The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPRIL 28, 2009 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MA YOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS JR.. At-Large VICE MA YOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 GLENN R. DA VIS. Rose Hall - District 3 WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH, At-Large HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M. DYER, Centervi/le - District I BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach - District 6 RON A. VILLANUEVA, At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES CITY MANAGER -JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - MARK D. STILES CITY ASSESSOR - JERALD BANAGAN CITY AUDITOR - LYNDON S. REM/AS CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 28 APRIL 2009 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENT Patricia Phillips, Director - Finance II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23456-9005 PHONE:(757) 385-4303 FAX (757) 385-5669 E-MAIL: ctycncl@vbgov.com 2:00 PM IV. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP - Conference Room - 3:00 PM A. SCHOOLS proposed RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. FY 2009-2010 Operating Budget 2. FY 2009-2010 Capital Budget V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 4:00 PM VI. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. INVOCATION: Father James Pavlow St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church 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. 2. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS FORMAL SESSION/PUBLIC HEARING (Budget) April 14, 2009 April 16,2009 G. PRESENTATION 1. GENERAL ASSEMBLY COMMENDING RESOLUTIONS a. B. C. Meyera E. Obemdorf Reba S. McClanan Mary C. Russo Delegate Harry Purkey Delegate Barry Knight Senator Frank Wagner H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. FY 2009-2010 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FY 2009-2010 Operating and Capital Budgets 2. OPEN AIR CAFE LEASES - Resort Area City-owned properties 3. INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT Acquisition of Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) Easement 1601 N anneys Creek Road I. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION J. CONSENT AGENDA K. ORDINANCESIRESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to AMEND Section 2-5 of the City Code re the Historic Preservation Commission by adding two high school students as non-voting members. 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of 13.583 acres of the Lake Lawson Phase II property from the City of Norfolk for open space and a 4.4-acre portion ofthe property to be used perpetually as a pubic outdoor recreation area and APPROPRIATE $2,860,000 for this purchase. 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an Installment Purchase Agreement with William R., Jr. and Cheryl L. Sanford re an Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) easement at 1601 N anneys Creek Road. 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute all documents re a Right of Entry Agreement between the City and L. Carl Floyd, John J. DeVan and Vicki Morgan to enter onto City-owned property at Tuna Lane re construction of a bulkhead and pedestrian stairs over Tuna Lane 5. Ordinances to GRANT Franchise Agreements for Open Air Cafes in the Resort Area: a. Surfside Resort, Inc., tla Fish Bones b. Fogg's Seafood Company, t/a Waterman's c. Tonic, Inc., t/a Waffletown USA d. Dunes Investment Associates, t/a the Beach Club e. First Fruits, LLC, t/a Tropical Smoothies f. ISA, Inc., t/a Seaside Galley g. Baja Taco, t/a Baja Cantina h. Karpathos, Inc., t/a King of the Sea 1. Ocean Beach Club Owner's Association, t/aTortugas J. Ocean Beach Club Owner's Association, t/aTortugas k. BBH Corporation, t/a 18th Street Cafe 1. Seashore Management, t/a Laverne's m. 11 th Street, LC, t/a 11 th Street Cafe n. 11 th Street, LC, t/a 11 th Street Cafe 6. Ordinances to APPROPRIATE funds to Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's FY 2008-09 Operating Budget a. $1,109,599 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to the Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's FY 2008-09 Operating Budget re homelessness and Rapid Re-Housing of homeless persons b. $55,698 from other local area cities' revenue re procuring a Regional Fair Housing Analysis Study. 7. Ordinances to TRANSFER $13,480,623 in available School funds to the FY 2008-09 Operating and Capital Budgets re realignment of various categories: a. $2,984,000 b. $3,031,643 c. $ 831,980 d. $1,500,000 e. $2,085,000 f. $ 198,000 g. $1,850,000 h. $1,000,000 Pupil Transportation Technology Operations and Maintenance Equipment Replacement Renovations and Replacements - HV AC Systems-Phase II Operating Budget Student Data Management System Instructional Technology 8. Ordinance to ESTABLISH the Witchduck Road, Phase I right-of-way as an underground utility corridor and ACCEPT a fifty percent (50%) reimbursement ofthe costs from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to the City re relocating the overhead utilities underground. 9. Resolution in SUPPORT of the "Honor and Remember" flag as an official symbol to recognize and honor members ofthe Armed Forces who have died in the line of duty. 10. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the distribution of funds under the Byrne JAG Grant, [part of the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA)], as proposed by the Community Criminal Justice Board, and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to submit the application to the Department of Justice. L. PLANNING 1. Application of ROBERT BURKE for the Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure at 5504 Ocean Front Avenue re a second and third floor addition and an addition to the existing detached garage. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Variance to S4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for SYLVIA ESTES to create three lots on 34.05 acres at 1628 Mill Landing Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application ofMCRJERS, LLC for the closure of an unimproved right-of-way portion of Windsor Crescent, 3868 Jefferson Boulevard. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE DEFERRED RECOMMENDATION MARCH 24, 2009 INDEFINITE DEFERRAL 4. Application of REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at portions of 2230, 2234 and 2240 Salem Road and a parcel abutting the rear property line. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Application of THOMAS C. KAY, JR. for a Conditional Use Permit re firewood preparation at 1641 Princess Anne Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION DENIAL 6. Application of BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. for Modification of Conditions (approved by City Council on August 28,2007 [Thanh Cong Doan]), to extend the term and conditions of the 2007 permit at 4177 West Neck Road re religious services. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 7. Application of RICHARD S. DAILEY for Modification of Condition No.2 (approved by City Council on June 9, 1986, September 14, 1987 and August 14, 1989) at 1094 Diamond Springs Road re enlarging the existing animal hospital. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE RECOMMENDATION APROV AL 8. Application of VIRGINIA BEACH INK (Ben Johnson) for Modification of Conditions (approved by City Council on September 23,2008) at 612 Nevan Road, Suite 114 to add body piercing and permanent make-up applications. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 9. Ordinance to AMEND the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance by including the surface area of swimming pools as "impervious cover" re calculating stormwater management requirements and ESTABLISHING uniform buffer mitigation standards. RECOMMENDATION APPROV AL 10. Ordinance to AMEND Appendix C, Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B, re floodplains and comply with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT -~ PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FY 2010 BUDGET WORKSHOPS May 5 May 12 Reconciliation Workshop Public Hearing for Adoption Council Conference Room Council Chamber - 6 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 *********** Agenda 04/28/2009.gw www.vbgov.com I II III II I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 2:00 PM A. INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENT . Patricia Phillips, Director - Finance II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW IV. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP - Conference Room - 3:00 PM A. SCHOOLS proposed RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. FY 2009-2010 Operating Budget 2. FY 2009-2010 Capital Budget II II V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION III II VI. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. INVOCATION: Father James Pavlow St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church 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. 2. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS FORMAL SESSION/PUBLIC HEARING (Budget) April 14, 2009 April 16, 2009 III II .tsuluttnu 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. III G. PRESENTATION 1. GENERAL ASSEMBLY COMMENDING RESOLUTIONS a. B. C. Meyera E. Oberndorf Reba S. McClanan Mary C. Russo Delegate Harry Purkey Delegate Barry Knight Senator Frank Wagner -. III II H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. FY 2009-2010 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FY 2009-2010 Operating and Capital Budgets 2. OPEN AIR CAFE LEASES - Resort Area City-owned properties 3. INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT Acquisition of Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) Easement 1601 N anneys Creek Road III NO'TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Proposed FY 2009-10 Operating and Capital Budgets ')1'1\:)"11 :::8. 2009, the Co Jncil of the City of Virginia '](.dOI\. 'virgin,a 'Niii flCld a public hearing on tile Proposed FY 2009-10 Operating and Capital Budgets. ,he public hearing 'cd be conducted at 6:00 p.m. in Council Ch3mber on theiecond floor of the City Hall fhlding, 'vlunicipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. A :O;)Y cf the proposed operating and capital budgets 51-all :)8 available for rel,iew in the City Clerk's office and Gan be viewed online at 'vNw.vbgov.com. Individuals desinng t,) prol,ide written comments triay do so by contacting iw City Clerk's cffice at 385-4303. If you are pl'1jSica!ly ,-'i~:>bled or \"sud;l'; impaired dnd nE:ed assistance at U'is ireetlng, olease call 385-4303. He-aring impaired, cali TOO only 711. Ruth Hodges FrJser, MMC City CierI< Beacor ApMi 19, 2009 2C073839 .. I I II III II PUBLIC NOTICE LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY The V:rg,r',a Beach City COuncil \'Iill hold a Pl BUC HEARlfjG at 6:00 P.M. on April 28, 2009 in the C,~y C,:.:ncll Cllarnber regarding the propo~:ed care rranclv"p ",a,.,E'S of City-owned property ocated at the foilcwirg locat:ons: 1. 211 25th Street to First Fruits, LLC t, a Tropical Srncothies Cafe 2. 1401 Atlantic Avenue to ISA, Inc. Va Seaside Galley 3. 206 23rd Street to Baja Taco tj a Baja Cantina .i. 1211 ,4tlantic Ave lue to Surfside Resort, Inc. t, a Fistl Bores 5. 2612 Atlantic Avenue to Karpathos, Inc. t,'a KlIlg of the Sea 6. 901 Atlantic Avenue to Dunes Investment Associates LLC t, 3 The Beac!l Club Cafe 7. 415 I\tantic Avenue to Foggs Seafood Company t,'r. WatenTian's 8. 3400 Atlantic Avenue to Ocean Beach Club Owner's Association Va Tortugas 9. 1801 Aeantic Averue to BeH Corporation Va 18th Street Cdfe 10. 701 Atlantic Avenue to Seashore Management t/ a Laverne's 11. 910 ;'I,fantic '\\erue to Tonlck, Inc. t/a Waffle Town USA 12.1011 Atiantic A',enue to 11th Street. LC t:a 11th St~E'et Cafe Ti-e purpese of the Hea';I'& 'd;,1 be to obtain ;)ub,ic ccmn'ert en the preDOted lease of C.ty proPHty. A COpy of i. I, (. francnise iease agreementss on file in the City C,ec~'~_i cffee. T',e C.ty Councd Ch[wd)er 's iccic1ted on the second roor of the C:ty Ha!l bu'ding ; Budding #1) at 2401 Counhouse Driw. v rginiJ Ef:8Ch. virginia 2~:456. I~n} cue:t cr~ corcf::'1ing th-' ell>) ,e-referenced fr2nch .:;es srouic -;e -; reef'" <,) Rob !C'if'S ,. -;: in' Bead" Ccr' "'r't ,"1'1 'In,4 ,':-,,~<...l ~'l ..t,. "', ',,~.J ....~ff, ~- ''7~!-:'~ ;.;'r:: ,.. '~,"" ;"...J L 1-:..: "'''.;'.V, S v., '_"_" ,;y CCO'.; .,g (. .,"; "':"')'06 ~1. Ruth Hedges Fraser, MMC City Cler~. BE-c,ear .\pr 19 & :::::. 2COS, ~OCG::C'83 II NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INSTAllMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA '\otice is l'1ereby gillen that the City Council of the City o{ Virginia Beach. Virginia, ",ill hojd a Public Hearing ",itl-, respect to the execution and delivery 0f an Instailmert Purchase Agreement for the acquIsition of an agricultural land preservation easement with respect to land located at If.301 Nanneys Creek Road, in the City of Virginia Beacll, 'virginia. pursuant to Ordinance !'lo. 95-2319. as umended. known as the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance, Wllich establishes an agricultural reserve program for the southern pOltion of the Citj designated to I a) promote and encourage the preservation of farmland. (b) preserve open spaces and the area's rural character, (c) conserve and protect enllironmentally sensitive resources, Id) reduce and defer the need for najor infrastructure improvements and the expenditure of public funds for such improvements, and (e) assist in sllapirg the character, direction and timing of community development. Such easement will be purchased pursuant to an Irstallment Purchase Agreement for an estin,ated maximum purchase price of $159,729.00 nle City's obligation to pay the purchase price under the Installment Purchase Agreement is a general obligation of the CIty, and the full faith and credit nnd the unlimited taxing power of the City will be irrellocably pledged to the punctual payment of the purchase price and the intere: on the unpaid prinGipai ba'ance of the purchase price a.'l and when the same respectively become due aM pay<~ble. The Public Hearing, which may be continued C' Ldjoumed, will be held by the City Council on April 28 20C9, at 6:00 p.m. 'n the City Council Chambers iocated on the 2nd floor of the City Hall Buildmg, 24C. CourthO!.1se Di'ive. Virginia Beach. Virginia. Any person interest: Cl >~ thiS matter may appear and be !"eard. CITY OF VIRGINIA 8E~CH, viRGINIA Rut!1 Hodges ;::raser. M'vlC City Cler~ Secor .1.0(' A~2 & 10. 2009 200470 IIIII I. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION 1. CONSENT AGENDA K. ORDINANCESIRESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to AMEND Section 2-5 of the City Code re the Historic Preservation Commission by adding two high school students as non-voting members. 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of 13.583 acres ofthe Lake Lawson Phase II property from the City of Norfolk for open space and a 4.4-acre portiQ.J.? of the property to be used perpetually as a pubic outdoor recreation area and APPROPRIATE $2,860,000 for this purchase. 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an Installment Purchase Agreement with William R., Jr. and Cheryl L. Sanford re an Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) easement at 1601 Nanneys Creek Road. 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute all documents re a Right of Entry Agreement between the City and L. Carl Floyd, John J. DeVan and Vicki Morgan to enter onto City-owned property at Tuna Lane re construction of a bulkhead and pedestrian stairs over Tuna Lane 5. Ordinances to GRANT Franchise Agreements for Open Air Cafes in the Resort Area: a. Surfside Resort, Inc., t/a Fish Bones b. Fogg's Seafood Company, t/a Waterman's c. Tonic, Inc., t/a Waffletown USA d. Dunes Investment Associates, t/a the Beach Club e. First Fruits, LLC, t/a Tropical Smoothies f. ISA, Inc., t/a Seaside Galley g. Baja Taco, t/a Baja Cantina h. Karpathos, Inc., t/a King of the Sea 1. Ocean Beach Club Owner's Association, t/aTortugas J. Ocean Beach Club Owner's Association, t/aTortugas k. BBH Corporation, t/a 18th Street Cafe 1. Seashore Management, t/a Laverne's m. 11 th Street, LC, t/a 11 th Street Cafe n. 11 th Street, LC, tla 11 th Street Cafe 6. Ordinances to APPROPRIATE funds to Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's FY 2008-09 Operating Budget a. $1,109,599 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to the Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's FY 2008-09 Operating Budget re homelessness and Rapid Re-Housing of homeless persons b. $55,698 from other local area cities' revenue re procuring a Regional Fair Housing Analysis Study. 7. Ordinances to TRANSFER $13,480,623 in available School funds to the FY 2008-09 Operating and Capital Budgets re realignment of various categories: a. $2,984,000 b. $3,031,643 c. $ 831,980 d. $1,500,000 e. $2,085,000 f. $ 198,000 g. $1,850,000 h. $1,000,000 Pupil Transportation Technology Operations and Maintenance Equipment Replacement Renovations and Replacements - HV AC Systems-Phase II Operating Budget Student Data Management System Instructional Technology 8. Ordinance to ESTABLISH the Witchduck Road, Phase I right-of-way as an underground utility corridor and ACCEPT a fifty percent (50%) reimbursement of the costs from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to the City re relocating the overhead utilities underground. 9. Resolution in SUPPORT of the "Honor and Remember" flag as an official symbol to recognize and honor members of the Armed Forces who have died in the line of duty. 10. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the distribution of funds under the Byrne JAG Grant, [part of the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA)], as proposed by the Community Criminal Justice Board, and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to submit the application to the Department of Justice. ~~~~~6 ,{"" 1""""'" ~.} (0 ^~ ;t, 0,,, .,~1 U" ... >) {."'7"-/', ., \~~~>:7:;;,~~jJ ........................... CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Section 9 2-5 of the City Code Pertaining to the Historic Preservation Commission MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The Virginia Beach Historic Preservation Commission ("Commission") advises City Council and the Departments of Museums and Planning on all issues related to the preservation of historic buildings, structures, and sites located in the City of Virginia Beach. The mission of the Commission is to preserve, protect and maintain the historic identity of Virginia Beach and the former Princess Anne County through a program of advocacy and increased public awareness and involvement. The City Code provides that the Commission shall consist of at least nine, but not more than fifteen, members with expertise in the fields of architecture, archaeology, and history. At least one member must be a representative of the Princess Anne CountyNirginia Beach Historical Society. . Considerations: This ordinance would expand the Commission to include two Virginia Beach high school students, who would be non-voting members. The Commission would interview candidates and make recommendations to City Council, which would make the appointments. The high school students would be appointed to one-year terms and would be eligible for reappointment until they graduate from high school. The ordinance also contains a housekeeping edit to delete language that referenced the initial appointments of voting members to the Commission. Those initial appointments were made in 2008, and thus the codified provision regarding initial appointments is no longer needed. . Public Information: Public information and notification will be handled through the Council agenda notification process. . Attachments: Ordinance Requested by Councilmember Wilson 'I Requested by Councilmember Wilson 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 2-5 2 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE 3 VIRGINIA BEACH HISTORIC 4 PRESERVATION COMMISSION 5 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 7 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 8 9 That Section 2-5 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained to read as 10 follows: 11 12 Sec. 2-5. Historic preservation commission. 13 14 (a) There is hereby created the Virginia Beach Historic Preservation Commission for 15 the purpose of advising city council and the departments of museums and planning on 16 all issues related to the preservation of historic buildings, structures, and sites located in 17 the City of Virginia Beach. The mission of the commission shall be to preserve, protect 18 and maintain the historic identity of Virginia Beach and the former Princess Anne 19 County through a program of advocacy and increased public awareness and 20 involvement. 21 22 (b) The commission shall consist of at least nine (9), but not more than fifteen (15), 23 members, with expertise in the fields of architecture, archaeology, and history. The 24 commission shall include at least one (1) representative from the Princess Anne 25 CountyNirginia Beach Historical Society. The commission also shall include two (2) 26 Viroinia Beach hioh school students who shall be non-votino members. The 27 commission shall interview candidates for the student membership positions and make 28 recommendations to city council. which shall make the appointments. The voting 29 members of the commission shall be appointed by the city council to serve terms of 30 three (3) years, and the student members shall be appointed to terms of one (1) year. 31 provided, however, th:3t the initbl appointments shall be m3de :3S foIlO\\'s: three (3) 32 members sh311 be appointed for :3 term of one (1) year, three (3) members for :3 term of 33 (2) years, ~md the rom:3ining members for a term of three (3) years. 34 35 CO~ENT 36 This amendment adds two Virginia Beach high school students as non-voting members of 37 the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission will interview candidates and make 38 recommendations to City Council, which will appoint two students to one-year terms. The 39 amendment also deletes language that is no longer necessary regarding the initial appointments of 40 voting members to the Commission. Those initial appointments were made in 2008. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this _ day of , 2009. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ;:;P~ s- City Attorney's Office CA11119 R-2 April 17, 2009 'I u~. , "" .... O~. 11",,0 ' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize the acquisition of approximately 13.583 acres of real property located adjacent to Lake Lawson in Virginia Beach for $2,860,000 from the City of Norfolk MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: In 2001, a citizen advocacy group (known as "Friends of Lake Lawson Smith") comprised of several civic organizations surrounding Lake Lawson and Lake Smith in the Bayside Area of Virginia Beach approached City Council requesting that the City preserve the remaining natural areas (the "Lake Properties") along Lake Lawson and Lake Smith for present and future generations to enjoy. The City responded by working with the City of Norfolk ("Norfolk") (the majority owner of the Lake Properties) and nearby neighborhoods to acquire 22 acres from Norfolk along Lakes Lawson and Smith through the City's Open Space Acquisition Program. The City acquired the 22 acres in two different transactions totaling $1,706,000 ($300,000 for the Lake Lawson Phase I Property in 2003 and $1,406,000 for the Lake Smith Fishing Station in 2006). The City also acquired 2.91 acres of property surrounding Lakes Smith and Lawson for $600,000 from Nancy Hodgman. Norfolk owns the final portion of the Lake Properties (the "Lake Lawson Phase II Property"), real property consisting of approximately 13.583 acres adjacent to Lake Lawson in Virginia Beach. Staff recommends acquisition of the Lake Lawson Phase II Property for preservation as open space. The Open Space Advisory Committee has been briefed and has endorsed this acquisition. Norfolk's City Council has adopted an Ordinance approving the sale. . Considerations The City has negotiated with Norfolk to purchase the Lake Lawson Phase II Property for $2,860,000. The purchase price is recommended to be funded from the Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project (CIP 4-004). In addition, a $100,000 grant from the Virginia Land & Water Conservation Fund is available, pending the City's approval of the acquisition of the Lake Lawson Phase" Property. In order to receive such grant, the City must agree that a 4.4-acre portion of the Lake Lawson Phase" Property be used perpetually as a public outdoor recreation area. Norfolk will retain a right of first refusal, should the City ever decide to sell the Lake Lawson Phase" Property to a third party. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda . Alternatives: Do not acquire the Property. . Recommendations: Purchase the Property for $2,860,000 through the Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project (CIP 4-004). . Attachments: Ordinance, Summary of Terms, and Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Dept. of Parks & Recreation K~ I ," City Manage~ L.~ 11"'1. ~ 'I l' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 13.583 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO LAKE LAWSON IN VIRGINIA BEACH FOR $2,860,000 FROM THE CITY OF NORFOLK WHEREAS, the City of Norfolk ("Norfolk") owns 13.583 acres of real property located adjacent to Lake Lawson in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "Property"); WHEREAS, Norfolk desires to sell the Property to the City of Virginia Beach (the "City"); WHEREAS, the purchase price of the Property is $2,860,000; WHEREAS, the City's Open Space Advisory Committee has identified the Property as a parcel to be considered for acquisition as part of the City's Open Space initiative, and has recommended that the Property be acquired for such purposes; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City Council") is of the opinion that the acquisition of the Property would further the City's Open Space initiative; and WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available in the Open Space Acquisition CIP account (CIP 4-004). BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition of the Property pursuant to 915.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which Property is shown as the "Lake Lawson Phase II Property" on Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute all documents that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the purchase of the Property, so long as such documents are in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof, and such other terms and conditions deemed necessary and sufficient by the City Manager and in a form deemed satisfactory by the City Attorney. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~ Dep .. e. 5' tion ci~b~ CA-11011 V:lapplicationslcitylawprodlcycom321 WpdocslDO 15\P004100009363 .DOC R1 April 16, 2009 'I II EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF TERMS AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 13.583 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO LAKE LAWSON IN VIRGINIA BEACH FOR $2,860,000 FROM THE CITY OF NORFOLK OWNER: City of Norfolk ("Norfolk") BUYER: City of Virginia Beach (the "City") ZONING: R-40 AICUZ: N/A SALE PRICE: $2,860,000 at Settlement by certified check or wired funds DEPOSIT: $5,000 due upon the City's execution of the Purchase Agreement DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD: Period of gO days immediately following full execution of the Purchase Agreement. City shall have the right to terminate the Purchase Agreement (and receive a refund of the Deposit) if Norfolk does not cure any unsatisfactory items discovered by the City during the Due Diligence Period. SETTLEMENT DATE: 60 days after expiration of the Due Diligence Period (which is equal to approximately 150 days after full execution of the Purchase Agreement) SOURCE OF FUNDS: CIP 4-004 Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: . Norfolk shall have the right to repurchase the property if the City proposes to sell the Property to an independent third party or accepts a proposal to acquire the Property from an independent third party. The purchase price for Norfolk would be the same as the respective proposal. . Property must be conveyed free and clear of all leases, tenancies and rights of possession of any and all parties other than the City. . Norfolk shall retain a 25-foot butter area around the edge of Lake Lawson, as well as a permanent Access Easement across the Property for ongoing maintenance to Lake Lawson by Norfolk. V :\applicalions\cilylawprod\cycom32\ Wpdocs\DO 15\P004\00009364.DOC 'I II t. ~, (0 >~ ~\ ") 'l.~/I . '"... . <s, Il.