly, possibly lead to a revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. Are they expected to regulate the conduct of people who come there or are they simply expected to comply with all the merit of laws that are already existing with expect to ABC Licensee, such as Health Department, ABC, fire code, noise ordinance? You name it. They have lots of laws already. So, I don't believe that emission has been met. If you look at Page 2, here is a sentence that I think really gets to be big problems here. I listened to what Mr. Macali said and he talked about struggling to distinguish between restaurant on one hand, and bars/nightclubs on the other hand. But I still don't understand why. When you look under the recommendation, it talks about how the current situation exacerbates the problems caused by bars. I have yet to understand what problems bars are actually causing. You might be aware that in Virginia for example, an ABC Licensee can't be held liable for a person who gets drunks at an ABC establishment, then goes out and gets into a car accident because under Virginia law, we don't hold people to that standard. We say, the person who drank is responsible not the bar owner. But basically, now what we Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 4 are trying to do is slide toward a situation where we are going to hold licensee responsible for the independent, unrelated conduct of people who happen to come in there with enough dollars in their pocket and buy something from them, and then maybe engage in criminal conduct outside. That is where this is heading. There has been no explanation of the cause and affect of what conditions are bars causing that constitute a public safety threat or violation. We know what is really going on. There are people out there that don't comply with the law. Punish them. Tell the police to go get them. Lock them up. Arrest them. Charge them appropriately. But don't hold the bars responsible for that. Then it says here further that the police department finds the current situation unworkable. What we find unworkable is the lack of enforcement with regard to people who are out on the street who are committing violations of law. These establishments have every bit as much interest in making sure that criminals are locked up because they don't want the business of the.criminals. The criminals are making it hard for everybody else. So we want the police to crack down. If there is a crack down, let the police go do it. But don't hold the establishment owners and the little business owners responsible for other people's conduct. They are not their brother's keeper. If you look over on Page 5, you get, what I call the devil and the details. And by the way, what I handed around to you, and I should backtrack just a second. I was just talking a second ago about causation. Let's assume for just the sake of argument that you've got an establishment that is a problem establishment that is deemed to be causing problems. This law, I've given you the whole six sections of it. This law has been on the books since 1919. It has been codified in Virginia law that there is a procedure in place where five or more citizens want to petition for the empanelling of a special grand jury, which then leads ultimately to a trial in the courtroom. There is a way to shut down any place that can be proven incompetent evidence to be a nuisance. So, that is a very long complicated way of saying that this cure is unnecessary. This is a cure in search of a problem. We already have a gigantic hammer in the hands of the citizens. If any citizen is having a complaint they can do something about it. If the police want to do something then they can either use other tools they've got or they can try to use this, or if they want to have themselves included as people who can petition the court, then they can amend this law. Very easy, but this is a sure and complicated way to achieve that. Now, if you look at Page 5, and I'm glad that some of you are in construction and some of you are architects because you are going to know right a way what the problem is with 5, where it says "if there is amplified sound within 500 feet of any residential apartment district or any hotel, it can't even be audible from outside the building. That means that if you can hear anything, audible means if you can hear any sound, then you are in violation of this. There is not another business anywhere that has a requirement like that. This doesn't say that you have to comply with the Virginia Beach Noise Ordinance. This says that if I can hear any of this noise at all that is outside of your place then we can shut you down. Now, I know that people in construction and people who are architects cannot possibly guarantee to their customers in a normally constructed building that if you have some reasonable _ amount of sound inside that it will be completely inaudible on the outside. That is completely unreasonable. That has to go. Next, you see how the operators shall not allow loitering or congregation of individuals in the parking lot or other exterior portions Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 5 of the premises, etc. Here is the problem there. I know that this government is not going to deputize my clients, and give them law enforcement authority to go outside and start ordering people around. That is basically what you are doing here. You're ordering them to do what they do not have the legal right to do. I represent a number of places that are located on what is called "the block" down at the Oceanfront. Can you imagine if they go out there and start telling people to move it along on the sidewalk? Move it. You got to go. You're in front of my establishment. It says right here along the exterior portion of the premises. Are you really going to tell people that they have to tell the crowd to move it along? That is not appropriate. These people don't have the authority, and furthermore, lets assume that this is an effort to tell people, well if you can't make them move, then you should to tell the police. Once again, respectively we are not in the Soviet Union. There is no reporting requirement under Virginia law. You don't have to tell people. Once again, if the police have a problem then what they should do is they should take it into their own hands but I think you probably have all been told before that the creation of an anti -loitering ordinance is a very difficult thing to do because there are all kinds of constitution problems. It seems like because there are constitutional problems achieving that and the police can't do it or don't want to do it, then they want you to put that burden on the business owners. That is not fair. Under number 4, this one is very concerning. It says that such establishment shall be required to implement any other reasonable measures the City Council deems necessary or appropriate to minimize noise or other potential adverse affects. No actual adverse affects but anything they can dream up that might be a potential adverse affect. This is completely open ended. And, I know that you would not tolerate this with respect to the businesses that you are in. To have something like that you will have to have a Conditional Use Permit to be in business, and that oh by the way, in addition to these other things that we're going to do to you, anything else that the local governing body puts on you, you've got to do or we can shut you down. You would never tolerate that in your own lives and I ask that you not do it in this instance. So, with that having been said, I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. But here is where I think this needs to go. I think what you need is to send back to the City Council is this message. This is not necessary. It has not been justified. There is already a way to deal with any nuisance establishments or nuisance business owners that are out there, so you don't need it at all. That we can't seem to come up with a workable solution that is fair and doesn't lead to any slippery slope concerns. And, so we're not simply going to approve anything. If the City Council wants to do it, then let them try to come up with something on their own but you do not have to send up something simply because they gave you a homework assignment. Sometimes the thing to do is say, you know what you asked us to do it just can't be done in a fair and reasonable fashion, and so we don't know how to do it. If you think you do, then do it. But, I ask you that you not give them the political cover of a "yes" vote. I ask that you say "no", we're not going to approve this. We're going to send it back. Please say no. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Martingayle? Ms. Anderson? Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 6 Janice Anderson: Where is that section about asking to get out of the sidewalks? I know that we had discussed that earlier. Kevin Martingayle: I'm looking on Page 5 near the top where it is underlined, "noise from any establishment located within 500 feet." Janice Anderson: Okay. Kevin Martingayle: Wait a minute. Further down. Number 3. Operators of such an establishment shall not allow loitering or congregation of individuals in the parking lot or other exterior portions of the premises. And, I think it is trying to make an exception if you have one of those approved patio areas. I'm assuming that is when the exception is designed to do. So, basically what they are saying there is an underline except when patrons, employees or other persons are actually entering or exiting the establishment. First of all, I'm not clear on if that would even allow you to have a line out the door. If you had a line, people aren't actually exiting or entering. They're waiting. So, that could be deemed loitering. But even putting that to the side, I'm sure you have been down on Atlantic Avenue before and seen Beach Street USA. Here is the interesting problem this is going to create. You are going to have Beach Street musicians playing right in front of these establishments. They are going to have people loitering who are standing there listening. And, then you're going to have the business owners, by the way, who don't actually want all the Beach Street people necessarily blocking their front door. They are going to go outside and tell them to get out of the way. My Conditional Use Permit says you can't stand around here. You are loitering. This is going to create some conflict. There is no question about it. I think it is going to create a civil rights law suit filed by somebody who was told they can't loiter by a bar owner who doesn't have any legal entitlement to tell them to do that but is going to point to their Conditional Use Permit and say I was given that authority. This is a disastrous provision right here. Holding a private landowner who is not deputized responsible for loitering. There is no way that is going to work. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Mr. Waller. Kevin Martingayle: Yes sir. John Waller: I should know this but what do other cities that have bars up and down the street, what do they do? This isn't unique to this area. What happens? Kevin Martingayle: Well, they all have different ways of doing this sort of thing. In Norfolk, for example what they done is they have not gone through the effort to distinguish between restaurants and bars on the other hand. Instead, they have come up with a set of conditions for each establishment. But they have their own set of problems in Norfolk too. I don't know if their situation is any better for instance on Granby Street. I think, what you come down to is that you look at different type of communities, and you Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 7 end up with the old struggle what exactly are we and what are we trying to become? In Bourbon Street, people are allowed to walk up and down the street and drink with a drink in their hand. It is legal to do that there. I don't think we are trying to be like Bourbon Street. We don't allow anything remotely like that. If you go out in Miami, I'm told, and I'm not familiar with that but I know a lot of people that have been there. Down there, they encourage people to have open-air cafes where music comes out of the place and kind of mixes in the air. People sort of get the feeling of celebration in the air. Virginia Beach has long discouraged that. They encourage people to keep all their noise indoors, and keep their windows and doors shut particularly after 10:00 o'clock. I guess the best answer I can give you is this. On the one hand, the City of Virginia Beach tries very hard to draw in a lot of people. We have a lot of events that are designed to get them here. We have the Rock & Roll lh Marathon that has 15,000 participants. We have the Beach Street USA program. We have bands and little bands, jugglers, and all of this different stuff going on. And, obviously there is a lot of sound associated with that, and there are a lot of crowds associated with that. Then we have these restaurants that are selling a legal product, alcohol. They are selling it within the dictates of their licenses, and within the coniines of what State law allows them to do. They also have to sell food. That is why they qualify as a restaurant. And, it seems after a certain point in time, at night, the City wants to close down. They want to see everybody go home. The night is over. That is why, for example, we no longer allow cars to come into the parking lots at 19`'' Street and 25th Street after midnight. You can't get your car into the lot. You can go home but you can't come to the Beach after midnight. I think this is a continuation of that effort. I think what they are trying to do is say, look this is not designed to discourage regular restaurants. We're just trying to discourage the creation of bars. I think this is what this really is. It is an effort to discourage the creation of bars. They are hoping that the ones that are already around will eventually go away, and they won't be able to be replaced. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Kevin, you realize they had a lot of problems at the Beach, I'm sure. And you realize there are problems with people that are intoxicated. Kevin Martingayle: Absolutely. Dorothy Wood: And you realize there have been problems with people driving their cars after drinking. You understand why Mr. Macali and staff have worked so hard to try to make our Beach a safer place. Kevin Martingayle: I understand all that. Dorothy Wood: So, what do you think would be a suggestion to have a safe Beach, and to get away from the intoxicated people on the streets? I understand from the police department that this is really a problem. Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 8 Kevin Martingayle: Arrest, actively prosecute, convict and punish criminals. Those who engage in criminal behavior, it is that simple. I will tell you I was recently hired to represent a business that had a couple of different altercations arise one night between patrons. They escorted the people out. The people continued to fight on the sidewalk in front of police officers. They asked the police "are you going to arrest these guys? The police looked at them and said, that is the third fight you all had tonight. Are you going to shut down early tonight? Did not arrest anybody. We've got an enforcement problem. We may as well stop looking the other way. A large part of the problem down there is that the court system is not having all of these criminals fed into it. I can tell you. I know the General District Court judges and Circuit Court judges in Virginia Beach. They are not known for being soft on crime. If somebody comes in one time with a drunk in public or a fight, what have you, you might get a mild punishment the first time around. If you come back that second or third time, you are going to be outfitted in an orange jump suit and given some jail issue shoes to wear. You are going to spend some,time behind bars. It is a condition of any suspended sentence that you're probably not going to be allowed to go into any bars any more. So, that frankly, if we just ask the police department to enforce the laws that we currently have and be aggressive about it, we would take the bad actors off the street. They would just learn that they can't come and act up. If you want to have fun, welcome. If you want to be bad, you better get ready to go to jail. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Kevin. But you know the police department doesn't come under the Planning Commission. Kevin Martingayle: I know. So, what I'm telling you is that I'm advocating that you send back the message that you think with the current set of criminal statutes that we have plus the injunction statute we have, you simply don't need this. There is just no justification for it. It creates more problems then it cures. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the problem. I don't even see the problem. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Martingayle, we are going to give Mr. Macali a chance when we get done discussing, because he is representing the applicant, to have a rebuttal like we always do. Kevin Martingayle: Yes sir. Barry Knight: We have in Virginia Beach right now, we're 48 police officers short. And, the police academy right now had 32 people in it. They are all not going to graduate. So, we have a shortage of manpower for the police. We're trying to circumvent the police department having to locate themselves outside of some of these trouble bars. We're trying to give us another set of enforcement tools but what I would like to ask you real _— quick. You said that we have an enforcement action already, which is for five citizens to ask for a special grand jury. We know we have many shootings and many problem bars. Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 9 First of all, were you ever aware of this being done before? And if you are, how long did it take the process to happen from start to finish in Virginia Beach? Kevin Martingayle: It is my understanding that either this statute or something similar to it was done with respect to an ABC establishment within the last year or so. While this was going on, ABC actually shut the place down. Neal Insley, who is a former ABC agent is one of the people signed up to speak in opposition, so he would probably be better suited to address that particular issue, and how this was used in the past. But, my point of bringing this up is to simply say that this has been around since 1919, and it ought to be used. I mean it is very clear. It doesn't even require the court discretion to say no. It says that if five or more citizens ask for it, the court shall do it. So, it is mandatory. It has to be done. If they want to change the language slightly to say that if the Chief of Police or the Sheriff asks for it to be done, they can do that with respect to the law enforcement. Mr. Edwards, who owns three places on Atlantic Avenue, will tell you. I hate to say this but he is going to tell you, and we can show you video any time you want to see it. We have a lot of police officers down there that at a lot of times we have literally hours of video tape collection of showing people standing around, and I mean police officers standing around not particularly doing anything. Shoulder to shoulder on that 2100 block, and there are obviously people who were drunk walking up and down the sidewalk. There are people who are acting rude to each other and so forth. We know that from some of the city surveys that have a chief complaint of profanity and so forth going on. Why not arrest some of these people or go warn them? Walk over and tell them to knock it off. There is a whole lot of standing around going on so every time I hear the shortage thing brought up by the police department, my reply is who wants to watch a movie because we got the evidence. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Martingayle at this time? Kevin Martingayle: Thank you very much for your time. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: The next person speaking in opposition is Andy Edwards. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Andy Edwards: Thank you for the time. I don't want to add a whole more to that. Ed Weeden: State your name for the record please. Andy Edwards: My name is Andy Edwards. I have Crazy Charlie's, Cheetoos and Hammerheads down on the block. I've worked down there since 1980 in some capacity. My sales since 2000 was 2.6 million dollars, year-end 2005 1.4 million. Okay. The things that we've done to try to affect behavior down there have been amazing. It started Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 10 out with shutting down the pizza when there were crowds on the sidewalk. Then we went to creating Beach Street hoping to get rid of some of the crowds. Then we started with the fire inspector. Fire Inspector 82 times in one year in three places, 82 times in one year. Can you imagine that? Outdoor cafes? Lets try outdoor cafes and see if that would get rid some of the crowds? Lets try facial recognition camera system? Those will work. We can monitor them. We'll try music. Maybe music will drive them out. Lets put the spotlights on them. Okay. Then lets close down the parking lots. Okay. Simultaneously, you have eight policemen standing out there in their black gloves right in the trolley lanes, blocking the trolley lane, creating a traffic problem. Nothing is happening. Nothing has changed. Nothing has gotten better. And, this is just another tool that might work. Nobody knows. Nobody says if we do this, this, and this, this is what is going to happen. Here is how we're going to be successful. That is what me, the small business owner, that is what I want. If you can do it, lets do it equally. Lets make sure you do it at 9`h Street, 21S` Street, 31S` Street exactly the same. If that is the case, I'm okay with it. But it is not. We have similarly situated ABC license holders, restaurants. No bars and nightclubs. They don't exist in the State. I just want it to be treated equally, and lets look how it is affecting small business owners. There are other small business owners down there that won't continue to fight like me. I am just asking you to say no. Send it back. We have the tools. Lets use them. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Edwards. Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: Can you expand on that about not having it equally? Are they enforcing certain streets and not other ones? Andy Edwards: Absolutely. Everything from the calls for service, the IBR reports, and look at real complaints. Where are the complaints coming from? They are not citizen complaints coming in on the 2100 block. No noise complaints but yet I have two noise tickets. I got convicted of one, had it appealed and won. Then I had another one. And we won that but no citizen complaints. These are arbitrary things being enforced by the police officers at the street level when they deem necessary. The public nudity case, now maybe they didn't like what she had on. But it was arbitrarily enforced. It is not being done equally. All I want is equal protection, equal opportunity, and equal enforcement. That is it. Lets keep it equal. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Edwards? Thank you. Andy Edwards: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Neal Insley. He is representing The Block, Inc. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 11 Neal Insley: Good afternoon distinguished members of the Commission. My name is Neal Insley. I'm a local attorney here in Virginia Beach, and I am also a resident of Virginia Beach. Prior to becoming an attorney, I guess I have lived this epic saga that is "The Block" for a long time. For about eight years, I was an ABC agent. A special agent and as part of my functions I was assigned to the Block. I can tell you that in that time frame, I have seen the pendulum swing. When I first started as an agent, the problem that we had in Waterside in Norfolk for a while where the localities were, if you will, trying to promote and help places down there that sold alcohol, and sometimes it was hard for us to get information. I've watched in my career as the pendulum swings to what we have today, where it appears there is an active effort to try to move them out or make sure they are scrutinized every step of the way. What you have before you today, and I'm not going to go through it. I don't know how I always manage to follow Mr. Martingayle in doing these things. I'm not going to rehash but I can assure you that all that he brought up, in particular the concerns with the way this ordinance is drafted, the way the zoning ordinance is going to be drafted does give great concern. There is also concern. We are concerned and I think it needs to be something that the Commission needs to consider is essentially what you are being asked to do and what is done here is that you're creating a legal entity that does not otherwise exist in State Code, and then trying to find a way to enforce it through zoning. And, when I say that, Virginia probably, as you are aware, and you have certainly heard, does not recognize bars or nightclubs. They have a list of licenses that they administer, and what we're talking about here under State code is recognized as a restaurant. They are all recognized as restaurants. There is not a distinction between bars and nightclubs. Whether we agree with that or not is not really the point here today. The point is that currently under state law, they do not exist. Whether they should or not? That is something that would need to be taken up with the legislature. Not with the City Zoning Commission. I would ask you to scrutinize the purpose and meaning for this. There are laws and regulations on the book. I can assure you in dealing with public nuisance, and I was actually involved with some of those cases when I prosecuted here in the City of Virginia Beach for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. They are effective tools. And they can work. The City does not need to create entities and find a way to regulate them. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Insley. Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: You said you worked for the ABC Board? Neal Insley: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: How long? Neal Insley: Almost eight years. I rated eight years as a special agent. Ronald Ripley: One of the things that we keep hearing is that the ABC Board does not shut down facilities. If they have a bar that is out of control for whatever reason, they just Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 12 don't go in to enforce it. They don't have enough people to do it or it just takes forever for them to get to it. And that is what created, and that is my understanding part of the frustration on the City's part is trying is actually trying to get a handle around the problem. That is what has caused all of this. In fact, go back about four years ago, we had a Conditional Use Permit come forth, I remember it as I was Chairman at the time, and they didn't go for it because, lets try to work it out with the ABC Board. They said they would work with us better. That didn't work. Now we are back to square one. So, tell me about the ABC Board and why it doesn't work. Maybe you see it different then what I am hearing and being told. Neal Insley: And I have heard that. I heard it as an agent a lot. And, I can assure you that it is not merited in all jurisdictions that ABC is not effective and does not work. And, I can assure you and first hand as an agent, we've spent a lot time. I've spent a lot of time down on at 2100 block enforcing the regulations that are in place. I think what the issue becomes here is everybody is entitled to due process of law. It is a fundamental right and I don't think anybody on this Commission or anybody in our country will argue against our fundamental rights of due process of taking away our freedom or a license or anything such as that. I think the problem that runs here sometimes when things happen or events happen, unfortunately events happen at certain locations, it's the feeling of due process is not happening fast enough. And, that is where they seem to run into problems although there are continuances. You know, Rocket Dockets things that they have done in Federal court certainly would probably help with ABC. And, ABC is undermanned. It is a big job that they take on. I can assure you that they do much more than I knew when I accepted the position as special agent coming from a uniform patrol, I had no idea that they enforce and actively conduct narcotic investigations in establishments. Basically, any criminal activity that happens in or around an ABC license establishment, they will investigate and pursue it. Is it going to be fast enough? That is our system. Mr. Martingayle made a reference to the public nuisance ordinance. When I prosecuted here in the City of Virginia Beach, I had somewhat of an opportunity to see that. The two incidences that I'm aware of that werer used, neither one had to go full circle. The first was because the ABC Board by time the public nuisance, they decided to initiate the public nuisance, which was well into the process, and if they had done it sooner, it probably would have been a very effective tool. In the interim, the ABC Board revoked their license. So, it was a new issue. The other it never had to go to special grand jury. What this statute does it goes to the property owner. In other words, you know, just because someone has a license to sell in a certain establishment doesn't mean they own that property. Well, this goes to the property owner, and the situation that I was involved in with the Commonwealth Attorney's Office it got their attention. Because they knew that it was their property that was going to be enjoined not the individual who had the license. Not that. The property was going to sit idle and be enjoined, and essentially with the landlord said was get out. It was a very effective tool. I think it is an effective tool. And, it can be used more expeditiously, then I think, if it even, as I said in my experience, if it even has to go that far. Usually when you start talking to the property owners and enjoining their business, they take that very seriously. Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 13 Ronald Ripley: My sense of it is that if the ABC Board would step up and enforce the ABC laws more efficiently and quickly, if you will, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't believe and I may be wrong. That seems to me that just of it. If we had them working with the City closer, I think we wouldn't even be talking here about this. I'm just going back to a number of meetings that we had. All of this got put back onto Jan, and actually having to deal with it all over again. I think that is what I got out of it three or four years ago. Neal Insley: Mr. Ripley. I can assure that it is a two way street. Having been an employee of the ABC Board, they are not going to turn down the opportunity to work with anybody or address public safety issues in any location. That is not going to happen. They are going to work well and try to do what they can. The process is a process. If the process needs to be changed then it needs to be changed at a state level. What we need to be concerned of is are we turning our zoning board into a Virginia Beach ABC Board because we are frustrated with what is going on at the State level? Does the state level need improvement? Ronald Ripley: I don't think we're concerned about ABC but we certainly are about nuisance and keeping an orderly business. Neal Insley: All of that pertains to ABC Code because in this ordinance if it weren't and it wouldn't specifically address places that sell alcohol. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Insley? Thank you sir. Neal Insley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Matthew Falvey. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Matthew Falvey: My name is Matt Falvey. I'm here representing the Virginia Beach Restaurant Association. Good afternoon. Briefly stated, I'm here to communicate from the Board that we had a meeting yesterday and we are not ready at this time to endorse the Conditional Use Permit as it is in its current form. In stating that, I would like to add that, as some of you know, I have been working on this for three years. I was the past President of the Restaurant Association. We have worked closely with Bill Macali and Les Lilly and I would like to thank them for their efforts. They have been very communicative with us, very forth coming. They have been willing to educate us. We've had questions. They have also been willing to listen to us, and learn from the Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 14 representative of our industry. I also would like to thank your Commission. I know that Mr. Knight and Ms. Anderson set up a workshop where members of our industry were able to come and communicate our concerns. And, I would also like to thank Mike Standing who is the current president, who is unable to be here today, because he has carried through from that workshop, and communicated with City Attorneys and with your Commission. The problem has arisen and we did, as a Board, approve the Conditional Use Permit that came out of that workshop, and that came out of the discussions with the City's attorneys. The issue has been, and since that time, two things have happened. Number one, some of the language has changed in the ordinance. And, Mike Standing was privy to those changes, our complete board was not. And, whether it is a communications problem or a lack of understanding by one side or the other, there are still a considerable number of questions from our board. The second was the introduction of ... my lights flashing if you want me to stop talking, I will. Janice Anderson: I'll sponsor him for a little longer. Matthew Falvey: Okay. There was also this issue of the public safety ordinance that came forward, and I think that was very disruptive to the conversation. I think many of our board members that were on board in support of the Conditional Use Permit became side tracked in the efforts to fight off, what we thought was a very heavy handed ordinance. We were able to get that away from City Council and move up to the State, and Delegate Suit is going to introduce that at the state level. She is working with us on that. So, I think these two things the changes in the language and this public safety ordinance, which I think was very intimidating to some of our board members. I think that changed some of their thinking on this. I think what has happened is that a lot of our board members are very interested on what happens at the state level with Delegate Suit's legislation. They feel what can come out of that, and she is going to introduce similar to what Mr. Martingayle and Mr. Insley have described. It is something that will go to Circuit Court and there will be due process. Citizens can bring it forward, and hopefully it will move along more quickly than the ABC, which Mr. Ripley has been concerned about. So, that is where we are now. If you have any questions I'll answer them to the best of my ability. I'm just here representing the board. I can't speak for every individual on the board. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Falvey. Are there any question? Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: Matt, the wording changed to the standing space 15 percent. Is that what you have a problem with? Matthew Falvey: Personally, I don't have a problem with because I was privy to the discussions. And, Mike Standing was as well. The problem has been, and again, the City's attorneys have been communicating with individual members of our board. The problem was with us going back and convincing other board members who have had an increasing number of questions and against some of the change to the language. Some of Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 15 it was due to the introduction of that public safety ordinance. The problem is that members of our board are not professional government relation experts. Some of us are starting to feel that way. Janice Anderson: I know you have been working on it for a long time. We definitely want your input. I thought that Bill had done a good job just changing that one definition. We kept pretty much everything else that our group had kind of hammered out. I hate to be attached to this other bill. This is Use Permit and we could be considered just a Use Permit and not attached to the other bill. Matthew Falvey: Again, I think that some of this was communication problem. The problem was that we were given four sheets of paper for our board. One of them described the reason for the Conditional Use Permit and had the ordinance. The next page described the reason for the public safety ordinance and had that ordinance. What we had arrived at, I think as a board in support of the Conditional Use Permit after, so much discussion and debate, and we didn't arrive at this decision to support this Conditional Use Permit easily. There was much debate and much hesitation. We were able to get it passed. Like I said, this was very disruptive, and if I could speak to Mr. Ripley's concern about the ABC? There are two problems or two issues. Number one, it depends on the type of operator. I can say that when Mr. Insley was my agent, I was once scared of him but I had a lot of respect for him. And, if he told me to do something, I would do it. I think it depends on the operator. Some operators are committed for the long term, and they pay attention to their ABC agents. Other operators are not so concerned and will flop the law, and the other side of it is, as Mr. Insley has said, there is due process. Due process does take time. I think you have to be careful when you do have an ordinance that doesn't have due process. That is where the hesitation on our end was. Janice Anderson: Matt, we did discuss that with the Commission, and we actually put in the ordinance that there would be a warning first. I don't think there is any other ordinance that says there will be a warning first. You can't just violate it. There has to be a warning. I think that came out of the discussion because we were worried about that. I think we tried to work that in but that we weren't just going to violate somebody, and let them go down. They would get notice and they would have time to do it. Matthew Falvey: I think where many members of our board are more attracted to what's happening at the state level as that goes to Circuit Court. It takes it out of a political arena. We already have a regulatory arena with the ABC, and the due process of going to Circuit Court is a lot more attractive than going to a board at the local level where there could be personalities involved or there could be politics involved. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: Matt, doesn't it take a long time to go through the Circuit Court? Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 16 Matthew Falvey: I've never been in a Circuit Court. Dorothy Wood: Thank goodness. But not as long as it has taken since you were down here with the restaurants to get this ordinance going, which was four years ago. Matthew Falvey: I'm not a lawyer. I'm not familiar. Knock on wood. I've never had to go through the process. I had a conversation with Delegate Suit yesterday. This is the crux of the problem. She said, Matt, I want to meet with you. I want to meet with the Commonwealth Attorney. I want to meet with the State Association, and I want to make sure that we are getting at the problem establishment that we need to regulate without affecting those of you who are running, not only legally, but that care about the community, and are members of the community and want to do the right thing. I think that is what I was here for three years ago. I think we are all still trying to hammer it out. Again, I know it is frustrating. We are all working with the City's attorneys and your Commission and our association, are working in good faith. We are not trying to not come to the table. We're just trying to get the right kind of result. Dorothy Wood: Do you think you would have a decision that if we passed it by the time it went to Council? Matthew Falvey: We're asking that you don't pass it. We're asking that we continue to be involved in the discussions and I have spoken with Mr. Macali before this and asked him if he could come to our next board meeting and see if he has any more success in communicating to our board actually what we are trying to accomplish. I'll say that the climate has changed since we've endorsed it. Like I said, Mike Standing and I, and others have worked very hard to convince the people and members of the board that this was the right path and there were no other way to go about enforcing and to accomplishing what we wanted to accomplish. I think since then with this legislation that is going to be introduced at the state level, I think maybe people are putting their hopes on that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: Matt, you are in favor of us not passing or are you suggesting that we do? That we table this and let the process go further? Matthew Falvey: I guess I would ask you to table it. The language of the motion was that we are not ready at this time to endorse it. We're not rejecting it. We have been involved in the discussions. We want to continue to be involved in the discussions. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Falvey. Matthew Falvey: Thank you. Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 17 Joseph Strange: That concludes our speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Macali. Bill Macali: We ask that you pass this today. There has been plenty of time for everybody to decide whether or not they are for this ordinance or against this ordinance. We've never ever declined one phone call, one invitation to any meeting with any group on this. I'll be happy to go to any meeting of the Restaurant Association, any association that is involved in this between now and the City Council. The time to act is now. This thing has been going on forever. The provisions of the ordinance are very similar to the ordinance that was endorsed by the Restaurant Association. The only difference is that instead of using occupancy load density, we're using the percentage of the public floor space that is covered by standing space. I'm not sure what the climate change has to do with whether or not this ordinance should go forward but this ordinance should go forward. I'll try to address all the comments that we received. There has been so much misinformation. Mr. Ripley, we would be here if the ABC Board enforced the ordinance. We've heard over and over from the ABC Board. Ronald Ripley: Would or would not be? Bill Macali: We would. The ABC Board has told us over and over every time an application comes up, and it is for a bar, the city sends one of our attorneys down there to oppose it. The ABC Board says you don't even have a Use Permit process. You allow them, why should we be any different? That is the truth. The fact is Mr. Waller when you asked what other localities do, you really didn't get a good answer. Norfolk makes you get a Use Permit if you serve alcohol beverages. Portsmouth makes you get a Use Permit if you serve alcoholic beverages. We could do that, but Pizza Hut is going to need a Conditional Use Permit, Appleby's is going to need a Conditional Use Permit. We've gone to great lengths to avoid that situation. We've gone through every single hoop that is known to mankind to try to make a balanced decision as to what kind of establishments need Conditional Use Permits and what kinds of establishments don't need Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Insley is right. Norfolk tried to run them out of town. Portsmouth tried to run them out of town. Guess where they are all coming? Virginia Beach because we don't require Use Permits. Let me back up. We do require Use Permits, and we're not creating any kind of category of zoning use that didn't exist. Mr. Insley is simply wrong about that. We've always required a Use Permit for an establishment, which are like bars, we just didn't call them bars in the ordinance. The problem there was that it was a bad definition because we thought that you could define a bar by saying, well bars will card minors. They won't let kids in. That worked fine for a while, but guess what? Some establishments didn't want to get Conditional Use Permits so they started letting 16 year olds in. Not a very good situation. Our police department didn't appreciate that. We agree with our police department. By the way, it is bordering on disgraceful to blame the bar problem on the police department in the City of Virginia Beach. Does anybody seriously think that the police department does not enforce the ordinances that the city Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 18 has? It is just a case of numbers. It's the Custards against the Indians. The police department does a fine job. They do their very best, and I think it is just deplorable to blame the behavior problem at the Beach on the Virginia Beach Police Department. The ABC law does not recognize the distinction between bars and restaurants. Mr. Insley said that bars don't exist under the state law. But they do exist don't they? They are a little different from your typical restaurant. The fact that the state requires you to have a certain percentage of your receipts for food means there is no such thing as a bar under state law but there really is a thing called a bar. Norfolk regulates them. Portsmouth regulates them. Newport News regulates them. Virginia Beach regulates them. We're just going to regulate them different from Norfolk and the other cities. We're going to be a little bit more lenient because every time an establishment wants to serve a beer, a glass of wine, in Norfolk, it has to get a Use Permit. In Virginia Beach, it won't. It only will, if it serves alcohol after 12 midnight, if it has amplified music, and if the standing space is greater than 15 percent of the floor space of the establishment. None of this by the way applies to existing bars. It is just for new bars. You think we were asking people to cut off their ears in order to establish a bar. This is a Conditional Use Permit requirement. Today, you have heard Conditional Use Permit applications for rental cars, for alternative residential development, for museums, for churches. It is not like you're asking anybody to do a whole lot more than come before this body and before the City Council, present an application like everybody else who presents a Use Permit application does. It is not the end of the world. And above all else, this ordinance does have due process. Whoever said there is no due process in the ordinance is simply wrong. In order to have a Use Permit revoked, the Planning Commission has to have a public hearing. The City Council has to have a public hearing. It is appealed to the Circuit Court. Under any definition of "due process" that is sufficient due process. Do not let anyone tell you differently. Due process is in this ordinance. You cannot take away a license without due process. We recognize that. We really do know what we are doing. And when we decided on the mechanism for enforcing this ordinance, we certainly were sure to incorporate due process considerations. Getting to the particulars. If you live 500 feet from a bar, I am sure you will all appreciate not having to hear music from the bar. I don't think 500 feet is like really next-door. When the door opens to a bar, noise gets out. Other than that, the music has to be pretty loud to get out at 500 feet. That is not an unreasonable requirement whatsoever. As to this little subdivision 3, where the operators of such establishments shall not allow loitering or congregation, etc, etc., that has been in there for 15 years. That is nothing new. It is not underlined. Underlined language is the new language. Premises is property. We had a draft in here, which said that owners have to take care of people who are loitering on the sidewalks outside the establishment. We discussed that with the Restaurant Association, and as a result of those conversations, we deleted that requirement because we agree they were not really responsible for people standing on public property. This makes an owner responsible for people hanging around his or her own establishment and on his or her own premises. That is all that it does. It has been there for 15 years. The reason we need this is because, not withstanding the statute that has been in affect since 1919, and the ABC Board, enforcement is first of all possible only when a situation has reached a really bad extreme, number one. Number Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 19 two, this ordinance goes only to the location. A Use Permit is intended to give Council a mechanism for deciding whether or a use goes in a good place. I guess the term is "a pig in a poke" as to opposed to a "pig in a parlor." You want to want sure that the pig is in the poke not in the parlor. The problem is that without a Use Permit you are going to have five or six bars in places like the Block. Anybody who doubts that the Block is a bigger problem then other areas in the resort area, just simply doesn't know what the situation is. There is synergy from different bars closing out right about the same time. People come out of the bars, half of them are drunk, and there are problems. Now the City really does has not have control right now so long as bar owners let kids in their bars, they don't need a Use Permit. The ABC Board will say, City, you haven't done anything about controlling where these places go, so why should we? So, when we oppose those applications, the ABC Board grants them over our objection. Enforcement takes forever. Nuisance cases.take forever. This ordinance has really not an enforcement ordinance. The state law that City Council has asked the General Assembly to enact is something different from this ordinance entirely. We would not be going forward with this ordinance as except too the fact that the City Council, just like it does with churches, daycare centers, motor vehicles sales, cell towers, and a host of other conditional uses, needs to have some control over where the particular uses go. We can allow what Norfolk does, everybody that serves alcoholic beverages has to get a Use Permit or we can do it this way, where we make distinct effort to distinguish the kinds of places that serve alcoholic beverages that don't need a Use Permit and places that would benefit from having the Use Permit process in place. I'm sorry if I sound passionate about this, but we are passionate about it. We have put a tremendous amount of work into this. The comments before really aren't about this ordinance because the speakers apparently don't recognize or don't want to recognize that this applies to new establishments not to existing establishments. You can have as many jackass contests, shootings in the parking lot. All of that you want and this ordinance doesn't effect that because those folks are grand -fathered. I'm not sure what the problem with the claims of discrimination or things like that are. This is a new day. Existing bars are not effected. Only if you want a new bar will this ordinance have any effect on its operation at all with one exception. If you're an existing bar this gives you the right to expand one time without getting a Conditional Use Permit or a non -conforming use resolution from the City Council. That is better than other non -conforming uses are treated. I'm not really terribly sure what the problem is. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Barry Knight: Any questions? Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: Bill, can you address what activity is going to be generated? It is my understanding that with the Use Permit would be that one of the conditions would be to comply with all state rules and everything. So pretty much it is going to be required to comply with all the ABC rules that are already there. We're not going to make any new rules are we? Bill Macali: Thank you for mentioning that. One of the speakers mentioned that Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 20 Provision #4 where says that such establishment shall be required to implement any other reasonable measures that City Council deems necessary as appropriate. That is a statement of existing law. I can show you case files where it says that City Council can impose without the consent of any applicant any reasonable conditions related to the land use, which is the subject of the Conditional Use Permit. You do it all the time for churches. You do it all the time for daycare. You do it all the time for motor vehicle sales. This is simply no different. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Macali? Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: This condition #3 where you're not allowed loitering or congregation of individuals in the parking lot. How are they suppose to enforce that? Bill Macali: They own the place. Kick people off your property. That is certainly within your rights. Mr. Strange, if you doubt the fact that the property owner has the right to tell people not to hang around their property after coming out of the establishment, you are just not right. People absolutely have that right. The only complaint was that the speaker seemed to feel that would apply to places off of the owner's property. If I'm hanging around your yard, you can kick me out. Yes sir. Joseph Strange: What if you rent the property? Bill Macali: You have the same rights. There is no legal impediment to require people not to hang around your bar afterwards. Joseph Strange: This is just a question that I have. Just suppose I was renting a place and there were other businesses right next to me, and there was a sidewalk or something out there? I would still have the right to? Bill Macali: A public sidewalk is a public sidewalk. You don't have the right to do that and we recognize that as I mentioned a second ago. We took it out of the new draft at the request of the Restaurant Association, which noted that for us. We looked it over and said you are right. You don't have the right to do that. Joseph Strange: Okay. Bill Macali: But private property, you have control of your private property. Yes sir. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: Bill, correct me on this. If I recall the reason why that wording is in there because there were issues not only with people standing in the parking lots after Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 21 places close, but hanging on the sides of the building. That is why it says exterior parts of the premises. They hang out on the side of the building. It wasn't meant to say that you had to enforce any public sidewalk. Bill Macali: That is right. Janice Anderson: So the wording is there for not only the parking lot but the exterior sides, which means if they are hanging out on the sides of the building. Bill Macali: Sure. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Macali? Mr. Macali, we're Planning Commission and we deal with land use only. Bill Macali: Right. As well you should. Barry Knight: What you said a while ago. We understand some of the peripheral problems here, maybe some shootings but we're looking to land use. This is a land use ordinance that we are looking at. Like you said, it doesn't effect any of the gentlemen that came here tonight on their existing establishments. So, I just kind of want to reiterate that it is land use and land use only. Bill Macali: Right. One little example is that you can expand one time. That is a benefit to them rather then a detriment. Barry Knight: Right. Like you stated before, we make churches come in here for a Conditional Use Permit. Bill Macali: Sure. Museums. Barry Knight: Museums. Right. We saw what we had today and many more to come before us. So, we're just asking the bars and nightclubs to come before us for a Conditional Use Permit. Bill Macali: That's correct, which is a little bit better than our neighbors will allow. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Macali. Thank you sir. Bill Macali: Thank you. Barry Knight: I'll close the public hearing now. We will open it up for discussion among the Commission members. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Knight, I think Ms. Anderson and her committee and our City Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 22 Attorney did a wonderful job on this. As they said this is no more than we ask of churches and daycare centers. Even though I respect Mi. Falvey and the Restaurant Association, I think they have been working on it for years and years, and I think Mr. Falvey probably is personally interested in getting it behind him. And since it is not a problem to existing bars, and it is no more than we ask other people in our city. When the time is right, I would like to make a motion that we approve it. Barry Knight: I'll accept your motion. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the table. I'll ask for a second to approve. We have a second by Jan Anderson. We'll open it back up for discussion again. Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: I would just like to say that no business likes to be regulated. But unfortunately, the gentlemen that are here probably don't need to be regulated. But there are some cases in the business where you don't have the power to regulate everybody in the business. And so, all be it said like the "no call list" that we have, where people can't call your home. There is all kinds of precedence where businesses are regulated to some degree. I don't like to see small business overregulated and I am sure there is going to be discrimination here in all of these cases. But, I think if you were involved in the business no matter what it is and if it is considered to be a nuisance to the public then the public is going to try to regulate it, and try to at least litigate some of the problems. I think the city and I know we've had workshops on this. This has been going on for at least three years. We've had workshops. I thought at two or three different times we had this issue settled and it keeps coming back. So, I would say that I'm going to support the application for the City. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Strange: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: I think as Joe says, we have been beating this thing around the bush for a long time. We've bounced it in and out and deferred it and rewritten it from one thing to the other. I think it is time that we get down to doing something. I've got just one general comment to make about when the comment was made that you can get any five citizens or more to allow the public to complain against a noise thing that you can take it to Circuit Court. I would like to know if there are five people in this room who want to go down to the Oceanfront at 2:00 o'clock on a Saturday night and make a complaint? I don't know. I don't think we have five people in this room that would do it right now. So, I don't know if that is a viable answer or not. I just wanted to make that comment and I support the ordinance. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree: Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: I do believe that this Use Permit is appropriate for the City to have Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 23 some kind of regulations over this intense use. Like we said, we do it for daycares and car dealerships, and other things. It is not like they are bad entities or bad businesses. They may have an adverse impact on the property right next to them. So, that is why churches and everything else are under a Use Permit. The City does need some kind of control over the bars and nightclubs. They are here. There is not a definite definition. They are here. The definition, I believe that has been worked out is the proper definition. They already have Use Permits for these types of business, but there is this loophole with the under aged kids getting in to these establishment that drop them out of the requirement for the Use Permit. So, this is just redoing the Use Permit, and I think it is proper that we tried to work with the Restaurant Association. They have worked very hard and some associations, I believe Andy, your partner came to one of the meetings here. Not that they all agreed but we did try to put some things in here that were not unreasonable. I think the first draft stated there couldn't be any noise coming out of the establishment. They put in there, well when the doors open and close. We didn't want to lock you in to a block. There was an existing clubs provisions, and even allow you to have expansion so you can keep the building up and not let if fall into disrepair. Then also, with keeping the doors closed. That was put in the original ordinance and we put the exception if people are leaving and coming, of course the doors will be opened. There was a lot of input from the group that we tried to put in there and also about the warning. We put it in the ordinance that there has to be a warning first after there is a violation. We're not trying to treat the people unfairly but there is a need for control of these types of businesses when they come onboard. And it is all over the City. It is just not the Oceanfront. This Use Permit goes to every single zoning. And, I sure hope we will get the backing of the Restaurant Association, and hopefully more members that are in the bars backing for this legislation. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are you done? Janice Anderson: Yes. Barry Knight: Okay. Mr. Bemas? Jay Bemas: Although, I would love to comment on this application because I have visited some of these establishments, even as recently as within the past year, and I feel like I am a good person. And I went there really just to have a good time. And there are people who really do that. They go there to have a good time. They are not all bad people that go there, so I don't want anyone to get that kind of impression on what's going on with the Block. I'm going to have to abstain because one of my business partners in a different type of business is a bar owner, so I am going to have to abstain. They could potentially be impacted by this ordinance. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bernas. Is there any other discussion? There is a motion on the floor to approve agenda item #9 by Dot Wood and seconded by Jan Anderson. Jay Bernas has explained his reason for abstaining. I'll call for the question. Item # City of Virginia Beach — Bars or Nightclubs Page 24 AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 1 ABS ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote 10-0, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved the application of the ordinance to amend certain sections to the City of Virginia Beach - Bars or Nightclubs. Barry Knight: Thank you. CaseFinder Search Results: 12/13/2006 11:18:25 AM Found 8 documents in Virginia Code searching on "abating public nuisances" Virginia Code Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 Investigation of complaint by special grand jury. § 48-1 Presentment against person causing nuisance. § 48-2 Permitting continuation of nuisance; presentment against premises. § 48-3 Service of copy of presentment; defense by person interested. § 48-4 Fine and costs; judgment of abatement. § 48-5 Enforcement of judgment in rem. § 48-6 3 3 3 3 3 3 Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919. & 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 § 48-1. Investigation of complaint by special grand jury. — When complaint is made to the circuit court of any county, or the corporation court of any city of this Commonwealth, by five or more citizens of any county, city or town, setting forth the existence of a public or common nuisance, the court, or the judge thereof in vacation, shall summon a special grand jury, in the mode provided by law, to the next term of such court, to specially investigate such complaint. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919, � 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 § 48-2. Presentment against person causing nuisance. — If upon a full investigation of the complaint mentioned in § 48-1 the grand jury is satisfied that the nuisance complained of is of a public nature, it shall proceed to make presentment against such person or persons as they may find have created or caused such nuisance. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919, & 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1 — 48-6 § 48-3. Permitting continuation of nuisance; presentment against premises. — If any such nuisance be upon premises the owner of which did not create or cause such nuisance, but permitted its continuation, such owner shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed responsible for such nuisance, and if such owner be not a resident or citizen of this Commonwealth, or one whose residence is not known, such presentment shall be against the premises upon which such nuisance is. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 `.� `_ `-. l`',-� i;,F= `-' 17' i7 �i 1L.> Lir iv ; � i tY t_t✓i.%c;j � Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919 § 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 § 48-4. Service of copy of presentment; defense by person interested. — Upon any such presentment the court shall order a copy thereof to be served upon the person or persons presented, or whose property is presented, in the manner prescribed by law as to the service of notices. To any such proceeding, if it be in rem, any person interested, or for and in behalf of the owner of such premises, may make defense. (Code 1919, § 1520.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 A 0 n. �... iL t—tZ C i Text in effect from and after July 1, 1996 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1— 48-6 § 48-5. Fine and costs; judgment of abatement. — Upon the trial of any such presentment the person or persons who have created, caused or permitted the continuation of such nuisance, if found guilty, shall be fined, in the discretion of the jury, not more than $10,000; and upon such verdict the judgment of the court shall be for the amount of fine imposed and the costs of such proceeding, and also that such nuisance be forthwith removed and abated. (Code 1919, § 1520; 1996, cc. 291, 808.) Printed from CaseFinder®, Geronimo Development Corporation - Current through: 9/30/2006 Text in effect from and after the effective date of Code 1919, § 1520 Title 48 Nuisances Chap. 1 Abating Public Nuisances Generally, §§ 48-1 — 48-6 § 48-6. Enforcement of judgment in rem. — Every judgment in rem under this chapter shall be enforced in the same manner as an attachment levied on real estate. (Code 1919, § 1520.) N. APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD - CSB HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE PPEA OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY PLAN COMMITTEE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WETLANDS BOARD O. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Q. ADJOURNMENT TOWN MEETING City Council's Top Priority Goal: Improved Transportation System Tuesday, January 30 7:15 — 9:00 PM Princess Anne High School 4400 Virginia Beach Boulevard CITY COUNCIL BIENNIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP SCHEDULE April 10 (Workshop) April 17 (Workshop) April 19 (Public Hearing) April 24 (Workshop) April 24 (Public Hearing) May 1 (Workshop) May 8 (Reconciliation Workshop) May 15 (Adoption) Agenda 01/23/2007gw www.vbgov.com Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Tallwood High School at 6:00 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber at 6:00 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Chamber at 6:00 p.m. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 Hearing impaired, call: Virginia Relay Center at 1-800-828-1120 *********** CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH BRIEFINGS: SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS A. WORKFORCE HOUSING Andrew Friedman, V 0 I Director, Housing DATE: January 9, 2006 M B L D and Neighborhood C E L E D H Preservation C R A W PAGE: I S I E J L N U N I T E D N 0 A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE p E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D 1 BRIEFINGS: A. WORKFORCE HOUSING Andrew Friedman, Director, Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Ronald Ripley, Member, Planning Commission B. NEWS RACK REGULATION STATUS Mike Eason, Resort Programs Administrator iJ/n IV/ V -E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F-1 MINUTES— December 12, 2006 APPROVED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y G/H-1 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SALE OF EXCESS CITY PROPERTY NO SPEAKERS 549 Aragona Boulevard 2. FY 2006-07 CAPITAL BUDGET 21 SPEAKERS AMENDMENTS/SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS: a. $23,728,000 b various Capital Projects b. $3,537,000 b various School Projects I-1 PUBLIC COMMENT 1. NEWS RACK REGULATIONS NO SPEAKERS J/K-1 Ordinances to AMEND City Code: ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONSENT a. §§35-163/35-169 re collectors' record retention for lodging(admissions taxes b. § 18-49 re local license tax for alcoholic beverages c. §35-138.1 re food/beverage tax exemption for mandatory gratuities/tips/service charges CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Ordinance to AUTHORIZE sale of EXCESS ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Y y CITY -OWNED PROPERTY at 549 Aragon CONSENT Boulevard to South Hampton Roads Habitat V DATE: January 9, 2006 O I for Humanity, Inc., re spot blight abatement M B L 3a D ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y C E Y L Y Y PAGE: 2 E D H CONDITIONED, C R A W S I E J L N U N I AGENDA T E D N O A D H U L W ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E Z Y L N N O R E S O p E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D 2 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE sale of EXCESS ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y CITY -OWNED PROPERTY at 549 Aragon CONSENT Boulevard to South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc., re spot blight abatement 3a Ordinance to AUTHORIZE encroachments by ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y MICHAEL JJHELEN V. STANDING, t/a CONDITIONED, WATERMAN'S RESTAURANT into portions BY CONSENT of City's r -o -w at 5d'St re roof overhang DISTRICT 6 — BEACH 3b Ordinance to AUTHORIZE encroachments by ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y