~'" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract Obligations in the Maximum Amount of $159,729 (Property of William R. Sanford, Jr. and Cheryl L. Sanford) MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land. The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon eleven (11) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses) for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the development rights of the property. All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard contingencies. . Considerations: The subject property consists of one (1) parcel of land having approximately 14.39 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by William R. Sanford, Jr. and Cheryl L. Sanford. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of two (2) single-family dwelling building sites. Property owners are no longer required to designate the location of the area reserved for future building sites, but are required to subdivide such sites prior to building on them. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is located at 1601 Nanneys Creek Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the ordinance, is $159,729. This price is the equivalent of approximately $11,100 per acre of easement acquired. 2 The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 2.9200% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase Agreement, not to exceed 4.9200% without the further approval of the City Council. The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance. . Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks. . Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to the property. . Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development rights, assuming all contingencies are met. . Attachments: Ordinance; Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full Agreement is on file in the City Attorney's Office); area map showing location of property. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture Department jJf~ City Manage. Y- - ~ ~ ,II 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN 2 AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND 3 THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT 4 OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF 5 $159,729. (PROPERTY OF WILLIAM R. SANFORD, JR. AND 6 CHERYL L. SANFORD) 7 8 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the 9 "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been 10 presented to the City Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase Agreement 11 (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City 12 Council, a summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy of 13 which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the acquisition of the Development Rights 14 (as defined in the Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City 15 and more fully described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement for a 16 purchase price of $159,729; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the 19 acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in 20 compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions ofthe 23 purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement; 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 26 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 27 28 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and 29 conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase 30 Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable 31 and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee 32 is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the 33 Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of interest to accrue on the unpaid principal 34 balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 2.9200% per annum 35 or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS 36 purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such 37 rate of interest shall not exceed 4.9200% unless the approval of the City Council by 38 resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 39 40 2. The City Council hereby further determines that funding is available for the 41 acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on 42 the terms and conditions set forth therein. 43 44 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase 45 Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects 46 in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City Council. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this ,2009. day of CA11006 V:\applicationslcitylawprod\cycom32\WpdocsIDOO7lP005100008586. DOC R-1 DATE: April 9, 2009 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: jJf~ Agriculture Department !JILl/{ i VJ, hili (JW City Attorney Office CERTIFIED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Q(tM ~/(~ ~J ~ IJ,i Director of Finance 2 'I II AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2009-92 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS - SELLER: SANFORD, Jr. William R. & Cheryl L. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1601 Nanneys Creek Road, Princess Anne District PURCHASE PRICE: $159,729 EASEMENT AREA: 14.39 acres, more or less DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 2 single-family dwelling sites (2 acquired) DURATION: Perpetual INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase price, but not less than 2.9200% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to execution of IPA). Rate may not exceed 4.9200% without approval of City Council. TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, with payment of principal due 25 years from IP A date RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: IP A ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery ofIPA. ~ ~ CI.) tn Q.Q) o .... .... u Q.CO I'- -C~Q. ....~~ ON<C .... I ... t:-cO CO co 'I- . 00tn -~e ~~ (.) L.... Q) co Cl.)Q)(1) .cL.M OO~ tn~ ~~ E ~ CO ca -- Z - - -- 3: 1>- I> Nl3N NN'VN +-- II II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Allow Access to City Property for Construction of a Bulkhead and Public Access Across Tuna Lane and Acceptance of Dedication of that Bulkhead and Access upon Completion MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: L. Carl Floyd, John J. DeVan, and Vicki Morgan (collectively the "Applicants") have applied for a permit from the City of Virginia Beach Wetlands Board to construct a bulkhead along the eastern boundary of their properties fronting Sandbridge beach (the "Permit"). As a condition of approving the Permit, the Wetlands Board has required the Applicants to construct a bulkhead and public access stairs over that bulkhead, across City owned right-of-way at the easternmost end of Tuna Lane (the "Improvements"), subject to approval by City Council. The Applicants would be allowed onto City property to construct the Improvements and would execute a Right of Entry Agreement with the City. On completion of the Improvements, the Applicant would dedicate the Improvements to the City. . Considerations: The Wetlands Board and City staff have endorsed the construction of Improvements, subject to Council approval. Council approval is needed to authorize the Applicants access to City property to construct the Improvements, and to accept the dedication of the Improvements on completion. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. . Alternatives: Deny access for the construction of the Improvements. The Coastal Zoning Administrator will allow the Applicants to construct bulkheads along only privately owned property, and the City would construct the bulkhead across Tuna Lane at a later date and at City expense. . Recommendations: Authorize the construction of the Improvements on public property and accept the dedication of the improvements upon completion. . Attachments: Ordinance Location Map Recommended Action: Approval of the Ordinance. ~A0 . / v I/t-L~/ Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Planning I Coastal Zoning City Manager: ~ It.. .~&O-z 'I II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ACCESS TO CITY PROPERTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BULKHEAD AND PUBLIC ACCESS ACROSS TUNA LANE AND ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION OF THAT BULKHEAD UPON COMPLETION WHEREAS, L. Carl Floyd, John J. DeVan, and Vicki Morgan (collectively the "Applicants") have applied to the City of Virginia Beach Wetlands Board for a permit to construct bulkheads on the eastern edge of their properties at Sandbridge Beach; WHEREAS, a condition of approval of the Permit is that the Applicants construct a bulkhead across City owned right-of-way on the eastern end of Tuna Lane so that the bulkhead is continuous north and south of Tuna Lane; WHEREAS, upon completion of the bulkhead across Tuna Lane, along with stairs over the bulkhead to allow pedestrian access to the sandy beach to the east of the bulkhead (the "Improvements"), the Applicants shall dedicate the Improvements to the City; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute a Right of Entry Agreement between the City and L. Carl Floyd, John J. DeVan and Vicki Morgan (collectively, the "Applicants") or their agents to enter onto City-owned property at the eastern end of Tuna Lane for the purpose of constructing a bulkhead and pedestrian access stairs over Tuna Lane (the "Improvements") as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto, so long as the Right of Entry Agreement is acceptable to the City Manager and in a form deemed satisfactory by the City Attorney. 2. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute all documents necessary or appropriate in connection with the acceptance of the dedication of the Improvements, so long as such documents are acceptable to the City Manager and in a form deemed satisfactory by the City Attorney. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the ,2009. day of APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SU FFICIENC:aA. R #A/ ./~ I - -"~ .. . City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ~tr1'1 11. Cwd- Department of Planning CA11010 V:\applicationslcitylawprodlcycom321 WpdocslDO 14\P005100009297 .DOC R-1 April 16, 2009 ,'I II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Granting Fourteen Franchise Agreements for Open Air Cafes in the Resort Area MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: By resolution adopted November 15, 1985, City Council authorized the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Cafe Regulations, which have been amended from time to time, for the operation of open air cafes on public property. The City has developed a franchise agreement for the regulation of open air cafes, which the grantees are required to execute as a condition of the grant. The City Council has traditionally granted initial franchises for one-year terms. If an open air cafe is successfully operated during the initial one-year term, the franchisee may return to Council upon the expiration of the one-year term and request a five-year franchise agreement. . Considerations: 11th Street, LC, Va 11th Street Cafe, is seeking two (2) one- year franchise agreements. The first is for the operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe. The second is for the operation of a Boardwalk Cafe. Both cafes are located at 1011 Atlantic Avenue. The following twelve (12) entities have successfully operated open air cafes pursuant to either one-year or five-year franchise agreements, and are seeking renewal of their franchise agreements for five year terms: (1) Surfside Resort, Inc., Va Fish Bones, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; (2) Foggs Seafood Company, Va Waterman's, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; (3) Tonic, Inc., Va Waffletown USA, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafe; (4) Dunes Investment Associates, Va The Beach Club, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; (5) First Fruits, LLC, t/a Tropical Smoothies, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; (6) ISA, Inc., Va Seaside Galley, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; (7) Baja Taco, Va Baja Cantina, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; (8) Karpathos, Inc., Va King of the Sea, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; (9) Ocean Beach Club Owner's Association, Va Tortugas, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; (10) Ocean Beach Club Owners Association, t/a Tortugas, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; (11) BBH Corporation, Va 18th Street Cafe, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; and (12) Seashore Management, Va Laverne's, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe. . Public Information: A public notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation on April 19, 2009 and April 26,2009. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Submitting DepartmentlAiency: Convention and Visitors Bureau City Manager~ 1...., ~~ 'I 1 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING FOURTEEN 2 FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS FOR OPEN AIR 3 CAFES IN THE RESORT AREA 4 5 WHEREAS, by resolution adopted November 15, 1985, City Council authorized 6 the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Cafe Regulations, which have been amended 7 from time to time, for the operation of open air cafes on public property; and 8 9 WHEREAS, the regulations originally prohibited sidewalk cafes on Atlantic 10 Avenue between 15th and 24th streets; and 11 12 WHEREAS, Council adopted a resolution on March 23, 2004 establishing a pilot 13 program to allow, on an experimental basis, open air cafes on Atlantic Avenue between 14 20th and 23rd Streets; and 15 16 WHEREAS, based upon the success of the pilot program, Council adopted an 17 ordinance on March 8, 2005 authorizing sidewalk cafes on Atlantic Avenue between 18 15th and 24th Streets; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the City Council has traditionally granted initial franchises for one- 21 year terms; and 22 23 WHEREAS, if an open air cafe is successfully operated during the initial one- 24 year term, the franchisee may return to Council and request a five-year franchise 25 agreement; and 26 27 WHEREAS, 11 th Street, LC tla 11 th Street Cafe, is seeking two (2) one-year 28 franchise agreements. The first is for the operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street 29 Cafe, and the second is for the operation of a Boardwalk Cafe, both located at 1011 30 Atlantic Avenue; and 31 32 WHEREAS, the following twelve (12) entities have successfully operated open 33 air cafes pursuant to either one-year or five-year franchise agreements, and are seeking 34 renewal of their franchise agreements for five year terms: (1) Surfside Resort, Inc., tla 35 Fish Bones, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; (2) Foggs Seafood Company, tla 36 Waterman's, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; (3) Tonic, Inc., tla Waffletown 37 USA, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafe; (4) Dunes Investment 38 Associates, tla The Beach Club, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; (5) First Fruits, LLC, 39 tla Tropical Smoothies, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; (6) ISA, 40 Inc., tla Seaside Galley, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; (7) Baja Taco, tla Baja 41 Cantina, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; (8) Karpathos, Inc., tla 42 King of the Sea, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; (9) Ocean Beach 43 Club Owner's Association, tla Tortugas, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; (10) Ocean 44 Beach Club Owners Association, tla Tortugas, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; 45 (11) BBH Corporation, tla 18th Street Cafe, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; and (12) 46 Seashore Management, tla Laverne's, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; and 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 WHEREAS, the Convention and Visitors Bureau recommends that the above- named entities be granted open air cafe franchise agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: 1. That the City Council hereby grants two (2) one-year franchise agreements to 11th Street, LC t/a 11th Street Cafe, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe and Boardwalk Cafe, subject to the terms and conditions of all ordinances, resolutions, and regulations applicable to open air cafes. 2. That the City Council hereby grants five-year franchise agreements to Surfside Resort, Inc., t/a Fish Bones, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; Foggs Seafood Company, t/a Waterman's, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; Tonic, Inc., t/a Waffletown USA, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafe; Dunes Investment Associates, t/a The Beach Club, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; First Fruits, LLC, t/a Tropical Smoothies, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; ISA, Inc., t/a Seaside Galley, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; Baja Taco, t/a Baja Cantina, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; Karpathos, Inc., t/a King of the Sea, for operation of an Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; Ocean Beach Club Owner's Association, t/a Tortugas, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; Ocean Beach Club Owners Association, t/a Tortugas, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe; BBH Corporation, t/a 18th Street Cafe, for operation of a Boardwalk Cafe; and Seashore Management, t1a Laverne's, for operation of a Connector Park Cafe, subject to the terms and conditions of all ordinances, resolutions, and regulations applicable to open air cafes. Adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia on this 2009. day of April, Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: ~=e~ CA11075 R-2 April 7, 2009 'I ~~~~~:\ 8\~~,7ib /&i~ y,,'-~,'t., f~i -tit!, ~~~~,>~: ;::~:;7J .........,....,..., CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds to the FY 2008-09 Operating Budget of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received funding for a new program designed to prevent and address homelessness. HUD Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) monies are allocated based upon a formula, and Virginia Beach's allocation is $1,010,599. The funding must be used to prevent homelessness and/or help those who are homeless. In addition, cities must submit proposals for the use of funds, in the form of an amendment to their annual plan for the use of Federal funds, no later than May 18, 2009. Staff from the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation and the Department of Human Services are coordinating efforts with all key stakeholders who serve the homeless to develop, refine, and implement programs. Most recently, staff from these departments developed programs for a previously appropriated homeless grant from the Dragas companies. Upon notification that the City would receive these new ESG funds, a proposal was developed that helped to enhance and expand the programs funded by the Dragas donation. This proposal enhances the proposed family homelessness services and makes assistance available to other homeless persons as well. The attached fact sheet summarizes the staff proposal for the amount and uses of funds in each category. . Considerations: This funding provides a significant enhancement to the City's ability to address the goals in Council's adopted Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness as well as the Family Homelessness plan. It provides resources to prevent and address homeless that were previously unavailable and that will be much needed during this economic downturn. Since these funds are being received on a one-time basis, staff will be hired contractually to provide these programs, with expected employment of approximately 18 months. The regulations require that 60% of funds be expended within two years, and 100% within three years; however, staff expect that the funds will be expended within 18 months to two years. . Public Information: The proposed use of these funds was advertised on April ih and a public hearing was held on April 15tl1. In addition, the proposal was discussed with participants in Virginia Beach Homeless Advocacy & Resources Partnership, the organization of homeless service organizations in Virginia Beach. Other public information will be coordinated through the traditional Council agenda process. . Recommendation: Approval of the attached ordinance. . Attachments: Ordinance; Fact Sheet hborhood Preservation Submitting Department: Department of Housing n CltyManager~1 \( ,Del){}']. "I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUNDS TO THE FY 2008-09 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That $1,109,599 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) under the Emergency Shelter Grant Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (ESG - HPRP) is hereby appropriated, with federal revenue increased accordingly, to the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's FY 2008- 09 Operating Budget to prevent and address homelessness and/or re-housing of homeless persons. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the ,2009. day of Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: BcWJQ .fj^t1& Management Servjce~ ) ~~i~ CA11097 R-3 April 17, 2009 Emergency Shelter Grant Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program FACT SHEET - April 28, 2009 Attachment to Agenda Request What? Funds allocated to the City under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA - the stimulus bill) under the Emergency Shelter Grant Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housingprogram (ESG - HPRP) , How Much? $1,101,599 Type of One time funding Allowable Prevention of homelessness or re-housing of homeless persons; Uses includes assistance with rent, utilities, case management, location of housing, information, program evaluation and administration Time Frame 60% must be spent within two years of execution of the grant agreement; for 100% within three years; Expenditure Proposed (see chart below) Uses Who? The programs will primarily be operated by the Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation; some activities may be contracted out and/or may be part of a regional project. Grant due May 18m, 2009 date to HUD Proposed Uses of Funds by Category % of Amount Grant Financial Assistance $764,916 75.7% Relocation & Stabilization (includes case management and locating housing) $188,051 18.6% Data collection & Evaluation $7,500 0.7% Administration $50,132 5.0% Total $1,010,599 100.0% Additional program information: The financial assistance will be provided through the Department of Housing's Rental Housing division, which is experienced in provided rental assistance as it already operates the Housing choice voucher program. The Relocation and Stabilization activities include staff to provide case management and assistance finding and obtaining housing. Also potentially included are a central intake project and a regional project to be determined based on consultation with the cities participating in the South Hampton Roads Task Force on Ending Homelessness. Administration costs include accounting, computers, office supplies, travel, phones, etc. Esg hprp fact sheet.doc ;; I II I' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $55,698 in Other Local Revenue to the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's FY 2008-09 Operating Budget MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: All cities receiving Federal funds must pro-actively comply with Federal fair housing requirements. To effectively comply, an "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing" study, updated on a regular basis, is required. Our city has been leading a cooperative regional effort for several years regarding fair housing; and in addition to effectively acting on the issue, Virginia Beach has achieved significant cost savings through the procurement of the last study on a regional basis rather than each city procuring its own study. In past years, this regional effort was coordinated through the Hampton Roads Community Housing Resource Board, a non profit agency. The City Attorney and Finance/Purchasing have recommended a more formal approach, coordinated by one of the local cities. For this year, Virginia Beach has agreed to serve as the lead in a cooperative procurement of such a study. The procurement process has reached the "intent to award" stage and, to make the award, appropriation of funds is required. Each city will contribute its share to Virginia Beach, and our City will then enter into a contract with the winning bidder and administer the payment. All the participating cities (Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Newport News and Hampton) have agreed to contribute one seventh of the cost of the study ($9,283 per city for a total cost of $64,980). . Considerations: As noted, this procurement process was recommended by the City Attorney's office and the Purchasing division as the most effective and compliant way to conduct the regional procurement. Therefore, it is necessary to accept and appropriate the funds from the other cities to contract for the services. Once the study has been completed, all cities will use the results to identify fair housing issues to address both in each city and in the region. . Public Information: Public information will be coordinated through the traditional Council agenda process. . Attachments: Ordinance and Scope of Services for Fair Housing Analysis Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance ~ Submitting Department: Department of Housin i hborhood Preservation City Manager~ ~ .~a<>i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $55,698 IN OTHER LOCAL REVENUE TO THE FY 2008-09 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION'S OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, an expenditure appropriation for the City's cost share for the Housing Analysis Study was included in the FY 2008-09 Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's Operating Budget. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That $55.698 in other local revenue from area cities is hereby appropriated to the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation's FY 2008-09 Operating Budget to procure a Regional Fair Housing Analysis Study. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the .2009. day of Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: n~ Q.~QJJL) Management Services ;:Z'~~ City Attorney's Office CA 11117 R-1 April 14, 2009 'I Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments RFP/Scope of Services The Hampton Roads Community Housing Resource Board (HRCHRB) is a regional organization comprised of representatives from the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach, the housing industry, and housing advocates. The HRCHRB promotes the Federal Fair Housing Law and Section 504 Program Accessibility requirements, which assures that all people regardless of their race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, or handicap have an opportunity to choose the housing best suited to their needs. ,. PURPOSE The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to procure the services of a knowledgeable and experienced Offeror to conduct an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Study that will be in full compliance with all federal regulatory guidelines and requirements. II. BACKGROUND The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires certification that States and Entitlement jurisdictions receiving Community Development Block Grants, Home Investment Partnership (HOME), Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds are in compliance with 24CFR91.225. Among other requirements, 24CFR91.225 requires States and Entitlement jurisdictions to conduct an AI and to periodically update the AI report. The last AI report for Hampton Roads was released in December 2003. The primary function of the AI is to identify barriers to fair housing and to make recommendations to ameliorate those barriers by providing essential and detailed information to policymakers, administrative staff, and advocates of fair housing. This RFP is for an analysis only; no enforcement proposals will be considered. As HUD funded recipients, this RFP is being solicited as a cooperative procurement among the following seven (7) cities/localities: Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Hampton, and Newport News. The final contract will be awarded to one (1) Offeror. III. SCOPE OF WORK A. General Requirements Goals and Objectives: The participating cities/localities maintain a fundamental interest in ensuring fair housing opportunities for all residents of Hampton Roads. To this end, the seven cities are releasing this RFP with the following goals and objectives: 1. Assess impediments to fair housing in the Hampton Roads communities of Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Hampton, and Newport News. 2. Identify barriers in the sale and rental of housing in the private and public sectors for low and moderate income and minority families as well as the disabled population. 3. Evaluate the role of government in promoting fair housing through the provision of fair housing services. 4. Survey the availability of fair housing services in Hampton Roads. 5. Develop regionally-based recommendations to address fair housing issues. 6. Identify housing and fair housing trends occurring since the last Al study in 2003. 7. Inventory of housing resources of affordable and accessible housing. 8. Identify the impacts of foreclosure as it relates to high cost loans, vacancies and foreclosures in each participating jurisdiction regarding the socio-economics of the area (Census tract/block groups overlay: median family income, owner-occupied, African-Americans) and land- use areas (boundaries, residential, vacant lots, city properties and vacant lots, Section 8 or RHA properties, renters and non-residential use). II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer $13,480,623 in Available School Funds in the FY 2008- 09 Operating and Capital Budgets MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: On April 7, 2009, the School Board was presented with a mid-year review of the Schools FY 2008-09 Operating Budget, which indicated the availability of $13,480,623 for categorical transfer from the Schools Operating Budget. The School Board adopted a resolution requesting that the City Council transfer this amount to cover under budgeted unit codes, project supplies, instructional technology for the new school, and replacements of school buses, HVAC systems at seven schools, lighting at four school facilities, the School Administration Information System, the critical system backup system, ceiling mounted classroom projectors, laptops for schools and staff, instructional software, and equipmentlhardware/assistive technology for the special education program. . Considerations: The School Board requests City Council approval of the following changes: · $13,480,623 in available FY 2008-09 School Operating funds be allocated as follows: o $2,984,000 to the Pupil Transportation Category. o $3,031,643 to the Technology Fund. o $831,980 to the Operations and Maintenance Category. o $1,500,000 to the School Equipment Replacement Fund. o $2,085,000 to Capital Project #1-103 Renovations and Replacements - HVAC Systems - Phase II. o $198,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-211 School Operating Budget Support. o $1,850,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-195 Student Data Management System. o $1,000,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-196 Instructional Technology. The School Board has over the years periodically requested transfers to realign the various categories and to transfer excess funds to School priorities prior to the end of the fiscal year. This transfer will have the affect of reduCing of School Reversion funds while meeting School needs. With the Proposed FY 2010 Operating Budget City Staff is supporting the School Board's request for "Lump Sum" funding which will eliminate the need for this type of transfer to come before City Council. . Public Information: Since this ordinance transfers existing appropriations and does not appropriate new funding, a public hearing is not required for the Operating Budget adjustments as they do not exceed 1 % of the City's total Operating Budget. The School Board adopted the resolution requesting these transfers at their April 7, 2009 public meeting. Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process through the advertisement of the City Council agenda. . Attachments: Ordinance and School Board Resolution of April 7, 2009 Recommended Action: Adoption Requested by: School Board . City Manager~ K~~ II II 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $13,480,623 IN AVAILABLE 2 SCHOOL FUNDS IN THE FY 2008-09 OPERATING AND 3 CAPITAL BUDGETS 4 5 WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the School Board adopted a resolution formally 6 requesting the categorical transfer of $13,480,623 in available funds. 7 8 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 11 (1) That $10,843,227 in the Instructional Category be transferred from the FY 2008- 12 09 School Operating Budget in the amounts and for the purposes set forth below: 13 14 (a) $2,984,000 to the Transportation Category; 15 (b) $2,745,544 to the Technology Fund; 16 (c) $753,683 to the Operations and Maintenance Category; 17 (d) $1,500,000 to the School Equipment Replacement Fund; 18 (e) $1,985,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-103 Renovations and 19 Replacements - HVAC Systems - Phase II; 20 (f) $625,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-195 Student Data Management 21 System; 22 (g) $250,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-196 Instructional Technology. 23 24 (2) That $509,099 in the Administration, Attendance, and Health Category be 25 transferred from the FY 2008-09 School Operating Budget in the amounts and for the 26 purposes set forth below: 27 28 (a) 286,099 to the Technology Fund; 29 (b) $198,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-211 School Operating Budget 30 Support; 31 (c) $25,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-195 Student Data Management 32 System. 33 34 (3) That $1,850,000 in the Operations and Maintenance Category be transferred 35 from the FY 2008-09 School Operating Budget in the amounts and for the purposes set 36 forth below: 37 38 (a) $100,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-103 Renovations and 39 Replacements - HVAC Systems - Phase II; 40 (b) $1,200,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-195 Student Data Management 41 System; 42 (c) $550,000 to Capital Improvement Project #1-196 Instructional Technology. 43 44 (4) That $200,000 in the Transportation Category be transferred to Capital 45 Improvement Project #1-196 Instructional Technology. 46 47 (5) That $78,297 in the Technology Fund be transferred to the Operations and 48 Maintenance Category. 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 12gS~e~s~ p~~ City Attorney's Office CA 11118 R-1 April 15, 2009 SCHOOL BOARD Daniel D. Edwards Chairman District 1 - Centerville 1513 Beachview Drive VA Beach, VA 23464 495-3551 (h) . 717-0259 (c) Rita Sweet Bellltto Vice Chairman At-Large P.O. Box 6448 VA Beach, VA 23456 418-0960 (c) William J. "Bill" Brunke,lV District 7 - Princess Anne 4099 Foxwood Drive, Suite 201 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 222-0134 (w). 281>-2n2 (c) Todd C. Davidson At-Large 2424 Savannah Trail VA Beach, VA 23456 427-3330 (wi. 285-9409 (c) Emma L "Em" DiVis District 5 - Lynnhaven 1125 Michaelwood Drive VA Beach, VA 23452 340-8911 (h) Palr1cla G. Edmonson District 6 - Beach 1920 Centerville Turnpike VA Beach, VA 23454 1-888-687-4743 Din R. Lowe District 4 - Bayside 4617 Red Coat Road VA 8eacll, VA 23455 490-3681 (h) Brent N. Mckenzie District 3 - Rose Hall 1400 Brookwood Place VA Beach, VA 23453 816-2736 tc) Patrick S. Salyer At-Large 1741 Sealon Drive VA Beach, VA 23464 620-2141 (c) SlJldn Smith.Jones District 2 - Kempsville 705 Rock Creek Court VA Beach, VA 23462 490-8167 (h) Carolyn D. Weems At-Large 1420 Claudia Drive VA Beach, VA 23455 464-6674 (h) SUPERINTENDENT James G. Merrill, Ed.D. 2512 George Mason Drive VA Beacli, VA 23456 263-1007 II , ." 'hi?, 'ViRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AHEAD OF THE CURVE RESOLUTION REGARDING FY 2008/09 SPENDING PLAN AND REQUEST FOR CATEGORICAL TRANSFER WHEREAS, On April 7, 2009, the Administration presented to the School Board a mid-year review of the FY 08/09 Operating Budget which indicated that funds were available for categorical transfer to cover under budgeted unit codes and other budget priority needs; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009. the Administration made recommendations regarding the uses of the FY 08/09 available funds; and WHEREAS, the administration recommends that these funds be used for the following types of expenditures: · Under-budgeted unit codes · Replacement school buses, HVAC replacements (7 schools), lighting replacements (4 sites), prej.ect supplies, · Replacement for the School Administration Student Information System, critical system backup system, ceiling mounted classroom projectors, laptops for schools/staff, instructional software, instructional technology for new school, equipmenUhardware/assistive technology for special education program; and WHEREAS, the Board approves and affirms the recommended uses of the FY 2008/09 Operating funds as presented by the Administration; and WHEREAS, categorical transfers are necessary to cover projected under budgeted unit codes and to facilitate these purchases; and WHEREAS, any transfer of funds between categories must be approved by City Council prior to transfer and expenditure of funds by the School Board Now, therefore, be it RESOL VEO: That the School Board approves and affirms the recommended uses of these funds; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That the School Board requests the City Council to approve categorical transfers as follows: · $ 2,984,000 from Instruction to Transportation · $ 2,745,544 from Instruction to Technology Fund 106 · $ 286,099 from Administration to Technology Fund 106 · $ 78,297 from Technology Fund 106 to Operations/Maintenance · $ 753,683 from Instruction to Operations/Maintenance · $ 1,500,000 from Instruction to School Equipment Replacement Fund - Fund 107 · $ 1,985,000 from Instruction to CIP #1103 · $ 100,000 from Operations/Maintenance to CIP #1103 · $ 198,000 from Administration/AttendancelHealth to CIP #1211 · $ 1,200,000 from OperationslMaintenance to CIP #1195 · $ 625,000 from Instruction to CIP #1195 · $ 25,000 from Administration/Attendance/Health to CIP #1195 · $ 550,000 from Operations/Maintenance to CIP #1196 · $ 250,000 from Instruction to CIP #1196 · $ 200,000 from Transportation to CIP #1196 and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board, and the Clerk of the Board is directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the Mayor, each member of City Council, the City Manager, and the City Clerk. Adopted by the School Board of the City of Vir . ia Beach . ATTEST: ih./)~- "f Olvt~ Dianne p, Alexander, Clerk of the Board CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COpy {!.. ,'V.i >""', <.... 'C ,'~, _. .: LlA:.~ ,; ~,...;~ - Clerk.~ Cltvof~ School Administration Building . 2512 George Mason Drive . P,O. Box 6038 . Virginia Beach. VA 23456-0038 ,'I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Establish the Witchduck Road, Phase I Right-of-Way Between 1- 264 and Bonney Road as an Underground Utility Corridor MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The Witchduck Road, Phase I (CIP 2-931, UPC 55200) project is an Urban Construction Initiative project that will include the widening of Witchduck Road from four lanes to six lanes from 1-264 south to Bonney Road, a distance of approximately 0.7 miles. The project will include aesthetic treatments such as meandering sidewalks, street lights, and enhanced landscaping. The project is currently in the final design phase. Acquisition is complete and utility relocations are scheduled to begin in April 2009. This project has been selected as a viable candidate for economic stimulus funding. As a result, the City is coordinating with VDOT to finalize the construction contract documents. . Considerations: This ordinance will establish the Witchduck Road, Phase I right-of-way as an underground utility corridor and allow the City to be reimbursed 50% of the costs to relocate the overhead utilities underground. Designation as an underground utility corridor will apply to the CIP project as well as all future development along the corridor. A portion of this project is included in the Historic Kempsville Area Master Plan and is also shown to have underground utilities for future development. . Public Information: A Citizen Information Meeting was held on April 7,2005. A Design Public Hearing was also held on February 23, 2006. In both meetings, the design details showed the existing overhead utilities to be placed underground. . Alternatives: Since the existing overhead lines must be relocated to accommodate the new roadway, the existing aerial lines will still have to be relocated to new poles, if this ordinance is not approved. . Recommendations: underground utility corridor. Approve the ordinance to designate this as an . Attachments: Location map, ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Pub!' City Manager~ \L. r. df".e: ,i I 'I I! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE WITCH DUCK ROAD RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN 1-264 AND BONNEY ROAD AS AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the Witchduck Road Phase I CIP 2-931, UPC 55200, the "Project," has been approved by City Council in order to widen and improve the roadway between 1-264 and Bonney Road; WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach also wishes to improve the safety and aesthetics of this road for the benefit of the surrounding community and the traveling public; WHEREAS, the Council had previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation has adopted a policy to pay 50% of the additional costs to relocate existing overhead private utility lines underground, which requires the City to adopt an ordinance to establish the limits of underground utility districts, corridors or areas; WHEREAS, City Council has appropriated sufficient funding, through the City of Virginia Beach Capital Improvement Program, to pay the City's share of estimated cost to relocate existing overhead utility lines underground. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The Witchduck Road right-of-way between 1-264 and Bonney Road is hereby designated as an underground corridor and all new utilities shall be installed within the Witchduck Road right-of-way shall be placed underground; and 2. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the utility owners within the Witchduck Road right of way for necessary utility relocations. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: p~~ City Attorney's Offic CA11096 R-2 April 10, 2009 'I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution in Support of the "Honor and Remember" Flag as an Official Symbol to Recognize and Honor Members of the Armed Forces Who Have Died in the Line of Duty MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: Currently, there is no officially recognized symbol to acknowledge and honor members of our armed forces who died in the line of duty. Congressman Randy Forbes has introduced House of Representatives Bill 1034, which proposes to amend Chapter 9 of Title 36 of the United States Code to designate the "Honor and Remember" Flag created by Honor and Remember, Inc., as an official symbol to recognize and honor members of our armed forces who have died in the line of duty. . Considerations: The "Honor and Remember" Flag will serve as a symbol of national gratitude for all those members of the armed forces who have given their lives for our freedom; will serve as a daily reminder for all Americans to acknowledge the ultimate price of freedom; and will give comfort to the families who have lost loved ones during military service. . Public Information: This item will be advertised in the same manner as other agenda items. . Attachments: Resolution Requested by Councilmember DeSteph II REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER DeSTEPH 1 A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE "HONOR AND 2 REMEMBER" FLAG AS AN OFFICIAL SYMBOL TO 3 RECOGNIZE AND HONOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 4 FORCES WHO HAVE DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY 5 6 WHEREAS, since the Revolutionary War, more than one million members of the 7 United States armed forces have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty to preserve our 8 freedom; and 9 10 WHEREAS, there is no greater love than he who would lay down his life for his 11 fellow man; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the service and sacrifice of those fallen members of our armed 14 forces are deserving of national recognition; and 15 16 WHEREAS, at the present time, there is no officially recognized symbol to 17 acknowledge and honor members of our armed forces who have died in the line of duty; 18 and 19 20 WHEREAS, Congressman Randy Forbes has introduced House of 21 Representatives Bill 1 034, which proposes to amend Chapter 9 of Title 36 of the United 22 States Code to designate the "Honor and Remember" Flag created by Honor and 23 Remember, Inc., as an official symbol to recognize and honor members of our armed 24 forces who have died in the line of duty; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the "Honor and Remember" Flag will serve as a symbol of national 27 gratitude for all those members of the armed forces who have given their lives for our 28 freedom; will serve as a daily reminder for all Americans to acknowledge the ultimate 29 price of freedom; and will give comfort to the families who have lost loved ones during 30 military service. 31 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 33 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 34 35 That City Council hereby supports legislation to establish a national flag to honor 36 and remember those who have given their lives in military service for our great nation. 37 38 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is urged to adopt 39 House of Representatives Bill 1034 to select the "Honor and Remember" Flag which 40 has been created by Honor and Remember, Inc., to serve as a national symbol. 41 42 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the 43 Virginia's members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives. 44 45 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this 46 day of ,2009. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ;:e~~ City Attorney's Office CA11094, R-2, April 17, 2009 "1 II .5~~~" ,rfl' ~~~~}, rs'~: , ~t~~ ".t"~~ -:,:'<1"> :;:'.,- t(2i~;~::-:::E~djJ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution Approving the Distribution of Funds under the Byrne JAG Grant, a Part of the American Recovery Reinvestment Act, as Proposed by the Community Criminal Justice Board MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), certain funds are allocated to the City of Virginia Beach for criminal justice purposes. These funds come under the Byrne JAG grant in the amount of $881 ,256. The Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) is made up of the criminal justice agencies in the City, including the Sheriff, Police, Community Corrections, and courts. The CCJB, through a collaborative process, identified how the funds should be distributed. . Considerations: The ARRA legislation requires that the governing body be notified 30 days before the May 18th application due date. City Council was advised of the proposed distribution on April 10, 2009. Upon approval by the City Council, the application will be submitted by City staff to the Department of Justice. . Public Information: City Council was advised in their April 10, 2009 package. Other public information will be coordinated through the traditional Council agenda process. . Recommendations: Adopt the attached resolution approving the distribution of the funds as suggested by the CCJB. . Attachments: Resolution, Byrne JAG Letter Recommended Action: Approval Submitting DeparbnentlAgency: Community Criminal Justice Board-Bob Matthias, Chairmaif ~ City Manage~~ t .l5&~ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DISTRIBUTION OF 2 FUNDS UNDER THE BYRNE JAG GRANT, A PART OF 3 THE AMERICAN RECOVERY REINVESTMENT ACT , AS 4 PROPOSED BY THE COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE 5 BOARD 6 7 WHEREAS, under the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA), certain 8 funds were allocated to the City of Virginia Beach for criminal justice purposes. These 9 funds came under the Byrne JAG grant in the amount of $881 ,256; and 10 11 WHEREAS, the Community Criminal Justice Board, which consists of the 12 criminal justice agencies in the City, including the Sheriff, Police, Community 13 Corrections, and courts have collaboratively identified how the funds should be 14 distributed; and 15 16 WHEREAS, the City Council was advised of this proposed distribution on April 17 10, 2009; and 18 19 WHEREAS, the City Council notification on April 10 met the requirement of the 20 ARRA legislation that the governing body be notified 30 days before the application is 21 due on May 18, 2009; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the application will be submitted by City staff to the Department of 24 Justice upon approval by the City Council. 25 26 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City Council hereby approves the 27 recommended distribution of the funds, as detailed in the attachment to this resolution, 28 and authorizes the City Manager to submit the application to the Department of Justice. 29 30 ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia this _ day of 31 ,2009. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~~~N;~ CA 11113 R-3 April 17, 2009 ;:<?: ~ ~ City Attorney's Office 'I II C:it:y <:>f -V-:Jrg1rria.. Beach OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER (757) 385-4242 FAX (757) 427-5626 VJ%,'Ov.com MUNICIPAL CENTER ~UllDING 1, ROOM 234 2401 COURTHOUSE ORNE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456-9001 April 10, 2009 The Honorable William D. Sessoms, Jr. Members of City Council Subject: Byrne JAG Grant Dear Mayor and Council Members: As part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), the City was awarded funds for law enforcement purposes. These funds under the Byrne JAG Grant amount to $881,256. The City staff must prepare an application for the funds and submit no later than May 18,2009. As part of the requirements, the governing body must be advised of the projects to be funded 30 days before the application is due. Please consider this your notification. Our Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB), which is made up of individuals from all of our criminal justice agencies, including the Courts, Community Corrections, Police, Sheriff, Commonwealth Attorney, etc. have met several times to discuss the availability of these funds. The CCJB has agreed, after a lengthy process, that the funds should be awarded as follows: · Police PatrollDriving Course Vehicles T asers Subtotal $122,636 $160,000 $282,636 · Sheriff Biometric Access System Security Control Center Accurint LE Search Program Subtotal $30,000 $170,000 $3,000 $203,000 · Commonwealth's Attorney Case Management Software $184,800 · Youth Opportunities Office Summer Youth Employment $88,864 · Community Corrections Pretrial Staffing Substance Abuse Services Printer and Scanner Subtotal $37,440 $18,750 $2,141 $58,331 · Circuit Court Multi Media Display System - 2 units Part-time Office Assistant (Circuit Court Clerk Office) Subtotal $22,000 $24,000 $46,000 · Court Service Unit Part-time Clerical Jolly Giant Software Subtotal $16,988 $637 $17,625 Total $881,256 Total Grant Balance $881,256 $0 As you can see from the distribution of funds, almost all of the criminal justice agencies were accorded at least some funding for their programs. One of the underlying conditions that the CCJB considered was that there was a need to limit the future liability of the City for employee costs. Therefore there are no full-time employee positions in this request. This item will come to City Council for a resolution approving the distribution at your April 28, 2009 meeting. Again, because of the rather short time frame to apply for these funds and the requirement that City Council be notified 30 days before the due date, please accept this letter as your notification. If you require any additional infonnation, please contact Bob Matthias at (757) 385-8267. With Pride in Our City, Spore ager JKSlRRMJamg cc: Community Criminal Justice Board 'I L. PLANNING 1. Application of ROBERT BURKE for the Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure at 5504 Ocean Front Avenue re a second and third floor addition and an addition to the existing detached garage. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Variance to ~4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for SYLVIA ESTES to create three lots on 34.05 acres at 1628 Mill Landing Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application of MCRJERS, LLC for the closure of an unimproved right-of-way portion of Windsor Crescent, 3868 Jefferson Boulevard. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE DEFERRED RECOMMENDATION MARCH 24, 2009 INDEFINITE DEFERRAL 4. Application of REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at portions of2230, 2234 and 2240 Salem Road and a parcel abutting the rear property line. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Application of THOMAS C. KAY, JR.-for a Conditional Use Permit re firewood preparation at 1641 Princess Anne Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION DENIAL 6. Application of BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. for Modification of Conditions (approved by City Council on August 28, 2007 [Thanh Cong Doan]), to extend the term and conditions of the 2007 permit at 4177 West Neck Road re religious services. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 7. Application of RICHARD S. DAILEY for Modification of Condition No.2 (approved by City Council on June 9, 1986, September 14, 1987 and August 14, 1989) at 1094 Diamond Springs Road re enlarging the existing animal hospital. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE RECOMMENDATION APROVAL 8. Application of VIRGINIA BEACH INK (Ben Johnson) for Modification of Conditions (approved by City Council on September 23,2008) at 612 Nevan Road, Suite 114 to add body piercing and permanent make-up applications. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDA nON APPROV AL 9. Ordinance to AMEND the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance by including the surface area of swimming pools as "impervious cover" re calculating stormwater management requirements and ESTABLISHING uniform buffer mitigation standards. RECOMMEND A TION .i\PPROV AL 10. Ordinance to AMEND Appendix C, Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B, re floodplains and comply with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL "I II Vr~,inia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at' City Hall, !\llmicipal Center, 2,+01 CGurthcuse Drive, Tuesday, April 28, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. The roHow'r;g applications will be heard: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Crdinance to amend the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance by including he sUlface area of swimming pools as impervious cover for purposes of calculating stormwater management requirements and by establishing uniform buffer mitigatior standards. Or.jinance to amend Appendix C, Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B. pertaining to floodplains and the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. SA YSIDE DISTRICT ~jchard S. Dailey i\pplication: ~.lodifiCi:Jtion of Conditions (approved by City Council 'In June 9. 1986. September 14, 1987 and August 14. 1989) at 1094 Diamond Springs Road. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT Reformed Baptist Church Of Virginia Beach Application: Conditional Use Permit for a ':hurch, pcrtions of 2230. 2234 and 2240 Salem Road and a parcel abutting the rear property line \GPINs- part of 1474963320; 1484060288; 1484062581- 1484061112). Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Application: Conditional Use Permit for firewood preparation facility at 1641 Princess Anne Road. '3ylvia Estes Application: Subdivision Variance at 1628 Mill Landing Road. Buddhist Education Center Of America. Inc. Application: Modification of Conditions of a request approved by City Council on August 28. 2007 (Thanh Cong Doan) at 4177 West Neck Road (GPIN 2402800135). l YNNHA YEN DISTRICT Virginia Beach Ink (Ben Johnson) Application: Modification of Conditions (approved b~ City Council on September 23. 2008) at 612 Nevan Road. Suite 114. Robert Burke Application: [Mansion of a NonconformmJ:!: Structure at 5504 Ocear Front Avenue \GPIN 2419806525). 'iii :nterested Glt::er.s ;:,re invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Fraser. MMC City Clerk Copies cf the proposed ordin3nces. resolutions and amendments are on fie and mr:y 'ie E:;a:T.med :n thE> Department of P:arining or cr.Lne (, 11Up:/ /www.vbi!ov.com/oc For information call 385-4621. if you are physically disabled or visually Impaired and need assistar.ce at thi!; meeting, plem?e call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303. Eea,:on .