STIHL INC into portions of City r -o -w at CONDITIONED, Intemational Pkwy/Hawkeye Ct/London Bridge BY CONSENT Rd re conduit for fiber optic/copper computer cables DISTRICT 6 — BEACH 3c Ordinance to AUTHORIZE encroachments by ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y KEMPSVILLE CROSSING COMMUNITY CONDITIONED, ASSOC into portions of City's ro-w at BY CONSENT Kempsville Rd/Kempsville Crossing Ln re subdivision signs/landscaping/electric meters/pedestals/flood lights DISTRICT 1— CENTERVII.LE 4 Resolution to ENDORSE/PROMOTE "Hampton ADOPTED, 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Roads, America's First Region" BY CONSENT (HR-AFR) at no cost to the City 5a-1 Ordinances to ACCEPT/APPROPRIATE $23,828,000 Fund Balance1S3,260,000 within Fund Balance/$210,000 fi-an Water/ Sewer Utility Fund Balance/$35,000 frorn Storm Water Utility Fund re Operating Budget needs: 1. $3,260,000 cf Fund Balance/$210,000 ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Water/Sewer Utility Fund Balance and $35,000 frcrn the Storm Water Utility Fund to the General Fund designated for GASB 45 re unfunded Retiree health care liabilities 5a-2 2. $23,728,000 (f Fund Balance from the General Fund: a) $500,000 b Shore Drive Corridor Ph II ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y b) $500,000 b Shore Drive Corridor Ph III ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y y c) $1,500,000 b Shore Drive Corridor Ph IV ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y TY OF VIRGINIA BEACH d) $1,000,000 b Shore Drive Safety ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y MARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Y Y e) $800,000 far Bayside Community ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Center V O I f) $320,000 b the Constitution Drive ADOPTED anuary 9, 2006 N Y Y * Y M B Y L Y Y D C E L [DATE: E D H ADOPTED C R Y A W Y N S I Y E J L N U N I T E D N O A D H U L W 9-2 E Z Y L N N O R E S O SUBJECT MOTION VOTE p E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D d) $1,000,000 b Shore Drive Safety ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y e) $800,000 far Bayside Community ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Center f) $320,000 b the Constitution Drive ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y * Y N Y Y Y Y Y Extended g) $2,300,000 fcr a new Fire and Rescue ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Station — Chesapeake Beach h) $200,000 b Town Center Pedestrian ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Bridge i) $2,100,000 b Congestion Relief/Safety ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y * Y N Y Y Y Y Y j) $800,000 fcr Storm Water Maintenance ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Backlog k) $1,000,000 b Pavement Maintenance ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y * Y N Y Y Y Y Y 1) $500,000 b Pedestrian System Ph I ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y * Y N Y Y Y Y Y m) S1,260,0001) Park Playground ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Renovations Ph H n) $6,550,000 b Site Acquisitions ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y * Y N Y Y Y Y Y o) $108,000 fcr 31" St Parking Garage ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y * Y N Y Y * Y Y p) $90,000 b 31" St Stage/Restrooms ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y * Y N Y Y Y Y Y q) $1,500,000 fir Avalon Avenue — Avalon ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Woods r) $300,000 b Rural Roads re Princess ADOPTED 8-2 N Y Y A Y N Y Y Y Y Y Anne/Pleasant Ridge Rds B S T A I N E D s) $600,000 fcr design of Fire and Rescue ADOPTED 9-2 N Y * Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Station — Blackwater t) $1,300,000 b Regional Homeless ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Housing site acquisition u) $500,000 b Kempsville Greens Golf ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Course Stormwater Bank Stabilization With Certain exceptions as noted by "*" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 3. $100,000 of Fund Balance from the General SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Fund to Arts and Humanities Commission: a) $10,000 b acquire third piece for ADOPTED V N Y DATE: January 9, 2006 Y Y N Y Y s O y IM Convention Center video wall B L D ADOPTED 9-2 N Y C E Y L Y Y PAGE: 4 E D H C R A W S I E J L N U N I AGENDA T E D N O A D H U L W ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 P E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D 5a-3 3. $100,000 of Fund Balance from the General Fund to Arts and Humanities Commission: a) $10,000 b acquire third piece for ADOPTED 9-2 N Y * Y Y N Y Y s y y Convention Center video wall b) $90,000 b acquire artwork for Sandler ADOPTED 9-2 N Y * Y Y N Y Y s y y Center With Certain exceptions as noted by " * " 5b b. $11,811,607 in FY 05-06 School Reversion ADOPTED 9-2 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Funds to FY 06-07 School Operating/Capital Budgets: 1. $2,144,000 fcr technology 2. $1,000,000 b establish School Equipment Replacement Special Revenue Fund 3. $2,674,607 b instructional materials/ equipment 4. $1,072,000 b school plant projects 5. $321,000 b Payroll System 6. $100,000 b school landscape services 7. $4,500,000 In pre -funding a portion of annual retirement contribution 5c C. $1,030,247 SWzTederal Revenues/ ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $1,000,000 Fund Balance to Human Services CONSENT re mental heath/mental retardation/social services: 1. $53,606 reincreased Medicaid 2. $75,000 recommunity-based programs to divert individuals with mental illness from jail 3. $901,641 repsychiatric care/nursing/respite services 4. $1,000,000 rehousing services 5d d. $175,000 grant from the Virginia Department DEFERRED TO 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y of Conservation and Recreation re a series of 02/062007 water quality enhancement projects: BY CONSENT 1. $73,500 b Lynnhaven Watershed Restoration 2. $101,500 b Water Quality Participation TY OF VIRGINIA BEACH e. $88,130 frau VA EMS "Four -for -Life" ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y MARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Y Y CONSENT 6 Ordinances re Libraries FY 06-07 Operating ADOPTED, BY V Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 Y I Budget: CONSENT nuary 9, 2006 M B L [[DATE: D C E L E D H C R A W S I E J L N U N I T E D N 0 A D H U L W E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 SUBJECT MOTION VOTE p E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D Se e. $88,130 frau VA EMS "Four -for -Life" ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONSENT 6 Ordinances re Libraries FY 06-07 Operating ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Budget: CONSENT a. APPROPRIATE $11,000/AUTHORIZE collection agency re overdue library material retrieval b. TRANSFER S150,000 repurchase of records management inventory control system UI STEPHEN/LORI BURWELL enlargement of a APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y nonconforming use at 310 456 St CONDITIONED, DISTRICT 6 — BEACH BY CONSENT 2 Variance to §4.4(b) of Subdivision Ordinance DEFERRED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y that all lots meet CZO for PYONG TU CHO at INDEFINITELY, 1212 Nath Inlynnview Rd BY CONSENT DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN 3 Variance to §4.4(b) of Subdivision Ordinance APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y that all lots meet CZO for ROSE ANNA CONDITIONED, ETHERIDGE at 2934 Princess Anne Rd BY CONSENT DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 4 CINGULAR WIRELESS CUP re wireless DEFERRED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y communications tower at 5638 Baccalaureate INDEFINITELY, Dr (Campus East/Lake Edward) BY CONSENT DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVII.LE 5 MILITARY AVIATION MUSEUM CUP for APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y museum within existing airport hanger at Gum CONDITIONED, Bridge/Princess Anne Rds BY CONSENT DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 6 CHARLES MJDAWN R RICHT CUP for APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y alternative residential development at Princess CONDITIONED, Anne Rd /Munden Point Rd BY CONSENT DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SAINT JAMES MISSIONARY CHURCH APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Y Y CUP re childcare center/before/after school CONDITIONED, program within existing church at 5724 Old BY CONSENT V DATE: January 9, 2006 O IM Providence Rd B L D C E L PAGE: 6 E D M H RESCHEDULED C R Y A W N S S I S E J L N U N I AGENDA T E D N O A D H U L W ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E Z Y L N N O R E S O 1 p E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D 7 SAINT JAMES MISSIONARY CHURCH APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CUP re childcare center/before/after school CONDITIONED, program within existing church at 5724 Old BY CONSENT Providence Rd DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVELLE M APPOINTMENTS RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD — CSB HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE-PPEA OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE N/O ADJOURNMENT 9:37 PM PUBLIC COMMENTS NO SPEAKERS Non -Agenda Items I -- I-- I I I I I HI CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS SCHEDULE JANUARY 2007 COMBINE THE FIRST AND SECOND REGULAR TUESDAYS - JANUARY 9, 2007 REGULAR THIRD TUESDAY WORKSHOP - JANUARY 16, 2007 THE REGULAR FOURTH TUESDAY AGENDA - JANUARY 23, 2007 CITY COUNCIL BIENNIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP SCHEDULE April 10 (Workshop) April 17 (Workshop) April 19 (Public Hearing) April 24 (Workshop) April 24 (Public Hearing) May 1 (Workshop) May 8 (Reconciliation Workshop) May 15 (Adoption) Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Tallwood High School at 6:00 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber at 6:00 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Chamber at 6:00 p.m.