\pnl12 ti 19. 2009 _vv..,.v_.~_t SUf\iDAY.04.19.09 'BEACON THE V!~G'NIAN-P!l ROBERT BURKE Map L-4 Map Not to Scale Robert Burke ~~~:- ~\~\ \\ ~U~- --..- "- ~~' · · ~~IiV ~ ,~\J = ~;'\(~1 65 7J (~ Ldn p., I:'~ tJfJ. ~ --.. ~~( --. ~ ~ :~ 'O~t~l~n\\ ,., ... ~~~~~~~\\ 01 ~ ~~bA1ea ~ ;:Jf'EO\- ~ ~ ~ \ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0" 0 ~~ p- '"\ '?; ~\' ~ . ~,\.,~ 0 ~~~ \ ~ -~-o ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~ \".n~' ~ \!!!~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~" .~ rl~ ~\C 8~ ~~ \ ~ ~;-- \ ;:;\.~' ~~ ~IJ' ~ ~oo \...~ ~ ~ -~~~~ ~ff ~"~ ~ \ ~ ~~ ~~u r; \\.-~fJ~~i.~ ~ w--. 0 ~\~ =~ ~R ), ~) ~~ ~ :.J D\\ ~ I\'~ ~~~ i~\\ ~ ~ .~~) l \ \ Non-Conforming Structure Relevant Information: · Lynnhaven District . The applicant requests alterations to nonconforming structures, a single-family dwelling, and a detached garage. . The structures are nonconforming because they do not meet the required building setbacks in the R-5R Residential Resort District. . The applicant proposes a second and third floor addition to the existing dwelling. The second floor addition will be in line with the existing building walls, which all but one side meets the required setbacks in the R-5R District. The northern side yard, at 5.7 feet, does not meet the required 8-foot setback for side yards in the R-5R Resort Residential District. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Approval with conditions II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution authorizing the Enlargement of a Nonconforming Structure on property located at 5504 Ocean Front Avenue for Robert Burke. L YNNHAVEN DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 14, 2009 . Background: The applicant requests alterations to nonconforming structures, a single-family dwelling, and a detached garage. The structures are nonconforming because they do not meet the required building setbacks in the R-5R Residential Resort District. The applicant indicates the home was constructed in the 1940's by the Eisenhower family. City real estate records for the site only go back to 1953, but do indicate improvements were on the site at that time. . Considerations: The applicant proposes a second and third floor addition to the existing dwelling. The second floor addition will be in line with the existing building walls, which all but one side meets the required setbacks in the R-5R District. The northern side yard, at 5.7 feet, does not meet the required a-foot setback for side yards in the R-5R Resort Residential District. The proposed addition, however, will not encroach any further into the required setbacks than that which currently exists, and the third floor addition will actually meet the currently required building setbacks. Additionally, the applicant desires to make a small addition to the existing detached garage. Currently the existing garage is situated 2-feet from Ocean Front Avenue, 3-feet from the northern property line and 27 -feet from the southern property line. The current building setbacks for accessory structures in the R-5R Residential Resort District is 20-foot front yard setback and a-foot side yard setback. The proposed addition is on the northwest corner of the existing building and will not meet the required building setbacks. Again, the proposed addition will not encroach any further into the required setbacks than that which currently exists. As the northern side yard setback does not meet the current zoning regulations, the setback is nonconforming, and the additions of the second and third floor to the main structure and the addition to the detached garage require City Council approval. Robert Burke Page 2 of 2 . Recommendations: The proposed additions are reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming structures. The request, therefore, is acceptable with the conditions below. 1. The proposed additions shall substantially conform to the submitted site development plan entitled "NON-CONFORMING USE EXHIBIT FOR BURKE RESIDENCE, #5504 OCEAN FRONT AVENUE", dated March 17, 2009, and prepared by WPL Landscape Architects, Land Surveyors, Engineers. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The proposed additions shall substantially conform to the submitted building elevations entitled "SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR ADDITION TO BURKE RESIDENCE, VIRGINA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated March 16, 2009, and prepared by Lyall Design Architects. Said elevations have been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Resolution Location Map Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: \( , ~ ~ \ ,~~ Recommended Action: Approval "I 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 2 ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING 3 STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 5504 OCEAN FRONT AVENUE 5 6 WHEREAS, Robert Burke (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made application to 7 the City Council for authorization to enlarge a nonconforming structure by making 8 additions to a single-family dwelling and garage that are nonconforming as to setbacks 9 on a lot or parcel of land having the address of 5504 Ocean Front Avenue, in the R-5R 10 Residential Zoning District; 11 12 WHEREAS, the said structures are nonconforming, as the dwelling and the 13 garage do not meet the setback requirements for the R-5R Residential Zoning District 14 and were constructed prior to the adoption of the applicable regulations; and 15 16 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the 17 enlargement of a nonconforming structure is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of 18 the City Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed structure, as 19 enlarged, will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district than is 20 the existing structure; 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 25 That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed structures, as enlarged, will 26 be equally appropriate to the district as are the existing structures. 27 28 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 29 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 30 31 That the enlargement of the nonconforming structures is hereby authorized, upon 32 the following conditions: 33 34 1. The proposed additions shall substantially conform to the submitted site 35 development plan entitled "NON-CONFORMING USE EXHIBIT FOR 36 BURKE RESIDENCE, #5504 OCEAN FRONT AVENUE", dated March 17, 37 2009, and prepared by WPL Landscape Architects, Land Surveyors, 38 Engineers. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City 39 Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 40 41 2. The proposed additions shall substantially conform to the submitted 42 building elevations entitled "SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR ADDITION TO 43 BURKE RESIDENCE, VIRGINA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated March 16, 44 2009, and prepared by Lyall Design Architects. Said elevations have been 45 exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the 46 Planning Department. 47 48 of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICI~NCY: , )/1 l JJd/;Jt/lfj ~''- City Attorney's Office CA11116 R-1 April 13, 2009 i I REQUEST: Enlaraement of Nonconformina Structures ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 5504 Ocean Front Avenue GPIN: 24198065250000 ELECTION DISTRICT: L YNNHAVEN 'I II ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie SITE SIZE: 8,400 square feet AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests alterations to nonconforming structures, a single-family dwelling and a detached garage. The structures are nonconforming because they do not meet the required building setbacks in the R-5R Residential Resort District. The applicant indicates the home was constructed in the 1940's by the Eisenhower family. City real estate records for the site only go back to 1953, but do indicate improvements were on the site at that time. The applicant proposes a second and third floor addition to the existing dwelling. The second floor addition will be in line with the existing building walls, which as shown in the table below (5.7 feet) does not meet the required 8-foot setback for side yards in the R-5R Resort Residential District on the northern side of the structure. The proposed addition, however, will not encroach any further into the required setbacks than that which currently exists, and the third floor addition will actually meet the currently required building setbacks. ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 1 Existing R-5R Requirement Proposed Front Yard Setback 30.0 feet 20.0 feet 30.0 feet Side Yard Setback 12.6 feet 8.0 feet 12.6 feet (southern side) Side Yard Setback 5.7 feet 8.0 feet 5.7 feet (northern Side) Setback adjacent to 56.1 feet 30.0 feet 56.1 feet ocean Additionally, the applicant desires to make a small addition to the existing detached garage. Currently the existing garage is situated 2-feet from Ocean Front Avenue, 3-feet from the northern property line and 27- feet from the southern property line. The current building setbacks for accessory structures in the R-5R Residential Resort District is 20-foot front yard setback and 8-foot side yard setback. The proposed addition is on the northwest corner of the existing building and will not meet the required building setbacks. Again, the proposed addition will not encroach any further into the required setbacks than that which currently exists. As the northern side yard setback does not meet the current zoning regulations, the setback is nonconforming, and the additions of the second and third floor to the main structure and the addition to the detached garage require City Council approval. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A single-family dwelling, detached garage, and gazebo SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: . A single-family dwelling I R-5R Residential Resort District. . A single-family dwelling I R-5R Residential Resort District. . The beach and the Atlantic Ocean . Ocean Front Avenue . Across Ocean Front Avenue are single-family dwellings I R-5R Residential Resort District. NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is located along the dune line adjacent to the beach and the Atlantic Ocean. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES There is no impact to City services. ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 2 'I Ii EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area - North Virginia Beach Site 11. The North Virginia Beach community encompasses a predominantly residential area located on both sides of Atlantic Avenue from 42nd Street to 89th Street. It is characterized by a compact arrangement of single-family and duplex units with much of the land zoned Residential Resort District (R-5R).The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The request for alteration and expansion of this nonconforming use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. In sum, the proposed additions are reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as appropriate to the district as the existing non-conforming structures. The request, therefore, is acceptable with the conditions below. CONDITIONS 1. The proposed additions shall substantially conform to the submitted site development plan entitled "NON-CONFORMING USE EXHIBIT FOR BURKE RESIDENCE, #5504 OCEAN FRONT AVENUE", dated March 17,2009, and prepared by WPL Landscape Architects, Land Surveyors, Engineers. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The proposed additions shall substantially conform to the submitted building elevations entitled "SCHEMATIC DESING FOR ADDITION TO BURKE RESIDENCE, VIRGINA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated March 16, 2009, and prepared by Lyall Design Architects. Said elevations have been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 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 ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 3 . , . ':ffil 4 , , ~ ~ 'i "" ,..'",,-,,,, ~ ."". . . .\\ . ,,-; . '';' . ~,.;.~ . . ", H.Ji , ~ " '..," Ir ':'~ ., :;.", ". ,~. AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 4 'I II ~~ ~-o '----~- -~~~ Q. .-------. ~ ,.~~.\-r c <1:1- -\-1";), t 'i. \1\ 2i -\ \ \~\\~~ z.o '~~,~i1lJ ~i I 1\' J g \ i I /' ..J ----- ~::... '~~~'':::'~-- l Nv;r.JO 2lliY7J. l' !f!V.Od:/,.,J:r) fll/Wl11:1tJI1 ,'>:jW71" .I.~ III oJ ( ~ a . '''''T' . '1 ,. ~ 0 ! A. , ~ e . . . -""",,--.-.-..--....-.--- 4P :.~ .' ,,'" ",'~ , ~.~ ~ ~~ ~~ ':~i ; '~ ~ ~ f- ffi E ;:; :> ~ ~ ~;:; ~ <:: i?J~ (.IJ Eo-< ~;: (.IJ~Z "'i5 ;guo ~gj c:JZ~ ~~ 2;~~ ;!~ ::::;;_z E... i:li:: lZ) <:: :s~~ o ga ~ ~155l ~ ~ g gi~ Co( Qa ~ ~~~ z -.. V'l ~:J!<; 0....... V'l "'lCsi Z CJ:l =t:I: ~..;;: ! )'; :.~ :~ i:S~DJ~'.~~~/=/ "f': .,~.:' ~.G._ - . ~ ~ ~... ~ t : -...-. ,tK - ~" ::7J\.... .J.N0I:k/ N....300 !~ 51 is J Ii Ii !! !! II ! II II -, t t~ tt ~18 U sa Q ! !S !L ~ < ...I . j . ~I 0; II ~'II ~...IIIII!III.1 ~. i rfluU f ~: '1 ~f t: ;'>;, PROPOSED ADDITIONS ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 5 : ~'C . ~ , V//// //,' ../ : tLLL. / -r<./j-U--L ).: t/~ 1 (.;'11 I' ,I ; 'I ~ __,' T7.,.~J I . , ~///4//; I .';/1, ' ~/'/ /,~ : r, /~,~/; 1/ ~',,', /+/. J/.J LLL7.l.i 'J 1 I I " 1 7 i' !_+ I Iii! ~~i -~'- I' lt~ (;. '.' s - ..' '~ ~;:'.lt~'~o= II I[J~ o~,~-1J ~ ,,-' . o _ ~o~{t_:",r.i/~/~',f .J ~~~~.~ ~z f .~~- -;. ,.,-"-~~L~~'~ ' , [1 ~ I: ~N'i~ ',I ", ',' ~ ~., i :; I~ td"~,',,r b,',,' :: i, . fJ~1 ;{ :l-"J~+ T7.'.'. .... -= ~~:_--,~ '-":'-=-"'-=-=~-^f '~. =:;:=~::::., '-:"~:~~ ~ ~ lln-' ~. ~ -_._-~: ~ ~ I :: I l " I ~ . ! . 0 " , 0 au , .... I z U ; I 0 c i .... Z - ! z " au i " ~ i c Q "" "" ; 0 i 0 0 I i " ... c;) . ! Z U , au c '" , ~ , ... u ! - ~ .. .. '" ... C lIE I " u au z I .... ::llII::: ~ I c .. ~ - :e > ... ~ :z: U c:a '" FIRST FLOOR PLAN ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 6 'I II .. .. ~. . ~. II a.. Q~ ; II ..~ ...l. U ,<!o w >;. ~ -.--..:J..: ~ .. .. o , , I .. I .. j .. f . I . 0 i " or( - z i - " I .. - I > 0 0 I " :z: I 1 U - t or( '" I r ... u I . .. .. .. i or( - ( z - " ! .. - ? > "'~ ~~ :3 I ~ W z U o I- Z ~ w or( C ... U) z W " .. IDI:: ... Q U W I- ~ : IDI:: ~ ::) ~ riD z oC ... ... .. o o ... ... Q Z o U ... .. SECOND FLOOR PLAN ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 7 ~ .. ~r ~ ~J!' j L f.'-'-_ , -"'7 " 'i" I , ',- '", - - -.\.:~,~- ",,'" " / ',-' . ',,, / -'J' :!,""""-"'~ I I I 1- I . Ii : t-- /1 f:/~ - -... _ _ .~" I /. / I . // I / I , , I ~--- 8 ''..'''' '. ...... -"". ,I '\, -,.~ "' /''"' / '. / " ,/'" -'-, /' /' ./ //""':. - - -.- - .- - - .- - - - .- - - "" .t.:",__ .~.___.~.._ __< __'C '"'. THIRD FLOOR PLAN ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 8 ~ I t I ~ t 0 w I ... z U i 0 0( i - Z - ... ; - Z Q W - ~ Q C,!) i 0( Q ... - I ... > :; 0 . <> I ... ::I: ... ." ::I: ... 4 I ... Z U , W 0( I 0 C,!) '" r lU U Z - AI:: .. . ! '" C lU 0( ~ l Q - ! u W z i - - ~ C,!) ... I 0( ... ~ AI:: - > lU ;:::) , ::I: , ~ U a:a I '" I ! . ~ ~ ~ I . Z Z 0 0 - - .... .... e( e( > > au IU .... .... au IU () Q w ... Z ~ '" -6 01;, 0( ....~ lU ~ :1 A.~ - 0 , X'" LU;;:; llIlN '" G..t;- ; i I "I II " " ~. .. .. <> ftll U ci III.. ~~. ~ >;. ~ ~< ~ L PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 9 .... ... III it I ~!I...I...: . j~ ~ 11'- 't. ~ l~"---oT,-:J: ~ .. '" III ;t 0 W .. z U 0 c .... Z z 0 W - 0 " c Q ~ .. > 0 i ... CI) z W u " C III - Ail: .. ... III ~ 0 u W z - - ~ " .. c .. ~ Ail: - > III ::) 2: U a:I ... ... ... z z 0 0 - - t- t- e( e( > > ... ... .... .... ... ... Q :z: ~ III :z: "" ... z .. ::I - :0 00 0 t- O L;:' ... '" ... o " - )( ",f... '" III A.,;;; PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 10 z o I I ~ U I I ~ ~ ea ~ c::.rJ ;.::::> c..:;, z ~ o ~ Z o u . Z o Z 'I 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) Robert Burke 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiaryl or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if properly owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. Ust the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List aU businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entitY' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. , '"'\ . & ~ See next page for footnotes Non.Confcrrning Use AppiiCati;}r Page S 0' 2 Rth<'~sed 9: '\ ''20:J4 ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 11 .tMt r DISCLOSURE ~?ATEMENT , 'p'T ~ 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 servtees: (Attach list if necessary) Lyall Design, Architects WPL, Surveying & Engineering Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C. 1 UParent-subsidiary relatlonshipu 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 Dontrolllng ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in ,ne entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (lll) there is shared ilanagemel'1.t 01" control between the business entities. Factors that should be ::onsidered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship nclude that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two ,;ntities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share lhe 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 hatween the entities," See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. t~(}de ~ 2.2-3101. (. ERTJFICATJON: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. ~ Jnderstand that. upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been E. ~heduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required e. gn on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing e: ':.Cord' to the instructions in this package. j Af Rober\: Burke Print Name p;: )perty Owner's Signature (tf different than applicant) Print Name NOll": Ol'lforrMg \J$e Appl,clIIlcm Pagli } cI \I Ravin 16 ElItlZQQA z <:> t I .~ c1 t t ~ ~ ea ~ CI':J I;::::> c;...:, ~ ~ o ~ ~ U . Z o Z ROBERT BURKE April 28, 2009 City Council Meeting Page 12 SYLVIA ESTES Relevant Information: · Princess Anne District · The applicant requests a Subdivision Variance to allow the creation of a lot at the rear of the site within the 'exception area' created when the property was placed in the ARP. · Lot has no frontage on a public right-of-way, thus a variance is necessary. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Planning Staff recommended approval · Planning Commission recommends approval (11-0) · There was no opposition. · Consent agenda. 'I I' ~.'''...... rG.~~:~'~N~'~;~" ~r~1-J ~........."" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: SYLVIA ESTES, Subdivision Variance, 1628 Mill Landing Road. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The applicant owns an existing lot consisting of 37.97 acres, of which, 34.05 is above the water and wetlands of Nawney Creek on the north side of the property. There is a horse farm and a dog and cat kennel on the site. It is the intent of the applicant to create three (3) lots on the large property, one of which requires a subdivision variance since it has no frontage on a public right-of-way. Ingress and egress to the proposed lots is via the existing, tree-lined driveway. . Considerations: After the 2008 City Council approval of Conditional Use Permits for a riding academy and horses for hire and for a dog and cat kennel, the property was accepted into the Agriculture Reserve Program (ARP). The ARP permits the reservation of one (1) lot for a future residential dwelling, no greater than three (3) acres. The applicant elected to reserve such an area at the northwest part of the site, adjacent to Nawney Creek. The applicant is now creating a lot from that reserved area. The proposed lot, indicated as Lot 1 on the plat, has no physical street frontage. Lot 2 is proposed as a "non-buildable" lot that, through a private deed restriction, can only be conveyed to an owner of one of the adjoining properties (Lot 1 or Lot 3). A private ingress-egress easement and a shared maintenance agreement are proposed for access to the lots. Much of the property fronting Mill Landing Road is within the 1 OO-year floodplain, and, as such, the applicant is proposing to locate the ot on the northern portion of the property where a dwelling could easily be constructed on better drained soils, outside of the environmentally sensitive portion of the property. The Southern Watersheds Management Area Ordinance requires a minimum 50-foot wide buffer from the edge of wetlands for any new structures; thus, the waters of Nawney Creek will be protected. Adherence to this setback will be required and reviewed during site plan review. Health Department approval for septic system and wells is also required prior to construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 1. Sylvia Estes Page 2 of 2 . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. When the property is subdivided, it shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled, "Preliminary Subdivision of 37.97 Acre Tract," prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated November 24, 2008, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. A private ingress/egress easement serving the proposed lots and utilizing the existing driveway shall be depicted on the final plat. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department /~ k."-. \ City Manage~'b t. .~<f<HL ~"'- 'I #6 March 11, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: SYLVIA ESTES STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A. K. Smith REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(d) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance SITE SIZE: 37.97 entire site (34.05 acres above water and wetlands) 3.62 acres for variance request ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 1628 Mill Landing Road GPIN: 2410440394 ELECTION DISTRICT: PRINCESS ANNE AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST Existing Lot: The existing lot 37.97 acres, of which, 34.05 is above the water and wetlands of Nawney Creek on the north side of the property. There is a horse farm and a dog and cat kennel on the site. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to create three (3) lots on the large property. One (1) of the lots, Lot 2, is noted on the submitted subdivision plat as being "Not a Building Site" and no dwelling will be permitted on this site. Proposed Lot 1 has no frontage on a public right-of-way, and thus a Subdivision Variance is requested to allow creation of the lot. Ingress/egress to the proposed lots is via the existing, tree-lined driveway. ltem Lo1..1 Lm.2 I.Ql.3 Lot Width in feet 150 0* 398.18 151.79 Lot Area in square feet 43,560 157,687 629,006 867,715 'Variance required all 20 feet of lot frontage within the floodplain SYL VIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING lAND USE: Single-family dwelling, horse farm and dog and cat kennel SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: . Nawney Creek . Mill Landing Road, single-family dwellings / AG-2 Agricultural District . Agricultural field, single-family dwellings / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts- . Agricultural field, single-family dwellings / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The property is located adjacent to Nawney Creek. The northern portion of the site is encumbered by tidal wetlands and floodplain. The Southern Watersheds Management Area Ordinance requires a minimum 50-foot wide buffer from the edge of wetlands for any new structures. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Mill Landing Road is a two (2) -lane undivided collector. There are currently no CIP projects scheduled for this section of Mill Landing Road. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Mill Landing Road 1 ,254 ADT 7,400 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use .t. - 157 Service "C") - 12,000 ADT ADT 1 (Level of Service Proposed Land Use 3 - 167 "En) ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 37.976 acres for horse boarding, riding academy, and kennel 3 as defined by addition of a sinQle family dwellinQ WATER & SEWER: No City water or sewer service is available to the site. Health Department approval for waste water disposal and drinking water supply is required. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: SYLVIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 2 'I A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the "Rural Area." The area is characterized as low, flat land with wide floodplains and altered drainage. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as "agricultural/rural" with uses related to farming, forestry, rural residential, and other rurally compatible uses. The Plan states: "From providing a legacy for a future generation of farmers, to providing habitat for wildlife, keeping taxes low, and maintaining the rural community, the vision for our rural landscape is important" (page 161). Evaluation: Since the City Council approval in 2008 of Conditional Use Permits for a riding academy and horses for hire and a dog and cat kennel, the property has been accepted into the Agriculture Reserve Program (ARP). The goal of the program is to promote and enhance agriculture as an important local industry that is part of a diverse local economy. To accomplish this goal, the City of Virginia Beach purchases development rights over a resource base of farmland large enough to sustain an economically viable local industry. This proposal follows the guidance found in the Comprehensive Plan for future activities in the Rural Area: projects that reflect and endorse the rural way of life while providing a continued agricultural presence. The ARP permits the reservation of one (1) lot for a future residential dwelling, no greater than three (3) acres. The applicant elected to reserve such an area at the northwest part of the site, adjacent to Nawney Creek. The applicant is now creating a lot from that reserved area. The proposed lot. indicated as Lot 1 on the plat, has no physical street frontage. Lot 2 is proposed as a "non-buildable" lot that, through a private deed restriction, can only be conveyed to an owner of one of the adjoining properties (Lot 1 or Lot 3). A private ingress-egress easement and a shared maintenance agreement are proposed for access to the lots. A typical layout, as found in the vicinity of this property, is to carve out a site adjacent to the right-of-way, Mill Landing Road. Much of the property along this portion of the road is within the 100-year floodplain, SYLVIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 3 and, as such, the applicant is proposing to locate the reserved lot on the northern portion of the property where a dwelling could easily be constructed on better drained soils, outside of the environmentally sensitive portion of the property. The Southern Watersheds Management Area Ordinance does require a minimum 50-foot wide buffer from the edge of wetlands for any new structures. Adherence to this setback will be required and reviewed during site plan review. Health Department approval for septic system and wells is also required prior to construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 1. Subject to the conditions below, Staff recommends approval of this request. CONDITIONS 1. When the property is subdivided, it shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled, "Preliminary Subdivision of 37.97 Acre Tract," prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated November 24,2008, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. A private ingress/egress easement utilizing the existing driveway shall be depicted on the final plat. 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. SYLVIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 4 'I II AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION SYLVIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 5 _. .----------wwlu U i ' - . I I I I I I. ".51 ; : B i i2el :>;r;r..;r ;r;! II i . - . . IU I . i,a.. i'; ~~ -I.. .; f. b i 12 c o .- ~ ftI > .. Q) en ~ D. :')( .. ... ~!-- . .- C"')CI) ., , .. i .>w tl:, ,. 'I~ I , , . ~ W ! . ~. ;.;; ," . ..a! ss- PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SYLVIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 6 14- AG-2 'a AC-1 .0-1 AG-1 t. \ 4 10/10/88 Granted 1 08/26/08 2 3 05/11/04 07/09/91 ) Granted Granted Granted Denied Denied ZONING HISTORY SYLVIA ESTES Agenda It~tn 6 Page 7 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 menlbers trustees partners, ete, below: (Attach list if necessary) Sylvia Estes 2. List aU businesses that have a parent-subsidiaryl or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach !1st if necessary) [Z] 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, ete below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List aH businesses that have a parent-subsidiary I or affiliated business entity. relationshIp with the applicant (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation partnershlp. firm. business, or other unincorporated organization. 1 ") & ~ See next page for' footnotes Does an offiCIal or employee of the CIty of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes J:L No 0 If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their Interest? SUbd~'..tSK~n Var;$ncC Apphe,)tiofl Page" of tt} Rev'Ised 31 HJ~ z o J I ~ U . ( ~ t::::L-4 ~ E3 ;;....: Z o I . ~ E ~ c:Q j:::) ~ SYLVIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 8 ., 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) ~'.:~.lup S~E~~X~::2..~ Engineers, Ltd. Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, p.e. 1 '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 tile same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that. upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the sub~ct property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to tHeinstn..U:;ff(m~.in. this package. ..~____w._k.,:?......x-,.":'~_._-.:.:yJ:..,:~~~__.. APl>Hca~ Signatutf;) c. h'i ~ !.."'t.p", ~':~.'1 ~ 1,. __". c\. '" '-~ ,-' ~~. Properly ,-,......"..7 .C' ,(if applicant) PrInt Name ~>vbdMsjon Va'h';f){'e AppIfcalion Plglll1ofl1 ReVlsoo 91ti2004 'I z o I ( ~ U I I .....:I ~ ea ~ u ~ ~ ,Z o I I c:.I:) ~ ~ ~ ;::::J c:.I:) SYLVIA ESTES Agenda Item 6 Page 9 Item #6 Sylvia Estes Subdivision Variance 1628 Mill Landing Road District 7 Princess Anne March 11,2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next matter is agenda item 6. It's an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements ofthe Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Sylvia Estes. The property is located at 1628 Mill Landing Road with two conditions. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Vice Chair, Madame Chair. For the record, I'm Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Ms. Estes. The conditions are acceptable. We appreciate being on the consent agenda. This is in furtherance of the ARP Program, consistent with the understanding when she put the property in the ARP. We have talked to the neighbors and there is no objection from the neighbors. Joseph Strange: Thank you Eddie. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? The Chairman has asked Al Henley to review this item. Al Henley: Thank you. The property is located at 1628 Mill Landing Road. It is the intent of the applicant to create three lots on the large property. One of the lots, Lot 2, is noted on the submitted subdivision plat as being not a buildable site and no dwelling will be permitted on the site. The proposed Lot 1 has no frontage on a public right-of-way, and thus, a Subdivision Variance is requested to allow the creation ofthe lot. Ingress/egress to the proposed lots is via the existing tree lined driveway. The property has been accepted into the Agriculture Reserve Program. The ARP permits the reservation of one lot for a future residential dwelling no greater than three acres. The applicant elected to reserve such an area at the northwest part of the site adjacent to Nanney Creek. The applicant is now creating a lot from that reserved area. A private ingress-egress easement and a shared maintenance agreement are proposed to access the lots. Staff recommends approval of this request, and therefore, the Planning Commission has placed this on the consent. Joseph Strange: Thank you AI. Madame Chairman, I make a motion to approve agenda item 6. Janice Anderson: A motion by Joe Strange. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Janice Anderson: I have a second by Don Horsley. 'I Item #6 Sylvia Estes Page 2 AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KA TSIASS AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 6 for consent. - 66- Item V-K.4. PLANNING ITEM # 58660 Attorney Les Watson. One Columbus Center, Suite 1100, Phone: 497-6633, represented the applicant, and requested a DEFERRAL to enable the applicant, neighbors and Vice Mayor Jones to confer. Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council DEFERRED TO APRIL 28, 2009, an Ordinance upon application of MCRJERS, LLC for the closure of portion of Windsor Crescent at 3868 Jefferson Boulevard. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF MCR/ERS, LLC, FOR THE CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF WINDSOR CRESCENT TO THE NORTH OF 3868 JEFFERSON BOULEVARD. Ordinance upon application of MCR/ERS, LLC for the closure of a portion of Windsor Crescent to the north of 3868 Jefferson Boulevard. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Glenn R Davis, William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Barbara M Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., John E. Uhrin, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Ron A. Villanueva March 24, 2009 McRJERS Map F-2 Map Not to SC.':lle Street Closure Relevant Information: · Bayside District · The applicant requests to close a small portion ot an unimproved right-ot-way known as Windsor Crescent to eliminate an existing encroachment ot the home into the public right-ot-way. · The portion being closed has no impact on the public's ability to access the beach. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Planning Staff recommended approval · Planning Commission recommends approval (10-0). · There was opposition. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MCRJERS, LLC, Street Closure. portion of Windsor Crescent to the north of 3868 Jefferson Boulevard. SA YSIDE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The applicant requests to close a small portion of an unimproved right-of-way known as Windsor Crescent adjacent to the property located at 3868 Jefferson Boulevard. A portion of the right-of-way serves as a pedestrian path to the Chesapeake Bay. . Considerations: On March 24, the City Council deferred this application to the April 28 City Council meeting to provide time for the applicant to meet with the community to discuss issues pertaining to the requested closure. That meeting has occurred, and as a result, the proposed area of closure is being modified. . Recommendations: Based on the revisions that are being made to the proposed area of closure, an indefinite deferral of this application is needed. Recommended Action: Indefinite Deferral. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~ k. .~ Map F-2 M~p Not to 5cels MeR 'ers LLC cs~ ~eq.( f"B~ #23 February 11, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT I PROPERTY OWNER: MCRJERS, LLC Street Closure STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A. K. Smith REQUEST: Abandonment and closure of a portion Windsor Crescent ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Undeveloped right-of-way, located adjacent and to the northeast of 3868 Jefferson Boulevard, known as Windsor Crescent. ELECTION DISTRICT: BA YSIDE SITE SIZE: 624.5 square feet of City right-of-way AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL APPLICATION HISTORY: This request was deferred on October 8, November 12, December 10, 2008 and the January 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests to close a small portion of an unimproved right-at-way known as Windsor Crescent. The right-of-way serves as a pedestrian path to the Chesapeake Bay; however, this portion at Windsor Crescent does not encounter foot traffic. The proposed closure will not impact the public's ability to access the beach or ability to enjoy the Bay but it will allow the homeowner to maintain the property without encroaching onto City property. A previous owner built a corner of the residence 0.8 feet into the Windsor Crescent right-of-way and constructed a second floor overhang that encroaches 5.7 feet into the same right-of-way. With respect to the southeastern portion of the property, the previous owner also constructed a retaining wall, to protect existing Live Oak trees, that also encroaches into the right-of-ways of Windsor Crescent and Jefferson Boulevard. The applicant may seek an Encroachment Agreement for the existing wall. MCRJERS, LLC Agenda Item 23 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Sandy, unimproved right-of-way utilized as a pedestrian path to the Chesapeake Bay SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: . Sandy, unimproved right-of-way (Windsor Crescent) I R-5R Residential District · Jefferson Boulevard, single-family dwellings I R-5R Residential District · Sandy, unimproved right-of-way (Windsor Crescent) I R-5R Residential District · Single-family dwelling I R-5R Residential District South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The property is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is "bayfront" property. The sandy, unimproved right-of-way is typical of the dune system found along this portion of the Chesapeake Bay. Dune grasses and other herbaceous vegetation exist and provide stability to the system. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES WATER & SEWER: There are no water or sewer lines in the area proposed for closure" PRIVATE UTILITIES: 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. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles established for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. Evaluation: In 1989, City Council denied a Street Closure request associated with this property. That request included the closure of approximately half of the right-of-way for incorporation into the subject lot. Specifically, the MCRJERS, LLC Agenda Item 23 Page 2 request was to close 3,527 square feet of Windsor Crescent. As this request was denied, the property owner at that time pursued setback variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to expand the building's footprint and construct a second floor. Several setback variances were granted in 1990,1993, and 2003, but for reasons unknown, the two (2) previous property owners ignored the reduced setbacks and the dwelling was expanded into the right-of-way. The application states that the present owner of the property is requesting this closure of 624.5 square feet, far less than requested in 1989, in order to eliminate the illegal encroachment issue and to provide a legal means of access to the structure for future maintenance (painting, etc.) of the dwelling. Typically, Staff does not support requests to close rights-of-way that provide beach or waterway access; however, this request is extremely small in scope and the portions of the right-of-way requested for closure will not, in any way, impact pedestrian beach access. The closure will incorporate portions of the right-of-way where the existing home's deck hangs over approximately six (6) feet into the paper street of Windsor Crescent, where a comer (0.8 feet) was built into the same right-of-way. There is a well marked public pathway within the Windsor Crescent right-of-way that leads to the beach. No portion of this path is requested for closure and will not be impacted by this request. Staff recommends approval subject to 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 parcel. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The property to be incorporated into the adjacent parcel to the west shall be limited to 625 square feet more or less as shown on the submitted survey. 4. 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. 5. 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. MCRJERS. LLC Agenda Item 23 Page 3 . "i ~ AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION MCRJERS, lLC Agenda Item 23 Page 4 ~ ~ ~ .. !l i ~ s --.......~.--_.._._~._....---_. --- n.________~..._____..._ .--0-- --. - _onu.o__on___n._. .-.J .., ~ i; i in ~ II . . . Ib\ \!J , . I i . 7' "" ... ; ;~ . .- I .. ... ... .. .. \ " 'i, \ II . I -. s- f / a. IS SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED MCRJERS, LLC Agenda Item 23 Page 5 Map F-2 Map Not to Scale Ch~ ~eqk. e 8ay Street Closure 07/10/89 01/22/91 Street Closure Subdivision Variance Denied Granted ZONING HISTORY MCRJERS, LLC Agenda Item 23 Page 6 z o ....... ~ U Ie ....:1 ~ ~ ga ~ t:J":} o ....:1 U ~ ga ~ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPUCANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant Is a corporation. partnership, firm. business.. or other unlncorpora~ organization, complete !he following: 1. Us! the applicant name followed by 1118 names of all officers, members. trustees, partners, ete- below: (Attach list ff necessary) McRJ~RS, LLC, a Virqinia limited liability company. Roger E. Magowitz, Managing Member. Jeanne M. Ma9owit.:, M~,"ber 2. US{ aU busine$88& that have a parent-subsidlary'or affiliated busine$S entiV refationship with the applicant (Attach lfstit necessmy) See attached list [J Check here If the applicant Is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or olhet unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete thissection.only if property owner is diffel'9llt from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnershiP. firm, business. or other unincorporated organiZalion, complete the following: 1. Ust the prQperty owner name followed by the names of ill! officers, members, trustees. p8rtn9JS, ete. baIow: (Attach Hstif n6C6S88tY) 2. LiStaIJ bU&inessas that have a parenHub91diary1 or afflllatrld business entrtf ~atiOl'1stlip with the applicant (Attach list if necessary) o Check herelf the property owner Is NOT a corporation, partnership, finn, business, Of Other unlncorporated organization. l & z See Il&Xl page for footnoteS Does an official or employee of thJ City of Virginia Beach have an intl:}rest in the subject land? Yes ~ No L {f yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? Stt&(lt CblUl'D J\pjlIiCalloll Pao.l0 of 11 R"~ Tf3IQ1 MCRJERS, LLC Agenda Item 23 Page 7 (DIS;;~OSURE ST ~~~~T_~,__,~~j ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known oontractors N bUSinesses that have or wlll provide services with respect to the equested property Lse. including but not limited to the providers of architectural servic. ~s. real estate seNica!, financial services, accounting services. and legal -. sarvie, ,s: (Attach list if necessary) Wolc>tt RiVera Gatc~ (;<Jll,p Surveyor.. I .Parent-subsidiary l'(>/atlOflsl'1lp. means "s relationship that exists when one cotpor~ bon directly or induecHy owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the vOllng power ,f another corporation' See Slate and Local Governmenl Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101 . "Affil\ated blJslfIE!sS ~ntity relationship" means Os relationship, other than parer'll- $ubsidi lry relationship, that E!,<isls when (J) one business entity has a controlling ownership interes in /he other business 'M'ltity , (ii) a contwmng OW ner 10 one entity is also a controlling owner 1 the other entity. or (i i) there is shared management or control between the b\.lsl ness entities F"actors thai should t>e considered In determining the eloste1'lce of an affiliated busine,... entity relationship in::lude that the same pEIrson or substantially fhe saITl~ 1791'S;;;),", ,J\>vttor i2lt'HJgC trv.; tVJO t:n!~th:j5, th-ere are cornruon Of conHrWl~iied tunds ~)r 3SStil'S ~hg b\,~$d''h~' >ll; r::ntftHS~, r::hiH0 ~hc 0f ~hf:~ :~anlC ntf.::es !)r fJrnptOye{~.s or n~hHnrv >,~~'~ ~:'-J ;..>:ti\rh~~~~' ~ ~~ "'" " :',.'pef$~'" -;e; <>n :~ f :~../2" ~:':~5;S ~l'" thr;~tf.J ~ ...,J,~ ,'! cl:t;..;:.: ;.'v::J~ ~n ~r+'1~:.::n'CJ1ip : .[~<'>";(*~~ 1;:. '; ':::,'t':~ ... :~:C~~ ',.,..,J'l% ~ u r ...;<'~';,,~..~t ,.f', t./.... . . ~-;.;.....,.;.."" ,., u__", '....,....".~' ". ......'~....,.___..""..,.,'....,^ . ~',',,_ __,.w.w. , ".;;",ew..,.--....,.-,"',"\<-"""","',','"'''>>'__-...,,__lio<l'__ ,f...'" ^"''"'', ,.........".. , __..w____.... .,._ _~. ,~.'*':_"""-""'~,- ~1J -~ !\~- ,--~ '\ 1 -- jl}4;lv f~ ':ft:1Jf .. l~' I \" I n'r''',~7\=~.,F'. f~,__ "I ""\;i{""",,n. "..... 1 . ,~, ,~'_...,.-__~~, .. .'''"'^'-...."...~".."''w".."."~,,.,,, " .",;", r- ~ ~ ' ~. i ~ '" '~, ~~~~" "i~' ----------_._---,-~^- "^"'''-''-'-''--'~'~-' nr "~ l"'_~_~'-""'OV' Stf~~ ~ :h:t.t.-" ~ Appht.4fcfl z o I t t I~ ~ I ( ~ .~ ~ ~ t: . -- r."""" ~,..".". IVI lot rt.J/:: rt" ILL lot Agenda Item 23 Page 8 DISCLOSURE 51 A TEMENT ~ed List 2. List of all businesses: (a) Maggie's Enterprises. Inc., a Virginia eorporntion. 'fa Mat.tress Disoounters (b) McH..JJ<:lRS II, LLC. a Virginia. limited liability compa.ny (c) Magnate Management Corporation. a Virginia corporation 'l'llree (3) businesses have a common ownership With Applicant. MCRJERS, LLC Agenda Item 23 Page 9 Item #23 McRjers, L.L.C. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Windsor Crescent to the north of Jefferson Boulevard District 4 Bayside February II, 2009 REGULAR Donald Horsley: The next item is item 23, McRjers, L.L.C. An application for McRjers, L.L.C., for a discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Windsor Crescent to the north of Jefferson Boulevard, District 4, Bayside. Yes sir. Les Watson: Madame Chairman and members of the Commission, my name is Les Watson, and I represent the applicant, who are Mr. and Mrs. Robert Magowitz. Mr. and Mrs. Magowitz are seeking to close a small piece of Windsor Crescent that runs behind their house, to the north of their house, largely between them and the Chesapeake Bay. The original application requested that we also close a piece of the right-of-way at the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Windsor Crescent. The plan has been revised to eliminate that request, so we are not jut requesting to close a piece of Windsor Crescent. The original application involved 894 square feet, and the application as it stands before you today involves 624~ feet, I believe. We've eliminated part of that. And, what Mr. and Mrs. Magowitz are trying to do here is trying to solve a problem that they didn't create. A predecessor in title, actually I think it was 2 or 3 owners ago, did an addition on this property, and hopefully by accident, they built a comer of the house into the right-of-way of Windsor Crescent. They had gotten a variance at the time to build to a zero lot line on that course. It is a very small lot and very irregular shaped. So, they had gotten a variance to go to a zero lot line. And, at grade, a corner of the house went to about 8 or 9 inches into the right-of- way. And, on a second story overhang, a porch actually extends into the right-of-way by about 5 to 5~ feet. You will never know what to look at it because it doesn't look like there is or ought to be a road there because of the unusual configuration of Windsor Crescent that loops around the house. But, what they're trying to do is just three things. They are trying to close some of the right-of-way and acquire it. Whatever the City decides they want to charge for it. But the City does own the fee to Windsor Crescent. They are trying to secure ownership of the property that is under their house. And, they are also trying to acquire slightly more than that which lies directly under the footprint of their house so they can access the house for purposes of maintenance. And, they are trying to solve a concern which I think is growing greater all the time. It is not getting any easier to borrow money day by day. At some point in the future, the Magowitz's may want to sell this house. And, my experience closing loans around here for 500 years, is that lenders don't like encroachment agreements, It has been suggested in the course of our application that we may want to consider doing this by request to the City to encroach onto a public right-of-way and getting an encroachment agreement. We thought about it long and hard, but by their very nature, encroachment agreements are temporary in nature. The name of the agreement, I believe Ms. Wilson, is a temporary encroachment agreement, which means that anytime anybody wants Item #23 McRjers, L.L.C. Page 2 us to move whatever we've gotten pennission to encroach, we've got to do it. And, that would be a pretty serious problem for the Magowitz family. We know that the public way to the beach traverses a portion. You can see how close it is to the house right there (pointing to PowerPoint). You will never know it was there, because here just on the right side of the .......picture-there is.a.drop..off,.which. I'ILexplain-in asecond.- Aportion.ofWindsor..CrescenL._'-h._ .__ does provide access to the beach. That access is very clearly marked by fences. In addition to the part that we're requesting to close and acquire, being separated from the pathway to the beach horizontally is also separate vertically. We're several feet about that path~ There is a vegetated bank there that prevents and would give further assurance to anybody seeking to eliminate access to the beach through. the right. We're no threat to that right-of-way at all. We're not close to it. We have no intent to build anything in the property we're seeking to acquire. We're just seeking to solve a problem, as I say, we didn't create. I know there has been concern expressed about this being a precedent for future requests for closure and acquisition down the road. Somehow that morphed into a threat to the public's access to the beach. And, we are confident, after going through this with the staff, that these applications, should anymore ever be made, are going to be scrutinized very carefully, and by your staff, by this Commission and by the City Council. It is real simple. If an application is or is perceived to be ever a threat to the public's right to access the beach and other public ways, it ought to be denied. One application on this property some years ago was denied. It was over broad. They saw to close half of Windsor Crescent so they could build a bigger house. Well, that didn't make sense. But this one does make sense, because all it does is gives us ownership of the property on our house and it does lead up to operate. So, it has no binding precedental value on any future application. We know they will be scrutinized very, very carefully. As I say, there is no intent and we will not obstruct or compromise or threaten the public's right to access the beach. You can see from the plat what we want to do, and you can see there is a vegetated incline there, between our house, and the way it is protected by sand fences, and we're no threat. It's an application to solve a problem, and we hope you'll give it every consideration. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Mr. Watson. Thank you. Donald Horsley: We have one speaker in opposition. Grace Moran. Janice Anderson: Welcome. Grace Moran: Good afternoon Madame Chairman and members of the Panning Commission. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Grace Moran. I reside at 2225 Roanoke Avenue. I am in Ocean Park. I am an officer of the Ocean Park Civic League, and I would like pass out to you this afternoon. You have a letter from me as an individual. You have a memo from the Ocean Park Civic League stating our concerns. You also have a letter from another resident, fonner Delegate Leo Waldrup. We have all expressed, we think cogent arguments against this granting. Ocean Park is belittled with encroachments of this nature. It does set a precedent even though Mr. Watson says that it would not be a precedent. Every time this has come before the City, either City Council or the Planning Commission, it represents hundreds of hours of citizen man hours. Ocean Park Civic League has four file Item #23 McRjers, L.L.C. Page 3 folders dating back 27 years on this issue, and if you start with this one, you're opening the can of worms. Because everybody else that has an encroachment issue will be before you. I encourage you to avoid that and deny this request. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Moran? Donald Horsley: There are no other speakers. Janice Anderson: Do you have any rebuttal Mr. Watson? Les Watson: I will simply reiterate that we don't believe what the scrutiny that these applications get that this has any significant precedental value. There may be encroachments allover Ocean Park and Chesapeake Beach, and we did not cause this. We're simply attempting to create a legal situation where an illegal one exists. We didn't violate the law in the first place. We're just trying to become compliant with the law. And, again, I can't address what other people might do. I will tell you this based on the assessments of the land up in this area. The acquisition is not inexpensive. So, we're attempting not much more than this. But, we're just trying to make a non-compliant situation compliant. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Mr. Watson, if! could. I know this has been before you and you've scaled it down so you're not asking for any street closure on the front of the property. Les W atson: Yes ma 'am. Janice Anderson: That is going to be an encroachment agreement? Les Watson: We decided that we would take our chances on the encroaclunent. The part of the front is a retaining wall that keeps a couple of Live Oaks in place, and we didn't think for anything to happen to them. We hate for anything to happen to them, but we're sort of willing to take our chances with an encroaclunent agreement on that, because we don't think anybody would object to them being there. Janice Anderson: Okay. Les Watson: Interestingly, I'm sure Ms. Moran's opinion wouldn't change but the letter from the civic league was written in November when both of the requests were on the table, and we have since reduced the nature of the request. Janice Anderson: The only concern that I have is I don't have any concern because I talked to you about it, and I do see that the owner of the property has a problem with a portion of his house being in there. I don't have a problem at aU with that portion being closed so maybe the overhang. But I do have a problem with is the additional property around being closed, and I believe it is an additional little deck or something like that, every lot in this area and Ocean Park. They are small lots, beach front lots and they overbuild these lots, and to get everybody to go in. I think there might be a precedence to go into the right-of-ways. This Item #23 McRjers, L.L.C. Page 4 property has already been given a variance to a zero lot line, and then to go further in, and I think it is just to build a bigger dwelling. Les Watson: See this point right here (pointing to PowerPoint)? Janice Anderson: Yes sir. Les Watson: That is only 7 feet and it looks bigger than what it is because ofthe small size of the lot to begin with. And, the only thing that Mrs. Magowitz ever mentioned to me is that if the sand blew away from this back deck, which follows the lines. It's a curbed wall on the deck. If the sand ever moved away from there, he might want to put a step in so he could get down to the ground. It is all sand back there. Sometimes it is higher and sometimes it is lower. I talked to Ms. Wilson. We are happy for the encroachment ordinance to include a provision that nothing can be built in the area that has been closed other than that which is there now. Janice Anderson: You wouldn't have any problem with that? Les Watson: I have no problem with that at all. No ma'am. Unless we need a step to get off the deck, that is the only thing, certainly nothing about grade. No more structures. No more enclosed structures. And, we have no intention. Kay and I thought it might be a little tricky to write, but we were happy to make it a condition of the closure. We did talk about that one time a long time ago. Kay Wilson: Okay. Les W atson: You get smarter and I don't. Maybe you can figure out a way to write it but if you wanted to make it a condition. Janice Anderson: I don't have any problem with that. You can make a big deck. I just don't want to get into where were closing streets so everybody can expand. Les Watson: We wili stipulate that we can't build anything out thery. We will make that a condition if you would like? Janice Anderson: Any other questions? Go ahead Dave. David Redmond: My view, and I sort of said it this morning, and I'll say it again. Having been to this property now, this is one of these properties I go to if I got nothing else to do, and I happen to be on Shore Drive. I am strange in that way. I'll spin by and I've been up that path now a couple of different times. I don't think it is fair to burden this owner with that encroachment that he didn't build. I accept the argument that if you have the agreement that applies to a portion of the structure and not merely to get a little block wall around a screen of trees, it is probably going to be more problematic whether he is financing at some point or trying to sell the house or anything else he wants to do. This is precisely my view, Item #23 McRjers, L.L.C. Page 5 which I've held all along with regard to this one. Staff wrote it and wrote it well. The proposed closure will not impact the public's ability to access the beach or the ability to enjoy the Bay but it will allow the homeowner to maintain the property without encroaching onto City property. If there was some way in which the public was being disfranchised, inconvenienced, bothered in any way by this, I would 1;e the first guy in line saying wait a minute. But, I don't know how that is. I can't find it. I've been up and down that path three times. So, in my view, this is a very, very small matter. I do not agree with the idea that this is precedent setting in any way. The reason I say that is that these things as you can tell are, they get people's hair up in end. They get my hair up in end. And every single time we face any issue like this we are going to look at it extraordinarily closely. And we're going to apply a very critical eye towards what happens. If it smells bad, and it looks wrong, then we can ship it away. It is not a precedent as long as we have the good sense and good judgment to recognize how carefully we have to protect the situation. In this case, however, I don't see that. I don't smell it. I don't see it. It doesn't look wrong to me. So, in my view, I'm going to support the application. Unless there is some indication that there is something sort of mysterious or amiss here, what you said about the structure will stipulate that there will be no structure built whatsoever ever. What else can one say that would be more convincing than that? So, in my view, this is something that we ought to approve. I'll make a motion at the appropriate time to approve it. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Les Watson: For clarity, we clearly have no objection to an added condition that nothing be built in the area that used to be a portion of the right-of-way, while we can leave what's already been built. Janice Anderson: Right. Are there any other questions for Mr. Watson? Thank you. I'll leave it to further discussion. Do I have a motion? David Redmond: I have a motion. I move that we approve the application with an additional condition that no additional structure shall be built in a portion.ofthe right-of-way thB.t is being granted that's part of the application. Janice Anderson: A motion by Dave Redmond with that extra condition. I have a second by Phil Russo. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSO ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS LIVAS AYE ABSENT 1 ABSENT Item #23 McRjers, L.L.C. Page 6 REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved the application of McRjers, L.LC., with an additional condition indicating that no other structure shall be built. Janice Anderson: Thank you very much Mr. Watson. We're just going to take a short recess. Thanks! 1 APPLICATION OF MCRJERS, LLC, FOR THE 2 CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF WINDSOR 3 CRESCENT ADJACENT TO 3868 JEFFERSON 4 BOULEVARD 5 6 WHEREAS, McRjers, LLC (the "Applicant") applied to the Council of the 7 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, 8 closed, and vacated; and 9 10 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be 11 discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 12 before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 13 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of 15 Virginia Beach, Virginia: 16 17 SECTION I 18 19 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, 20 subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's 21 adoption of this ordinance: 22 23 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being 24 in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and 25 described as "AREA OF RIW TO BE CLOSED (624~5 26 S.F./0.014 AC.)" shown as the shaded area on that certain 27 plat entitled: . "STREET CLOSURE PLAT PART OF 28 WINDSOR CRESCENT RfW LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCK 29 48 & BLOCK 57 OCEAN PARK SECTION C M.B. 5 P. 195 30 M.B. 16 P. 45 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 1 "=1 0', 31 dated DECEMBER 30, 2008, prepared by Gallup Surveyors 32 & Engineers, LTD., a copy of which is attached hereto as 33 Exhibit A. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 GPIN: 1580-20-0157-0000 1 45 SECTION II 46 47 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year trom City 48 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 49 50 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 51 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 52 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 53 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies ot said policy are 54 available in the Planning Department. 55 56 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot 57 lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcel. The resubdivision plat 58 must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 59 60 3. The property to be incorporated into the adjacent parcel to the west 61 shall be limited to 625 square feet more or less as shown on the submitted survey. 62 63 4. There shall be no additions constructed to the existing deck or 64 building within the area proposed for closure and there shall be no new structures built 65 within the area proposed for closure. 66 67 5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- 68 way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments trom the utility companies indicate 69 that there are no private utilities within the right-ot-way proposed tor closure. It private 70 utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility 71 companies. 72 73 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with 74 the above stated conditions within one (1) year of approval by City Council. If all 75 conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 76 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered 77 null and void. 78 79 SECTION III 80 81 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before March 23, 82 2010, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City 83 Council. 84 85 2. If all conditions are met on or before March 23, 2010, the date of final 86 closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 87 2 88 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the 89 underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever 90 documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said 91 documents are approved by the City Attorney's Office. 92 93 SECTION IV 94 95 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 96 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY 97 OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and MCRJERS, LLC, as "Grantee." 98 99 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 100 day of ,2009. 101 102 THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE. 103 FOURTHS OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED TO COUNCIL. CA10751 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\DO 18\P004\00003804. DOC R-1 March 11, 2009 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LE AL SUFFICIENCY: Ui{UL q. lfAtLJ L()vt/- City Attorney 3 ! ~ ~ ~~ 'b~ ~n ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ -,p t) '? ~'O; ~~ c> . -r,L ~ ~ \P ~ ~ ~ 'b ... 'i- / "t''B''l'l' E){.H.,l.. "A" ~ ~ \ ~ ~ i ~ '< 0: 0 '" ._ !J -' ....\O~ ~.. . Go \ J. u.< ~ W Q) IL "- '" 0:.. ,,~._ iile "''' 3\l1~~ i ~ 1 ~ \ ~ ~ .> ~ ~ q ill V> ~ ;.:\ "'" ~ \ , "L ~ -cp 'If '" ~ g ill ,~~,,<I..() ~ i ~ ~ ... . s~ . t ~~ <,. ~ .." '0- .--1~ . /. \t '!.< '"' "' ~s ii\ \ .. '-o:~~ o:""~ ~ REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH Relevant Information: · Princess Anne District · The applicant requests a Use Permit for a church on a 3.61-acre site. · The church will be located on the rear 2.55 acres of the site, buffered from the adjacent properties by an existing wide wooded area. · Building will be one-story with white siding, a brick skirt at the water table level, and brick accents around the windows and entryway. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Planning Staff recommended approval · Planning Commission recommends approval (11-0) · There was no opposition. ~.........~ /f~!",,,,:,~;q~~ f''''':' .' ,..,."l ~.:: ,. t~, >.,i " ,,>, t; ? '""'::'~ .#---") . . ',' ~ \.:::~~,~:.~j CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Conditional Use Permit, church, portions of 2230, 2234 and 2240 Salem Road and a parcel abutting the rear property line. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of developing the site for a church. The property is zoned R-15 Residential District, and is 5.2 acres in size, consisting of three (3) single-family lots and a 2.55-acre landlocked parcel behind the single-family lots. The Comprehensive Plan Map and land use policies place this site within the Primary Residential Area (PRA), which emphasizes the importance of neighborhood character and its relationship to compatible land use and traffic management The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. . Considerations: The landlocked 2.55-acre parcel is where the 5,785 square foot church building and its associated 46-space parking lot are proposed. Ingress and egress to the church is proposed via a private access driveway, 24 feet wide, which will run from the church to Salem Road between two of the single-family dwellings that front on Salem Road. Much of the new construction is surrounded by a wide, wooded buffer. This buffer is 102 feet wide at its greatest depth and 40 feet wide at its narrowest point. The submitted building elevations depict a one-story building with white siding, a brick skirt at the water table level, and brick accents around the windows and entryway. Other architectural elements include a cupola and a portico. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. When the site is developed for the church, the site layout, buffering and landscaping shall be substantially as depicted on the site plan entitled, "Reformed Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit," prepared by Land Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 2 of 2 Planning Solutions, dated 12/23/08 and revised 01/19/09, which has been viewed by the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. When the building is constructed for the church, it shall be substantially as depicted on the building elevations entitled, "Reformed Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit," prepared by Land Planning Solutions, dated 12/03/08, which have been viewed by the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official's Office prior to operation as a church facility. 4. A legal ingress-egress easement shall be established for the landlocked lot on the northern portion of the site identified on the plan as GPIN 14840625810000. A plat depicting this ingress/egress shall be put to record prior to the approval of the final site plan for construction of the church. 5. Additional landscaping, beyond what is depicted on the plan identified in Condition 1 above, shall be installed between the driveway, including the curve into the parking lot, and the lot identified as GPIN 1484062244000. Said landscaping shall consist of Category IV screening and shall be depicted on the final site plan and/or landscape plan. 6. The access point shown on Salem Road shall be chained and locked when the church is not in use. Said chain shall be installed at a point between Salem Road and the church parking lot where a turn-around can be provided for vehicles to safely egress from the site upon reaching the point of terminus created by the chain. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department {/\ ~ City Manager. oft- . 08<W'l- V REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit (religious facility - church) #3 March 11, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A. K. Smith ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Portion of properties located at 2230,2234 & 2240 Salem Road GPIN: 2.55 acres of 1484062581 0.21 acres of 1474963332 0.28 acres of 1484060288 0.57 acres of 1484061112 ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: PRINCESS ANNE 3.61 acres AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a church. The property is zoned R-15 Residential District, and is 5.2 acres in size, consisting of three (3) single-family lots and a 2.55-acre landlocked parcel behind the single-family lots. The landlocked parcel is where the actual 5,785 square foot church building and its associated 46-space parking lot are proposed. Ingress and egress to the church is proposed via a private access driveway, 24 feet wide, which will run from the church to Salem Road between two of the dwellings that front on Salem Road. Much of the new construction is surrounded by a wide, wooded buffer. This buffer is 102 feet wide at its greatest depth and 40 feet wide at its narrowest point. The church's properties and all properties surrounding the site are zoned R-15 Residential District. The submitted building elevations depict a one-story building with white siding, a brick skirt at the water table level, and brick accents around the windows and entryway. Other architectural elements include a cupola and a portico. REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Jt~.~ 3 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Three (3) single-family dwellings and one (1) vacant, predominately wooded site SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: . Single-family dwellings / R-15 Residential District . Single-family dwellings / R-15 Residential District . Single-family dwellings / R-15 Residential District . Salem Road . Single-family dwellings / R-15 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: This site is within the Southern Watersheds Management Area and the largest of the four (4) parcels is heavily wooded. The applicant proposes to maintain as much of the wooded area as possible to provide a good buffer between properties. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Salem Road in this location is a two-lane undivided minor suburban arterial. The MTP proposes a divided roadway with a bikeway and scenic buffer within a 150-foot wide right-of-way. A CIP project is programmed for Salem Road in the vicinity of this site. Salem Road - Transition Area Network (CIP 2-507) is for the construction of a four- lane divided roadway from Elbow Road to North Landing Road. The improvements also include landscaping, aesthetic enhancements, multi-use paths, and bike lanes. This project is currently on the 'Requested But Not Funded' project list. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Salem Road 3,405 ADT 1 13,600 ADT -, (Level of Existing Land Use L. - 82 Service "C") - 16,200 ADT ADT 1 (Level of Service Proposed Land Use 3 - 306 "En) ADT - Sunday Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 3.61 acres of residential at R-15 density 3 as defined bv a 2DD-seat church sanctuary WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an existing 12-inch City water line within Salem Road. SEWER: City sanitary sewer service is available. Analysis of Pump Station #575 and the sanitary sewer collection system may be required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an existing eight- inch City gravity sanitary sewer main within Salem Road. REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item 3 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map and land use policies place this site within the Primary Residential Area (PRA), which emphasizes the importance of neighborhood character and its relationship to compatible land use and traffic management. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. Evaluation: Staff finds that the proposed self-standing church on 3.61-acres of a larger five (5) acre site is compatible with the surrounding uses. There is a vacant, landlocked 2.55-acre site that is located on the northern portion of the larger site, behind the three (3) single-family dwellings. Access to the church will be via a driveway that runs between the church and Salem Road. A condition of the Use Permit is recommended below that ensures the church, as it is located on a landlocked parcel, will have a legal access across the single-family lots. The proposed 5,785 square foot church building and 46-space parking area is surrounded by a wide, wooded buffer. This buffer is generally 40 feet wide and is labeled to remain intact. Staff also recommends a condition for additional landscaping to be installed between the driveway and the existing dwelling to the east in order to screen the church and any activity associated with its use. CONDITIONS 1. When the site is developed for the church, the site layout, buffering and landscaping shall be substantially as depicted on the site plan entitled, "Reformed Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit," prepared by Land Planning Solutions, dated 12/23/08 and revised 01/19/09, which has been viewed by the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. When the building is constructed for the church, it shall be substantially as depicted on the building elevations entitled, "Reformed Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit," prepared by Land Planning Solutions, dated 12/03/08, which have been viewed by the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official's Office prior to operation as a church facility. 4. A legal ingress-egress easement shall be established for the landlocked lot on the northern portion of the site identified on the plan as GPIN 14840625810000. A plat depicting this ingress/egress shall be put to record prior to the approval of the final site plan for construction of the church. 5. Additional landscaping, beyond what is depicted on the plan identified in Condition 1 above, shall be installed between the driveway, including the curve into the parking lot, and the lot identified as GPIN 1484062244000. Said landscaping shall consist of Category IV screening and shall be depicted on the final site plan and/or landscape plan. REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda ItE)m 3 Page 3 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. REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item 3 Page 4 " I I I AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item 3 Page 5 i ~ ....-:!: a;JDJ" ,..-., I I ) G,\N: '\4749693320000 ~.z.one: R'\5 ft.#8age: 0.8'\3 ------..f-=.l-....-..--!!l{~...--...-...-.....-..-.----.--- r1 ~P\N: '\48406()2880000 \._~ne: R'\5 /t-creage: 0.710 ......._.__._.........____..._._.__...'M.IJ1L-...... GP\N: '\48406258'\0000 zone: R'\5 ~ge: 2.526 ~N: '\48406,\')..f21l9t\O : ZOfte: R'\5 ....__J l, A.creage: '\.092 ,-_..J _tIS iiP" ?g BXlS'TING LO'TS: 1":::::150' EX\S,.\NG LO"S REfORMED BAP1IST CHURCH Of \lIRGIN'A BE.AC~ Agenda \tern ~ pagel II . ~'----_.. w_~___._.~.._^ -.~--~"'._---'-_4_.___.____...._..._ , C.U.P REQUIRED FOR 0.57 A.C. OF GPIN: 14840611120000 C.U.P REQUIRED FOR 0.28 A.C. OF GPIN: 14840602880000 C.U.P. LEGEND: 1"=150' ~ BOUNDARY OF CUP REQUEST REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda It~m 3 Page 7 -'-~-~'- <"., " ----".,.__.,~ - no ==~~~~... ~:;~~~f~~D}: ~ .Uld OI!S '"~.,...5 ::' U ;;, i ..~^~,.. ~'^ i\ F I I ! 2 ~ ~ if _ ~I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 11" . ., · i ~i .~~~~ Uf ~i i~~~~ i II<J ~ h 5 u 1 D.. ~I I', I ------ _e) ,/-~ -------- ~H '\ .' I I" 8 ).1: 40' "",In ~ ,,;;~ ~/...... " '. ", \ \ I '" % ti ; ti ..> \:: ~ I ~ < i! !1 ) < I! II r J j t .~".. -/ ItIIITAAIct-'O~T~CTQv) ~ ....~::::---_- "\ ~ _1..... \ "I ,,; \ \ ~ \ ) ="~~~. !, <' 'I _ I! I! \ ; PROPOSED SITE PLAN REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item 3 Page 8 I I ~, ....0 II It I!; IIII I c:1 0- ~ ~ Q) -- ;.;;;: ~ --i7i t i It I IUi PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item 3 Page 9 CUP for Church 1 2 3 09/24/02 12/10102 11/25/08 Granted Granted Granted 08/27108 Denied ZONING HISTORY REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Ite,-n 3 Page 10 rOI5CLOSURE's=r A TEMENT :l.--~"m....~_~ m.. _ ~ ,~>, APPLICANT DiSCLOSURE jf fhe 'sa corpcranon business or olher the , list the .,,8(;t hlltn€! fOil lowed t f the names &: (,meers members IsuS!0CS e:c bejow if nCi.:'()$.$/It'j.i: Joseph Gilliam, Ken Ochsenreither, Stewart Clarke, and Calvin Crafford LIst ;:nbUSIMSS€lS that halle Cl re1ttlQnsh~~ .I'di' cr aff' Mea b"",;ness :it (necl3ssarr! Cne :.k Nn, f ttw? ;Yhe~ I;; NOr a corporatlc" OU51"€<S$ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE '" '" !;Pct:CL" wllA( ,$ different !ron; d{..'iJdCanl C nrm bw$4iit1S.S ')ther If tr:e a off1cer$ mt':""O€r5 ? .fd10' is a citud ::,)rganizaton i,.,st tl~'e 01hne' name I'ustees ere !>eOW' i Attach Joseph Gilliam, Ken Ochsenreither, Stewart Clarke, and Calvin Crafford .... ~~'St 8; Oqndld'S$ta$m~at have a re;at1'),"lsr;;p Wi->; me DCneo, hen? If trie tltJStn.cs~" .)f Dtrer frm Qwnij!Y IS Nor J org:anuil :.,01'1, { .........,'- ,,-~. & ~, See- ne'n kX:1tT'R1titlt Doeh dn ,J u'~;~<:)Je€: ::f It)e tYsd:% i":;:,'e;)' ,('tere'>! 1J\:; Hilder) Y 0S No ,i' if ye5 \\if clZ:l ~ "-amr", Of offic:a or empioy~p anO t')i:; Ga:;..~e :;< t"'le;r ;n'BtBsfl :,)::::,..'>. II z o I I 5 ~i ~ ~ :E--4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;::J ~ o lu . :E--4 I . Q ~ U REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item 3 Page 11 z o I I ~ U . If s: ~ H S] ~ ~ 'c:.I':) t::J ~ o I I E-t . I ~ Z o u DISCLOSURE STATE AO~T10NAL DISCLOSURES list ill I(flO\VJ1 contractors Dr bv; n('SSf::S try::!! rave or Wi! &t1r!;,!~ wrttJ to the! use but ');)t dff'nted to the of an::hilect;Jtal "(Vrces reat estate Sf$'f\r C€'s se,vlces Sth'\tlCe$ and lega services ,j ~lnd Su4AVH \1. ";"<SX8'l"IH.wb&KfWfl '~tlonsrnp ml'li'ltyg"j1 re!clh)(t,,'ttp that e1fS~ rll'rel'lone C%'iroorntlOI"l ')I' Own~, 9,2l'?S pttSMSSH'i;;; mt:lr$ thar 51) ::ill're liotmg S,">t State am; ,DCl, :,cv>S\rnf1w;;nt tlt!l'tl!/iM'ests ~'1,. 'Iia ~ ,} ~ 'Affii,atefJ b\..Slnes,s ''''.i'lt'll,;;51'1 p meDrs ;;l tt'!ial1cnship :?t1et tharl i~~ that 0WfS''; wher p;u a interest ,t tne ,~r!:A..S1l'H..."SS a OI"lH iN1tfty f$ also .i:l owoo r tM or j',i,\;;rf'H1 tA';1'#Ml1the 1:>j'S#~3 r.mme; Fadorsttta1 $oovld be cvn$ldt:r~j (jetflfmlfMlg the eJGliifet'ice O1r an .fflhtee busines.sentlty il1ch.xk: :nut 'he saiOO ~ or the ~ j)Cf'SC'f' own Of manage the two. entil:leS: tr,ere urecomn1Qf1 (";t' oommlflg~ l\.ifl(lS or .~... the bl;$!It'h!?SS crttlas snille It.*, use of hSllme J!'f,;C$ .:)( ~rwl'Se shMe actl\Ntles l'?$!I)\.ifCeS or pe~lon J c,eqhlar QaSI$ or mere 1$ olherwl$e a CH,um ~11 me antlties S4'tl Stale and tf)i.>~1 Govemment Conflict 01 Iflt~s :2 .2 3m, CERT)F1CA TrON. uertf! thai vIe !'W>('l'llilNitl cOfllawwKl ne'1!;lIT: .$ true .aN::: acClllHlh:: r ~ant3rm :h3'(iJ!::lI:Xl "","4:lf'ir;3non (O'~tcarj !~ilf "'f~)H::13hor' 11M t:r{Jenf,,::!8.j,,~!'of p,Jtl@l., N'I.Vltl~ 1 ,Mn IOf Q~::l ilt1d pC$hn1;l tf~ reQ'\ArtAtl $iiJ!" 'VI lhit ~j IV(~).N"'\ a' I~st :Xi p(lI:X Ie lNJ scnedutm1 oljl"<llc~njW1g to t"4J jnstr~KJn.:> ,n tN$ The af$O 0[jt1st.~1 to 1M1try l.lPon \nt! $JlbJect 0y Of!h<, ptWNz;gnilph Mod ifew !hll $itcmr p'J~ ''C'l:t:H''\g .atfd twll"'BU"g !nlS ~C.01'! AI'[)ilcanr Joseph Gilliam 'I ,:':.'}rxtrtr.<iJN Af: REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item 3 Page 12 II Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Conditional Use Permit 2230, 2234 and 2240 Salem Road District 7 Princess Anne March 11, 2009 REGULAR Janice Anderson: Next? Donald Horsley: The next matter is item 3, Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach. It's an application of Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach for a Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility on portions of2230, 2234 and 2240 Salem Road and a parcel abutting the rear of the property line, District 7, Princess Anne. Janice Anderson: Is there an applicant? We1come sir. Please state your name for the record. Eric Galvin: Eric Galvin with Land Planning Solutions. I'm a land planner there and we are working with Pastor Joe Gillam. He is the owner of the properties located here that we are trying to get the Conditional Use Permit, which is required for a religious use in the R-15 zoning. The proposed church is proposed for an existing forested lot on the back half of this. The proposed church is located here within an existing forest. This is all forested currently. As of the code, there are no requirements for any buffering but we are proposing a 45 foot buffer on all sides of the property, and leave that forested area undisturbed. We've also had multiple meetings with the adjacent owners, specifically the Newcastle Civic League, and Tina Milligan is here from them. She can speak, and if she has anything to bring up about this, we have done everything that we can to accommodate their concerns. Many residents were concerned with the exiting drainage problems on the sites. It is relatively a flat area and there is some standing water. Any development would comply with code and we would handle all our drainage on site. Lighting was also a concern, and we again, it would be installed as required by code, with everything directed inward towards the site. The plan is also to allow a design for a small amount of growth. We keep everything within the 40 foot buffer at all times. If anything were to expand it would only do so within the inner portion of the site right here (pointing to PowerPoint). Pastor Gillam doesn't have any plans on making this any kind of a large "mega-church." It is primarily planned as a small Sunday church. And they had a second meeting last night with the Newcastle Civic League. They have a final agreement. To get all the neighbors happy with the idea, put at this location or possibly in front of the location, a gated entry so people could not access the site when the church was not in operation. Other than that, we think that the church is going to fit nicely into the proposed, or into the existing, area. It will be an added benefit. It requires the Conditional Use for R-15 zoning. We think it would fit in nicely. Janice Anderson: Great. Thank you Mr. Galvin. Are there any questions for Mr. Galvin at this time? Thank you sir. Okay. Go ahead Ron. Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 2 Ronald Ripley: I have a question. Maybe it should be directed to Ric Lowman. In your site plan, do you have any kind of deceleration or turn-off lane off of Salem into this drive lane or does it directly intersect? Eric Galvin: There is none. It would be a private 24 foot access road, basically like a driveway that would access the property. Ronald Ripley: Did staffhave any concerns with that? No concerns? Ric Lowman: If you would want me to come up and talk about it? Ronald Ripley: If you would. Ric Lowman: Okay. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Galvin. Ronald Ripley: Would you want to look at widening the shoulder or anything there or you don't think it is necessary? Ric Lowman: Well, for the record, Ric Lowman, traffic engineering. In looking at it, it is really going to be a Sunday generator. Meaning that during the weekdays, as I kind of explained at the informal, there is going to be very limited traffic there. Generally we warrant right and left turn lanes based on the peak hour traffic in trying to get it out of the roadway and away from the through traffic. In this case on a Sunday, when the church is coming and when it is leaving, the levels of traffic on Salem Road are going to be at its lowest. As far as the background traffic so were not concerned with the turn lanes for that type of development on a Sunday. Whether it comes down to whether you need widening around the entrance, we take a look at that at the site plan stage to see if this, like any other commercial site would warrant kind of improvements there to the entrance. Salem Road is what it is. It's a narrow two-lane roadway but it does have other entrances that do seem to function fairly well. Ronald Ripley: It just seems like if it is a residential lot it is one thing. You have very limited amount of cars coming and going. If you have 25 to 30 cars going in there in the morning and coming back out. It seems like some consideration to at least widening the shoulders so the car can move off a little bit. Ric Lowman: Right. Ronald Ripley: It's an issue with all the rural roads. You have ditches. You have a shoulder. You have a ditch. Ric Lowman: Correct. II Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 3 Ronald Ripley: It can be dangerous. Ric Lowman: We make them put in a commercial entrance at the site plan stage. Meaning that the driveway width has to be 30 feet across and it would also have to have 15 foot radii on the concrete apron. It has to be a concrete apron. It can't be crushed asphalt. It can't be dirt apron. It would have to be a standard concrete apron, 30 feet in width with 15 foot radii. So that would alleviate a little bit of your concerns about cars turning in. It would be something more than just dirt or a crushed gravel entrance that you see on these rural roads. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions ofRic while I have him here. Okay. Thank you. Ric Lowman: Sure. Janice Anderson: Do we have speakers? Donald Horsley: We have one speaker. Tina Milligan. Janice Anderson: Welcome. Tina Milligan: Thank you ma'am. Thank you for your time. I'm Tina Milligan. I'm president of Newcastle Civic League. I've spoken to you guys before, and I appreciate your time today. I did, in fact, as well as the members of the civic league, meet with the Pastor Joe last night. We support the building of this church with three items being addressed. I know you guys were given a copy of the notes with the rebuttal in red this morning. As a matter I'm going to hand these out to you so you can see them as well. It pretty much summarizes our three main top concerns. It will clarify it a little easier. In the proffers, we're probably calm after the show we had before. The buffer is our big concern. Well, I'm going to start at the front ofthe property. The front ofthe property, we would like, and I think it is on number 2, of what you're looking at. We would like some sort oflocking gate. It is just a mere chain that goes across this entrance that will stop access to the parking lot of the church to prevent parking of the neighborhood teenagers. We've had some drug busts in our park stop that going on behind our homes. This area right here, (pointing to PowerPoint) is the predominate parking area that concern us. This isn't even visible from the road front. There is actually a home here that is going to be demo. Am I correct Joe in saying that? Okay? So, this isn't going to open up the front ofthe church to be visible from the road. So, we are living in this neighborhood here. Our concerns are for our safety in our neighborhood to stop the riff-raff from going back there. It will be a prime parking spot. You know how teenagers go? It would be a nice little spot. So, we would like the chain to be erected. It could be a low cost endeavor that can be locked that would be the church's responsibility to do so when the church was not in use during the Sunday timeframe that was mentioned. Also during the weekday nights, the Pastor said he would have some Bible studies going on. So, there is not a lot of traffic through there. It is a small, small church. We love the idea of it being in our neighborhood but we want some safeguards put into place to protect our property, our children's safety and our neighborhood safety. And, we do have a drug Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 4 problem in the neighborhood that has been documented. Arrests have been made just an 1/8 of a mile from this church. So, that is one thing that we felt strongly about. The pastor was fine with doing so. But we would like to have it in writing in the proffers. The second issue was the 40 foot minimum tree buffer. We want a proffer on that as well. I got it quoted in here that we prevent later on and Pastors travel with churches. I might not be dealing with Pastor Joe. He might not be dealing with me. It would preserve that buffer from our neighborhood so we wouldn't have to look in the backyard ofthe church. It might be a little bigger church in the future. It says he desires not to build a mega-church but we need the buffer to be strengthened. Then we spoke to the project manager, whose name is Joseph as well. He said ifthere was any remaining dirt from the project from the BMP, because of the grade, ifhe had anything left over he would be happy to fill in the ditch, ifit was okay with the City at that time. I don't have a name on the gentleman that we spoke to in the past, but we were given an okay to fill it in at one point. I apologize that I don't have that person's name, but obviously this is on contingency that there is enough dirt. He said he could run his dozer over and help us out. We agreed to give him access from Southcross Court so it wouldn't bother the wooden tree buffer as well. Janice Anderson: Ms. Milligan, Mr. Horsley had a question about filling in the ditches there. What ditch are you looking to fill? Tina Milligan: This was farmland before it was built. Right here (pointing to PowerPoint). Eric Galvin: Along the backside of the property right here (pointing to PowerPoint). Tina Milligan: I'm sorry. I'm turned around here. Okay. He's right. Correct. It is right here. There is a ditch. I'm so sorry. Janice Anderson: That is alright. Tina Milligan: I'm kind of tired. Donald Horsley: My main concern was filling in any drainage. Tina Milligan: It wasn't a drainage ditch. It's a ditch to nowhere. It's more like divot in the ground. Our property is actually on the side where the church is; so, by filling it in, that would actually give us ten feet of usable yard versus a ditch of nothing. Mosquito control comes out and they park their vehicles in front of our homes, and they come back and service the ditch. We keep it cleaned. We keep it maintained. We realize that we live in Virginia Beach, and we got a lot of mosquitoes. That's no problem. Ifit would give us ten extra feet of yard, that would be a big bonus for us. Donald Horsley: My main concern is drainage. And I'm sure the City at site plan review will take care of that. II Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 5 Tina Milligan: That is fine. It is not up to us at this point in the juncture to agree or disagree, but if it could remain open that would be our desire as a possibility. Donald Horsley: I appreciate your willingness to work with the applicant. I really do. We haven't had much of that lately. Tina Milligan: I know. They are going to be so happy to see me up here with a smile on my face. He is a nice man. Like I said, we met for the first time for the first and he addressed our concerns last night. Janice Anderson: Great. Tina Milligan: Does anyone else have any questions? Everybody is smiling. David Redmond: I have a question about this chain you say to be secure and locked when not use. Where did you envision that going? Tina Milligan: Anywhere. It wouldn't even have to be visible from the street because of this long drive. He could put it back here. He could put it here. He could put it there. His concern was that he didn't want to post stay out signs. It is a church. You're supposed to welcome parishioners; so, to amend that he could put it there. David Redmond: What would be the purpose of that? Tina Milligan: We live in a neighborhood. Did you see the property? It is tucked in. It is very secluded. We have a lot of busy teenagers in our neighborhood. We've had parking issues with them. We've had drug busts within our neighborhood park. If you create a safe spot for our youth to misbehave, they are going to use the moment and do so. We just want to prevent a problem that we know we have. We just don't want it to spread to our backyards. It is already in our neighborhood park. It is already into the street light in front of my house, beside my house, because I'm missing a street light. That's another issue. It will be back there. Before Dam Neck Road came through, Newcastle Elementary had the best parking lot in that part of town. Now Dam Neck Road goes through, so that kind of opened that up. Does everyone kind of understand where I'm trying to go with this? David Redmond: I think I do but I'm not sure. Teenagers and misbehaving are kind of going to go together. Tina Milligan: Well its drugs. It is a serous thing. It is not just teenagers being teenagers and egging houses. They are selling drugs. David Redmond: Yeah. My only concern is if you get obviously. You know churches are used for all sort of different things besides Sunday services. Tina Milligan: It is exactly right. I've addressed that with Joe last night. Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 6 David Redmond: You might have some sort of immediate sort of meet me there at 10:00. I'll be glad to talk to you about such and such. You have an appointment. Somebody come out to look at the place. It just strikes me that if you string a chain across it, it is going to create problems anytime you do that. When we went out to the site, I spent time looking behind me out of the back of the van trying to make sure that we were going back out on the road. It was not easy to do. You had to keep a close eye out for the cars. So, my concern would be if that occurs, it's got to be way up to the church. I'm not sure that is really going to address any problem with crime or drugs. Tina Milligan: It will stop the four-wheel traffic. What we actually hoped was, and we were open for discussion, because we know it is a church and they don't have a big budget. One of our members said what about one of those arms that swing. You could put a key pad on it. A key padded lock that like everybody's garage door has that would be very accessible for all the parishioners. This area right here (pointing to PowerPoint) is actually going to be open. This house is going to be demolished. So, in actuality this entire thing is going to be open if you're worried about safety. David Redmond: I am. What I'm worried about is somebody pulling in their car and immediately pulling out because he just ran into a chain or a gate or a fence or something like that. Tina Milligan: But it is along drive. I appreciate your current concern for safety. I'm a member of that community. But it is a very long drive. The Pastor was agreeable to a solution. David Redmond: Okay. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Don. Tina Milligan: He doesn't have any opposition to it. David Redmond: I understand he does. But I'm still not sure it is a good idea. Ifhe is okay with it, I suppose I'm okay with it. Donald Horsley: Along with what Dave is talking about, the safety would be a better concern if the gate was at the road so people wouldn't turn in there period. There is a church on Salem Road closer to North Landing that does have a gate. They have a pike gate that shuts. Tina Milligan: The community church? Donald Horsley: Yes. I guess they put it up for the same reasons. The closer you have it to the road would deter people from turning in period. They wouldn't have to worry about turning around. I I II Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 7 Janice Anderson: We're going to ask him to come back up and address the matters that you addressed. They will get another chance. Are there any other questions? David Redmond: Thank you. Tina Milligan: You're welcome. Thank you for your time. Donald Horsley: That is the only speaker. Janice Anderson: Mr. Galvin? Donald Horsley: Unless they have some more speakers. Eric Galvin: Again, Eric Galvin. Like she said we are agreeable to the concept and we would put the fenced area or the gated at the back end of the drive. You wouldn't want it at the front end of the drive for various reasons. People would have to stop and get out of their car or on the road. It would cause a lot of problems. If they are happy with that solution, we're happy with that solution to have it in the back. We would proffer that condition. Janice Anderson: Okay. I think they're mainly worried at night or something to have it gated and people know they can't get back there. Eugene Crabtree: J an, just one thing. Janice Anderson: Yes. Go ahead Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Wherever you do put the gate just make sure is sufficient room for a car to turn around if they come to that driveway and they get to a gate that they have room to turn around; that they don't have to back down that entire drive. Eric Galvin: Yes sir. We have room where the proposed BMP is right here to create some type of turnaround condition. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. Janice Anderson Go ahead AI. Al Henley: I have a question for you. To your knowledge, and I know you're early in the game, but do you intend to install some night lighting, some watch lighting or something on the church property for night? Eric Galvin: As far as our intentions go, it was not too, I believe. Is that correct Joe? There would be no safety lighting. Anything that was required by code we would do. Al Henley: Just as a recommendation, I know at our church we had a problem with people Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 8 that would park in the parking lot at night and what have you. We installed, and it appears to be street lights, and they would come on an automatic timer at sundown. And it lights the area. We found out to, it really served a good purpose for vandalism. It might be something you would want to consider, and I think it would be helpful to check on the insurance for night lighting around the perimeter of the church. It may be beneficial to you. Eric Galvin: It sounds like it would be nothing but a positive. Al Henley: Yes. Eric Galvin: For the church and the neighborhood. Yes sir. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Jay Bernas: I do. Janice Anderson: Yes Jay. Jay Bernas: One of these proposed proffers by the civic league, I don't know if you're amenable to this, but I would like to restructure the wording of the filling of the ditch. It is probably more appropriate to say to regrade the rear of the property and address any drainage issues as opposed to putting it in the proffers. I'm going to fill the ditch. They are probably going to address that at site plan review, but I just want to make sure you're comfortable with anything that entails that you might have to put a drop inlet for whatever so you capture that sheet flow from the parking lot or whatever. Eric Galvin: According to code, we would have to deal with any upstream/downstream drainage coming on to our property. We would address it. Jay Bernas: Okay. Janice Anderson: Mr. Galvin, if I could go over with you? The staff has written out five conditions. Eric Galvin: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Would you be agreeable to expansion of those conditions as follows? One of the conditions is that your site plan, your landscaping, would be substantially the same as depicted there. But your plan does show a 40 foot landscape buffer. I think that condition is in there, but I believe the community wants it specifically to mention the 40 foot buffer. So that would be satisfactory to you? Eric Galvin: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Okay. The second is the locked entrance. II Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 9 Eric Galvin: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: That you agreed to. The third would be as Mr. Bernas said if there is extra material left from your BMP, you would fill in that ditch upon approval of Public Works. Eric Galvin: Right. The way he just said it, I would probably provide positive drainage. Janice Anderson: Drainage. Right. Jay Bernas: Regrade the rear of the lot, and account for any of the drainage issues. Janice Anderson That would be on that position. Ronald Ripley: I want to add something about the tapered lane. I do want to see a slight tapered lane, a feasible right turn lane into the property. Janice Anderson: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Add that too. Janice Anderson: Do you own that property in that corner? Yes you do. Eric Galvin: All the property is owned by Pastor Gillam. Janice Anderson: So a tapered lane. Ronald Ripley: Where feasible. Janice Anderson: Okay, where feasible. Stephen White: Madame Chairman? Janice Anderson: Yes. Stephen White: Staff has a little bit of an issue with making a condition about filling the ditch. We will be glad to include a note in the plan for site plan review that that ditch should be filled if the applicant has material necessary. But to go as far as to say that it would be regraded. In that process of regarding, you may lose those trees that are being required as a buffer. So, plus the area that we're talking about is, I believe the ditch is actually off the site. So, rather than make it a condition, it would be better if we just make a note that we'll work with the applicant during site plan review to make sure that happens. Janice Anderson: Jay? Jay Bernas: Yes. I wasn't aware that it was offthe site. Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 10 Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Eric Galvin: It is in a strange location where it is right on the site line, kind of off the property. Janice Anderson: So, it may not be part of your property? Eric Galvin: Correct. Janice Anderson: We'll use that as a note and not a condition. Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Galvin? Thank you sir. I'll open it up for discussion or a motion. Donald Horsley: I'll make a motion that the application be approved with the conditions as stated in our agenda, and add two conditions now since we've taken the one about the grading off, the two conditions, the one about the gate and the other one about the minimum tree buffer. Janice Anderson: How about the lane? Donald Ripley: The tapered lane? Janice Anderson: Yes, the tapered lane. Donald Horsley: Yes. Ron's tapered lane. Janice Anderson: It would be three. Donald Horsley: Where feasible. Janice Anderson: Where feasible. We have a motion by Don Horsley and a second by Jay Bernas. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KA TSIAS AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE II Item #3 Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach Page 11 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach with the conditions as stated and the three added conditions. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Milligan. Thank you Mr. Galvin. l~V\ ~ 3 n.t~ {3~,-('\q' CWKt.t OY \Jllt1Mfr ~t1 Page 1 of2 nna Milligan From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Tina Milligan" <tina.milligan@cox.net> 'Tina Milligan" <tina.milligan@cox.net> "Joe and Sabrina Gilliam" <gilliamjs@gmail.com>; <bhenley@vbgov.com> Tuesday, March 10,200910:29 PM Reformed Baptist Church 3-6-09.doc Reformed Baptist Church - Meeting Follow-up Good Morning, Carolyn. Newcastle Civic league met tonight with Joe Gilliam, the Minister of the Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach, and his project manager, Joeseph Arroyo. The meeting was productive and outcome positive. The Newcastle Civic League will support approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit with the following inclusions: 1. Proffer that ting 40' minimum tree buffer to include a tree retention and restoration plan for the 40' vegetated r of evergreen and deciduous trees, along with other native vegetation. The verbage shoud be such that bo the Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach and Newcastle Civic league's interests are properly represented. For example, should a tree be damaged by lightening, the Church should be able to remove that tree. Also, the Newcastle Civic league desires strong language to prevent any "significant" clearin of existing trees and maintanence of the treed buffer. Q\I ( ~In 2. Proffer th~ entrance to the church be secured and locked when not in use. A low-cost solution to this issue wa~~;ed. At the minimum, 2 steel poles on either side ofthe Church's Driveway be placed, and a chain link will drape across the entrance that is "locked". The use ofthis chain is required at all times when the building is vacant and not in-use by Church Members. This proffer will deter unwanted traffic, protect the adjacent neighborhood, and protect the church as well. Np., ~ ,;,-.J 3. Remai' dirt generated from the bmp, if any remaining, would be used to fill in the ditch that runs parellel with So cross Court. Of course, this action must first be approved by the City and deamed acceptable. The filling in of that ditch must not cause a standing water or drainage issue with our neighboring community, Newcastle. 1> sc.. ~I I Thank you for your time Carolyn. I will attach a list of Pastor Joe Gilliiam's responses to other concerns. The response will be added in red. Sincerely, Tina Milligan Presient Newcastle Civic League 757-427-1051 h 757 -406-3388 c , - Original Message - From: Tina MilliQan To: AI Moore; Norma Moore; Joe Milligan; Chief Joe Milligan; rich & yoko willis_ ; SABINE BRENT; jimmy brent ; Wendell & Robin Patrick; Michelle GaQQiotti ; iim&ioannfredo@yahoo.com ; bob & debbie hadley ; frank ~ ; steve & cynthia salas; Iilibethbernardino@yahoo.com ; sham8@cox.net ; Melissa Gonzalez; zaira 0102@hotmail.com; Tina MilliQan ; Alvson Mvers ; Steve & Mary Phillips Sent: Thursday, March OS, 2009 9:23 PM Subject: Fw: Reformed Baptist Church Of Virginia Beach Site Plans Hello Everyone. We have a confirmed meeting next Tuesday, March 10th, 7pm, at Newcastle Elementary in the library with Pastor Joe. Hope to see you there. Thank you to everyone for your time. :) 3/11/2009 II Page 2 of2 Sincerely I TIna , - Original Message - From: Tina MilliQan To: Joe and Sabrina Gilliam Cc: bhenlev@VbQov.com; caksmith@vbQov.com Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:18 PM Subject: Reformed Baptist Church Of Virginia Beach Site Plans Hi Joe, I have copied Mrs. Henley and Ms. Smith to keep them current with our project. I've attached our Committee's concerns gathered at our meeting last night. We look forward to meeting with you next Tuesday, March 10th, 7pm. at Newcastle Elementary in the library. Thanks. TIna 3/11/2009 THOMAS C. KAY, JR. Relevant Information: · Princess Anne District · The applicant requests a Use Permit for firewood preparation and storage. · The applicant was provided a Notice of Violation in April, 2008, as the firewood preparation and storage has been occurring for over a year. · The site is in the Agricultural Reserve Program. The activity is in violation of the ARP easement. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Planning Staff recommended denial · Planning Commission recommends denial (11-0) ! ! II ~"''''':'\.. ;f:~1'~"~:(~0' ,'~ ':::, '%' .-:: : -~ (..... _'_0'>.- :':'~~:' >~ \;.: " t>:;!.) ..................,.." CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: THOMAS C. KAY, JR., Conditional Use Permit, firewood preparation facility, 1641 Princess Anne Road. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: As a stipulation of a Notice of Violation issued to the applicant by the Department of Planning, the applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit to allow firewood preparation and storage to occur on this site, zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agriculture. The Zoning Ordinance defines a "firewood preparation facility" as a site where "the cutting and splitting of firewood not grown on the premises occurs and where the operation occupies one acre or more." The property was accepted into the City's Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) in 1997. A three-acre easement exception site is located near Princess Anne Road, and according to the requirements of the ARP, is the only location that the applicant's operation can be legally placed. . Considerations: The Planning Department's Zoning Office received its first complaint for this site in April 2008. The applicant was notified that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for firewood preparation and possibly bulk storage. An application was received in January 2009 for a firewood preparation facility. The application indicates that the firewood on the site is for the property owner's personal use; however, several inspections of the site question the validity of this. The 68-acre property is in the City's Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) and the current use of the site for a firewood preparation facility is in violation of the ARP. As is typical with ARP properties, a three-acre easement exception site was set aside. That area is located near Princess Anne Road. According to the requirements of the ARP, any non-agricultural activities, such as firewood preparation, can only be located on the three-acre easement exception site. Staff recommended to the applicant that the exception site be relocated away from the road and away from nearby single-family dwellings and be properly screened. It would be unacceptable, in Staff's opinion, if the applicant were to move the operation to the current location of the exception site, due to its close proximity to Princess Anne Road and neighboring single-family dwellings. It appears that portions of the property are located within the 1 DO-year floodplain. Relocating the exception site into the 1 DO-year floodplain or any other environmentally sensitive portion of the property would not be acceptable. In order to officially relocate the area, a Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 2 of 2 written request along with a survey plat, prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer, that depicts both the current location and the proposed new location of the exception area must be submitted to the Agriculture Department. The request would then be forwarded to City Council for its consideration. The applicant was informed that both the Conditional Use Permit and the request to relocate the easement exception area could be heard at the same time; however, Staff never received any plan revisions or the necessary forms to begin this process. The location criteria provided in Section 233.2 of the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance notes that firewood preparation facilities should be located only where the traffic, noise and other effects of the operation will not adversely affect nearby residents. Staff finds that the operation of a chain saw and a log splitter cannot be done in harmony with residential dwellings in close proximity to the property. There are residential dwellings in the vicinity, to the north and south of the property, and across Princess Anne Road to the east. Based on the location of these existing dwellings along Princess Anne Road and the noise associated with preparing firewood, Staff recommended denial of this application to the Planning Commission. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to deny the request. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department CityManage~V- ~ Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial. I\f Recommended Action: REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit (firewood preparation facility) ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 1641 Princess Anne Road GPIN: 2402875347 ELECTION DISTRICT: PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 69 acres II #13 March 11, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT: THOMAS C. KAY, JR. PROPERTY OWNER: THOMAS C. KAY, JUDITH C. KAY STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST As a stipulation of a Notice of Violation issued to the applicant by the Department of Planning, the applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit to allow firewood preparation and storage to occur on this site, zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agriculture. The Zoning Ordinance defines a "firewood preparation facility" as a site where "the cutting and splitting of firewood not grown on the premises occurs and where the operation occupies one acre or more." The application indicates that the firewood on the site is for the property owner's personal use to heat the home and water. The application also notes that approximately five times a week, trucks will deliver wood to the site. Chain saws and log splitters are used to cut the wood with the assistance of up to three unpaid people. There are residential dwellings in the vicinity, to the north and south of the property, and across Princess Anne Road to the east. The property was accepted into the City's Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) in 1997. A three-acre easement exception site is located near Princess Anne Road, and according to the requirements of the ARP, is the only location that the applicant's operation can be legally placed. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION THOMAS C. KAY, JR. I THOMAS AND JUDITH KAY Agenda Item 13 Page 1 EXISTING LAND USE: Single-family dwelling, agricultural field, woods. The property is covered by an Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) easement. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: · Single-family dwellings / AG-1and AG-2 Agricultural Districts · Single-family dwellings, woods, cultivated fields / AG-1and AG- 2 Agricultural Districts · Princess Anne Road · Single-family dwellings, cultivated fields / AG-2 Agricultural District · Woods, floodplain / AG-1 Agricultural District The site is within the Southern Watersheds Management Area. A portion of the property is within the 100-year floodplain. Much of the site is wooded; however, a portion has been cleared and is under cultivation. The entire site, except a three-acre reservation area, is within the City's Agricultural Reserve Program. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Princess Anne Road in this area is considered a two-lane undivided rural highway. The MTP proposes an undivided roadway with a bikeway within a 1 OO-foot wide right-of-way. No CIP projects are slated for this area. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Princess Anne 5,708 ADT 7,400 ADTT (Level of Existing Land Use ;.( - 10 Road Service "C") - 18, 600 ADT ADT 1 (Level of Service Proposed Land Use 3 - 19 "En) ADT 1 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by single-family dwelling 3 as defined by one dwellino plus firewood DreDaration facility WATER & SEWER: There is no City water or sewer available to this site. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this request with the conditions below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION THOMAS c. KAY, JR. I THOMAS AND JUDITH KAY Agenda Item 13 Page 2 II Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as the Rural Area, noting that the area is to remain rural into the foreseeable future. As such, it must rely on sound rural planning principles and effective economic strategies to help it retain its character and vitality. Evaluation: The Planning Department's Zoning Office received its first complaint for this site in April 2008. The applicant was notified that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for firewood preparation and possibly bulk storage. An application was received in January 2009 for a firewood preparation facility. The application indicates that the firewood on the site is for the property owner's personal use; however, several inspections of the site question the validity of this. The 68-acre property is in the City's Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) and the current use of the site for a firewood preparation facility is in violation of the ARP. As is typical with ARP properties, a three-acre easement exception site was set aside. That area is located near Princess Anne Road. According to the requirements of the ARP, any non-agricultural activities, such as firewood preparation, can only be located on the three-acre easement exception site. Staff recommended to the applicant that the exception site be relocated away from the road and away from nearby single-family dwellings and be properly screened. It would be unacceptable, in Staff's opinion, if the applicant were to move the operation to the current location of the exception site, due to its close proximity to Princess Anne Road and neighboring single-family dwellings. It appears that portions of the property are located within the 1 OO-year floodplain. Relocating the exception site into the 100-year floodplain or any other environmentally sensitive portion of the property would not be acceptable. In order to officially relocate the area, a written request along with a survey plat, prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer, that depicts both the current location and the proposed new location of the exception area must be submitted to the Agriculture Department. The request would then be forwarded to City Council for its consideration. The applicant was informed that both the Conditional Use Permit and the request to relocate the easement exception area could be heard at the same time; however, Staff has not received any revisions or paperwork to begin this process. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of this request for a firewood preparation facility. The location criteria provided in Section 233.2 of the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance notes that firewood preparation facilities should be located only where the traffic, noise and other effects of the operation will not adversely affect nearby residents. Staff finds that the operation of a chain saw and a log splitter cannot be done in harmony with residential dwellings in close proximity to the property. There are residential dwellings in the vicinity, to the north and south of the property, and across Princess Anne Road to the east. Based on the location of these existing dwellings along Princess Anne Road and the noise associated with preparing firewood, Staff recommends denial of this application. THOMAS C. KA V, JR. I THOMAS AND JUDITH KA V Agenda Ite"1. 13 Page 3 AERIAL OF SI,.E LOCA ,.ION - THOMAS C. KAY. JR. I THOMAS AND JUDITH KAY Agenda \tem 13 Page 4 t c~\ \ 8, ~ in\~\ >- ~ ~ II ~~ ..," "",~ ,,~'< ~ ~ ,~,tF~" .'~ ~- .'. ~ ( 1'0 "'~'( "':~ , \~' ~A~~ \~ U 't~:~~~tf$~~ ?l~' \\ ~ ~/\ \ 'I:) ",,'it i5 ~ ~ \. ..111:..'.. ~ "- ~" < - ~~, .''- ,''^ ,'& ~.~ Il ' Ii" \ %\,,!\ ... -", 6 .'~ . ~ '.. I ~,~\, ~6 · ;:\,\~C> ':~'~ 4\. 5~ "'\~. ~~~':! . " .lii -. ,.~,. 1), '" ~ " .. · 1\ \', ....~i::..... , ~tl ,,~ ~ ,< ,,,. i.~'Sl.:\ 7.\~'ct . ~ ~ f'..l ~. c:i ~~~. ~~ \ ..,,\" ,~. ~~ \ ~ \ ~~".. J \- -=..." :~~:. \ /';,:~.... ,/ ~~ ~ ~~.~..-V\~. ____."-..- ,.,<" ~~. ....>i }; ':.;" ~~...... c; ....::__. 'i-OiicH ';;\ ~ ~ ~ .~ / ;;. t ~,~ ~ .!-. ~. =<"' -. "",-> , .'€. ~ t~..-J ~<i.~';! ~~i;~ ~~'" t c:i & o ...., ~~ n: J\ ~\.'\ ~ t 3i ~S ~ v; ~ \ i ~ ~1l ~ ~ \ ~ ~ III Q.f 0,\ "- ..')... ~..\Qe% ~ ~ti~ t 1\~ll 0\ ~%~~Ul ti ~ ~'\~':\5 ~\> ~~ ~~~ ~ li~ ~\.\ 1 ~!~ ~~t,\t!\l ~ - 'i t ts '="..J "IS ~ '"" ~ 1'\ /?';;2'f"'\ li. ~ a .!~I~ ' \!! \ 'ill \\ :::,', '"I( \\~)' ~', ~\~/ ~ ~.;, "'t, ... s.. tt.' i\c ~\ j ~~ ,,\ ~\ N' 2 \0\ ~' " ~ 'b ~ '" l ~ ~l S ~l .., t -8 l~ ~'i t. j Ejl.SEtAEN1 e,Y.CEPlION S\lE 'THOMAS C. KA'l. JR. I 'THOMAS ANO JUOnH '(.A A,genda \te~ ~ page CUP for Firewood Preparation Facility 1 05/13/08 CUP (residential kennel) Granted 2 01/11/05 Nonconforming Use (restaurant to auto Granted sales) ZONING HISTORY THOMAS C. KAY, JR. / THOMAS AND JUDITH KAY Agenda Item 13 Page 6 TATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation partnership, firm, busmess. or other unincorporated orgamzation, complete the following: 1 list the applicant name followed by the names of all officers. members trustees. partners, etc. below (Attach list if necessary) _......._,-_..._....._._~-- ~.'m'-"'>_____'~~__ 2 Ust all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entitY' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) +_.__._""----_..._--_..._---_._--,_._.._~._---_. rrtCheck 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 umncorporated organization complete thefoflowing. 1. list the property owner name followed by the names of all officers. members. trustees, partners, etc below (Attach list if necessary} --""""""'-,~,..,,'~......~-,,~~..,-~"'''"'''''''...,~.~-~~ W~~.M''''_.,~_....~._''''.>'''',''_....__..."..'''_..'''m_.',''','.^,',~,...._ ....-'>,,'>>~~_m..,.m,,""~, --'~"'~'^~'''''-''''' -~----,,_.,^, ~-""'-'--~ 2 List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entity< relationship with the applicant (Attach fist If necessary) here if the property owner IS NOTa corporation, partnership. firm, busmess, or other unincorporated organization next page for footnotes Does an official or employee Of..thepitY of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject rand? Yas ___ NOL. If yes, what is the name of the offiCIal or ernp~oyee and the nature of thEm mterest? ----"~"''''-',."''^~-~~^''''''''''~"~,.,,'''~.'''''-~~~...,,--~.'"'''''"_,,,,.....~~ .._'""m__~~'.'.,.~.~'....,.,._~N~^'~~'''''',.''',..~~.__=..,,'____'''",,"m'....,..w COO<lrtiO!1i11 Use. Per""t Appiu:<thon 901 H) (;'3j2n01 II z <=> . I ~ ~ . I ....:t ~ ~ :f-c ~ ~ rn t::::) ~ <=> I . f-c I . Q Z <=> u THOMAS C. KA Y, JR. / THOMAS AND JUDITH KAY Agenda Item. 13 Page 7 z o I .. ~ U I I I ....:1' =-- ~ ~ ~ 8: ~ t::) ~ o If ~ . I ~ Z o u DISCLOSUR ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES Ust all known contractors or businesses that have or wi!! provide services with respect to the requested property use. including but not ~tmited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services. financial services accounting services, andTegal services: {Attach list If necessary) -,..."",""'........--,~_._-_.~_..._.,,-,~ ,~,-"-,_.,_.,.,",,.~-,-~,-""""""'-------'" "'''''''''mm'_w~''~,~_''''''''_____''_'_'______''"''"''--'''''' ,,.,.,,,>-....._._~~_,._~._~~,_~_.............,,,.--...,-.,;.,,'m.' "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means 'a relationship that e lusts when one corporation directly Of indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power af another corporation." See StatE! and Local Government Conflict of interestsAcl. Va. Code S 22-3101 ? 'Affiliated business entity relationship means'a relationship other than parent- subsidiary relationship, that exists when (0 one busmess entity has a controlling ownel"$hip interest In the other business entity (ii) a controUing owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (Hi) there is shared management or control between the business entities Factors that should be con sldered lfl determining the eXlstenceot an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person ar substanhalty the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common Of commingled funds or assets: the bUSiness entitles share the use of the same offices or employees or othelWise share activities resources or personnel on a regular basis or there IS otherwise a close warking relationship between the entilles " See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act Va Code ~ 22-3101 CERTIfICATION: I certify thallhe InformatJon c.onH,lIned herem is true and accurate I understand that, upon receIpt of ootificat!on (postcard) that the awtlcahon has been scheduled for publIC neanng, I am responSible for obtaining and postlng Ihe required sign on the $Ubject property at least 30 days pnor to the scheduled public heanng aCCQrdlng 10 the If1structJons If\ U'liS package. The l.mdersigned alse coosents to entry upon lhe subject property tf.J employees of tt\e Department of Planning 10 photograph and view the stte for purposes of processing and eliah.Jaltng Ihls iilPphcatU::H'l .---:--- ~___ '-_ok~ {~-&~-~--_.._-- App"c1ris Signature ~rr.J~.! C~ k' ""7 5,.. Pnnt Name THOMAS C. KAY, JR.I THOMAS AND JUDITH KAY Agenda Iten~ 13 Page 8 II Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Conditional Use Permit 1641 Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne March 11, 2009 REGULAR Donald Horsley: The next item is item 13. The application of Thomas C. Kay, Jr. for a Conditional Use Permit for a firewood preparation facility on property located at 1641 Princess Anne Road, District 7, Princess Anne. Janice Anderson: Welcome sir. Thomas Kay: Hello. Good afternoon. I'm Thomas Kay, Jr., representing my parents. And, I brought in wood. I cut it up and I don't use the wood stove on the wall that I call my thermostat. I exclusively heat by wood. My parent's home is heated by electric. My shop, my house, and I've got three other wood stoves. That is what I do. And, other than that, I've been having vehicles come in, and apparently some neighbors don't like it. They are small dump trucks. They are not like something going up and down the road large. I think something like Ms. Welsh had. It is similar to that size. I collect firewood. I like to burn. I'm not an arsonist or anything like that. I just like to have bonfires. And I cook outside and exclusively, I pretty much cook by wood. And, so I'm just bringing in wood. I don't know what else to say about that. Plus, I will see what I have with my mend but we're going to grow mushrooms with the extra that we don't burn. And, also as far as agriculture goes, I've got a pond. I do agriculture. Yeah. So, basically I'm going to put a gate up like they were talking, a chain or whatever because we've had problem with kids driving in and out. I've got no problems with my neighbors that I know of. Yeah. I'm just going to put my gate back up. I just hope that someone comes in and drops off a load of mulch. That mulch goes into my holes. I do not fill my swamp. I love my swamp. I don't even go there. That is Army Corp of Engineers. I've known that for 20 something years. Occasionally, the ruts get in there. We have gone back there and logged property before, which goes with the plan here the Agricultural Reserve Program, which I am with obvious. You know that. So, I don't know ifthere is anything. It already says the case for denial? If that is what it is that is what IS. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thomas Kay: So, basically that is all that I have to say to you all. I appreciate you listening to me. What do you think? Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Kay. I'll open it up for questions. Thomas Kay: There you go Arbor East. Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 2 Janice Anderson: Mr. Horsley has a question. Thomas Kay: I'll go out and cut with Arbor East. Donald Horsley: Evidentially you run a tree removal company. Thomas Kay: No. Actually that is my mend. I had a few vehicles up there for sale for over 20 years or whatever. It's like go ahead, park your truck up there. I didn't see there was a problem with that. He wants to sell it. Obviously, what does he have now $550.00. Yeah. That truck, I use that. I'm getting ready to redo my roof. So, now I don't have to hire a roofer. I'm going to use that bucket truck. Donald Horsley: So, you're not into tree removal business and using this as a dump site for your small trees? Thomas Kay: No sir. Not at all, it is all for personal use. Absolutely. Donald Horsley: All of this? Thomas Kay: I burn it. Recreation. Honestly. Laugh all you want. I'm just telling that is what I like to do. I'll go ahead and pile up a big pile of brush and sit out there and have hotdogs and chicken. You know refreshments and that is it. I try to stay on the farm. Laugh if you want. That is my house right there. Do you know what this is? There you go? There is a wood stove right here. Okay. I've got water pipes through here. Janice Anderson: Mr. Kay, if you would could you come to the podium so we can hear you better and you can use that pointer. I appreciate you pointing it out because we couldn't really see anything. Thomas Kay: You run hot water pipes through there and you get hot water. Just through a pile of sand. Janice Anderson: Are you selling wood there? Thomas Kay: No. Janice Anderson: No. Thomas Kay: No. Kathy Katsias: What's the $50 for? Thomas Kay: That is. . . Janice Anderson: Another mend? ,II Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 3 Thomas Kay: No. That's Craig's. He's got that truck for sale. I said go ahead you can sell it. I don't care. You can have it. I have given away over 100 cords of wood. Just to have it just because somebody else splits it for me. And they say here you go. I'm going to leave you a pile of wood and do what you want with your wood. I don't care. That is all. Janice Anderson: So you really don't have a fire preparation facility there? You don't need a Use Permit? Thomas Kay: No. Like I said, I'm going to lock the gate. I've got enough now. I don't know if! could come back again. I know it says in here that I can come back and reapplying in a year or something like that. Honestly, I mean I can cut my own trees down. I've been saving my own trees by having those come in that I don't have to cut my own trees down. There is 70 acres there. I can go back there and chop down quite a bit. I can fill this whole chamber here with the amount of wood that I have burned this year in my own home. Janice Anderson: Mr. Kay, it does appear from the view of the property. Thomas Kay: Well, it is a bit ugly if you look at it. I guarantee it that in about two months when all the leaves come out on the trees, you won't see it. Janice Anderson: Well, it does appear that there is something going on. Thomas Kay: But it's not. It is only wood and chips. I've had a pool company come in there and dump dirt. That way I can fill up the ruts. I'm sure. You've all been down there. You've seen it. It's muddy. I live on a swamp. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions of Mr. Kay? Thomas Kay: I was going to say is there anything from anybody? Janice Anderson: Thank you sir. Thomas Kay: Is that good? So, were just going to forget about it? Janice Anderson: Well, we're going to see if anybody else has anything to say today. Thomas Kay: Okay. Is there anybody else along the way who wants to say anything? Janice Anderson: Okay. And then we'll let you back up? Yes sir. Thomas Kay: Okay. Yes sir. Al Henley: Mr. Kay? Donald Horsley: AI? Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 4 Al Henley: Do you live on this property? Thomas Kay: Excuse me? Al Henley: Do you reside on this property? Thomas Kay: Yes sir. Al Henley: The slides show a structure here so he can see where he lives at? Thomas Kay: Right there. That is my farm (pointing to PowerPoint). Very good. Back up two. That is my parent's house. The shop is right behind it and I'm off to the right. Just to the west. That is my parent's house. Al Henley: So your parent's house is the one that is up front. Thomas Kay: Yes. It's right there, right behind it. Al Henley: The house in the back is your residence? Thomas Kay: Looks like you got it turned sideways. Okay. Janice Anderson: There is a little pointer there Mr. Kay. Thomas Kay: Yes ma' am. Janice Anderson: It is kind of hard to see. Thomas Kay: I am right there (pointing to PowerPoint). Al Henley: That is where you live at? Thomas Kay: My parents are right here. Al Henley: And your parents live there? Thomas Kay: Yes. There is my shop. Trucks come down this driveway and they go over and that is where all the wood is right there. I just transfer it. From here back is all swamp. Al Henley: So there are residences on this property? Your residence and your parent's residence? Thomas Kay: I'm the caretaker. Al Henley: That is not the question. The question is do you reside on this property? ,II Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 5 Thomas Kay: Yes sir. Al Henley: You went on record stating, yes, I live at one dwelling and my parents live in the other dwelling out front? Thomas Kay: Yes sir. Al Henley: Okay. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Thomas Kay: There is only one VEPCO meter. So, I live with my parents essentially. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Kay. We'll bring you back up after we hear from some others. Thomas Kay: Okay. Thanks a lot you all. I appreciate it. Janice Anderson: We have no other speakers. Okay. I'll open it up for discussion. Donald Horsley: Madame Chairman, I see Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Trimmer in the audience who are with the Agriculture Department. Mr. Atkinson might be willing to come up and tell us what is really allowed to take place on this property based on the agricultural aspect. Janice Anderson; Are you recruiting him? Donald Horsley: No. He is in the audience. Melvin Atkinson: Thank you Mr. Horsley. Janice Anderson: Welcome. I bet you thank him. Melvin Atkinson: I'm Melvin Atkinson with the Agriculture Department. As far as Agriculture Reserve Program goes when Mr. Kay, Sr. enrolled this into the program, the property was a Christmas tree farm. It had the hay field in the back and so forth. All of which are acceptable for agriculture. Obviously, personal use of wood cutting is acceptable. Cutting timber is acceptable. What is not acceptable is when you turn it into a commercial operation. So, in our discussion with the landowner, everything was determined to be personal. From looking at slides, I'm not sure we're at that point. We need to discuss this a little bit further. Mr. Henley has brought up an excellent point. When you enter the program you are allowed one dwelling. If there are two dwellings, we would need to talk to Mr. Macali to discuss this further. Donald Horsley: So, if there was a firewood preparation taking place there, which I mean a trailer sitting there with $50.00 price loaded with wood makes me believe that someone is Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 6 selling wood but I'm not very smart any today. But it would have to take place in the reserved area, which is the area in red. Is that right? Melvin Atkinson: That would be what we suggested with the landowner. Ifhe was looking to get a Conditional Use Permit, which is not allowed on ARP land that he would work cooperatively with zoning and City Council to put the reserved area, and everything would have to work in the reserved area. He could move that site to a different facility on the property but that is why we would ask that it would be happening at the same time. Donald Horsley: Alright. Melvin Atkinson: So, no. A Conditional Use Permit is not allowed for a firewood preparation facility on ARP land but he does have the capability of the one site. Karen Lasley: I thought you were going ask Mel about the firewood preparation facility. For purposes of zoning even if the firewood is totally used by Mr. Kay for his own use, our definition of firewood preparation facility is when they bring in wood and start cutting and splitting it, and when the operation occupies one acre or more, so it was my determination that he does require this Conditional Use Permit because ofthe size of the operation. Janice Anderson: Thank you for clarifying that. Donald Horsley: Karen, did you get a complaint about this operation is the reason? Karen Lasley: Yes. Complaints started about a year ago in April. We've been working with Mr. Kay for a long time trying to get it straight. Donald Horsley: Okay. Karen Lasley: We're here today. Janice Anderson: Ron? Ronald Ripley: Can I ask your opinion to please? Could you put the photograph of all the stumps and things? Is that look like a wood operation or does look like trash? Karen Lasley: No. It looks to me like a wood cutting operation would be hauling things in and dumping them here. Ronald Ripley: That is what I see there. Donald Horsley: Thank you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot Mr. Atkinson. Melvin Atkinson: That is alright. II Item #13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 7 Donald Horsley: We don't have any other speakers registered. Janice Anderson: Mr. Kay, would you like to say anything else? Thomas Kay: I can see it doesn't look that great. That is why I try to keep it offthe road instead of doing it in that location that I'm allowed to obviously up front. So, I'm sorry it still is a little bit ugly. That's the Brimstead residence. I have a feeling that the Nostroms had to do with this. They are jealous because they have a wood business also. Stump grinding what have you. I thought someone brought this up in front of you all because of that? So, they are jealous. I'm sorry it looks like junk but you know what, as far as the bonfire goes, I just want to burn, and I'm not putting it in my wood stove like I said. That stuff all right there, I can just take it and put it into a pile, and enjoy yourself for the evening. So, actually all of that will be cut up into pieces. Plus, like I said mushrooms is one thing that I'm going to get into. And so those little pieces can be plugged up. You can also use those to generate agricultural products. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I got a question. Stephen, on the aerial picture again please? Stephen White: Okay. Eugene Crabtree: Can you take the marker and show me there where you have your wood splitter, and your grinding equipment set up? Thomas Kay: Right there (pointing to PowerPoint). Eugene Crabtree: You do your wood splitting and grinding. Is that where that truck that you had the cherry picker, is that where you're doing your operation? Thomas Kay: No sir. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. Thomas Kay: The cherry picker is right there. Eugene Crabtree: That cherry picker has a wood chopper on it right? Thomas Kay: No sir. Eugene Crabtree: A grinder? A chipper? Thomas Kay: Yes. It does have a chipper on it. Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 8 Eugene Crabtree: It does have a chipper on it. And then your wood splitter is back in the other spot. Thomas Kay: Yes sir. I will move the wood splitter. Some part is right here. So, I can go anywhere like right here in the woods and the chipper is parked right there (pointing to PowerPoint). I will take it and I will grind up stuff and then I fill in like I got ruts right here. Eugene Crabtree: So you don't have them within that red marked area which is permissible? Thomas Kay: No sir. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. Thomas Kay: I was leaving it out of that area because you can see how close it is in proximity of the road and the neighbors. I didn't realize it. That is why I was trying to keep it off the road and out of sight. Eugene Crabtree: Thank you. Thomas Kay: Yes sir. Donald Horsley: Mr. Kay, if you want to establish a firewood preparation business you can swap that red square and move it back there and put the easement on the road. Thomas Kay: Believe me, I'm considering it. I had a drawing. I don't have it with me today. I was thinking about moving that easement zone. Actually that wads for my sister to build a house, and she just decided not to build yet. So, the whole thing is about putting that up there. I believe that is why my father did it was because we've got two driveways. We got the main one there. And there is actually another there. But the way the electricity runs, you can tap into the electricity. You got to have another driveway for another residence. So, you got two driveways. If you have another residence, you got to be able to tap into electrical and then she's got to be able to have access. Donald Horsley: It sounds like you got two residences already. Thomas Kay: No sir. Donald Horsley: Well. Thomas Kay: It's one next door. They are actually connected. Donald Horsley: Okay. Thomas Kay: That was allowable 20 something years ago. 'I Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 9 Donald Horsley: Okay. Alright. So, right now, you don't need a firewood preparation business? Thomas Kay: No, not at all. Donald Horsley: Okay. So, you are going to stop burning wood or burn what you got and then quit? Thomas Kay: Basically, that is exactly right. Donald Horsley: Okay. No problem then. Thomas Kay: Okay. It sounds great to me. Janice Anderson: Thank you sir. Thomas Kay: Are we all done? Janice Anderson: I think we're done. Thomas Kay: Thanks for listening to me. Janie Anderson: Thank you very much for coming down. Thomas Kay: Obviously you got my numbers. Any questions you can call me. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Donald Horsley: I think you will be hearing from someone. Thomas Kay: Take care. Donald Horsley: Madame Chairman, I make a motion that the application be denied. Janice Anderson: A motion for denial by Don Horsley. Do I have a second? I have a second by Phil Russo. Al Henley: I would like to add something on that. I agree with Mr. Horsley, and also at this point I think make it a note that a condition that the City will aggressively pursue all legal resources to bring this property into compliance. Thomas Kay: How long will that be? Al Henley: You will get a notice in the mail. You will find out. Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 10 Thomas Kay: Should I clean it up like as soon as possible like in a month or two? Donald Horsley: That would probably be a good idea. It would help. Thomas Kay: I understand it. I want too. Al Henley: Do you have a letter that has been certified with your signature putting you on notice previously Mr. Kay? Thomas Kay: Yes sir. Al Henley: If you have those on file, I would read those carefully and that will give you some idea of when that will occur. Thomas Kay: Do you have any time line? Al Henley: I will leave that up to staff sir. Janice Anderson: The city staff will be back in touch with you. Thomas Kay: Okay. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: The comment you made about coming into compliance. If anything needs to be removed it needs to be done legally too. Al Henley: Well, I've got what's legal Mr. Macali and we've already discussed that. Thomas Kay: I've been giving it away the best that I can. You see the amount that is there. So it is going to take some amount of time. Janice Anderson: Mr. Kay, if you would work with city staff. There is a violation on the property and to clear up that violation. Vie would appreciate it greatly. '''Ie have a motion now for denial of a firewood preparation facility. We have a motion by Don Horsley and a second by Phil Russo. Janice Anderson: Jay. Jay Bernas: One question. Is denial the right thing to do or should we defer this indefinitely? Bill Macali: Mr. Bernas, in order for the enforcement to continue it needs to be denied. Jay Bernas: Okay. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 "I Item # 13 Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Page 11 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE Ed Weeden: Bya vote of 11-0, the Board has denied the application of Thomas C. Kay, Jr. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Thomas Kay: Thank you counselor. 'I - 34- Item V-I.2. PLANNING ITEM #56772 Theftnowmgng~rendmSUPPORn Attorney Kevin M Brunick represented the applicant, and advised this entails a Buddhist Ceremony with individual mediTation. During this 3-hour period (one day per week), members of this organization will engage in individual medication with the guidance of the Monks. There are no services in a traditional sense. This usage will have no greater impact on the neighborhood than a "bridge club". However, there are three (3) Special Holidays: Chinese- Vietnamese New Year (February), Buddha's Birthday (May)and Mother/Father Day (September). During those three (3) events per year, the Permit also seeks to have no more than fifty (50) members on the property for the celebrations Samantha Niezgoda, 725 Sir Walter Circle, Phone: 431-1543, Member of the Temple. There are no noise, traffic or septic issues. Generally, every Sunday, about six (6) to twelve (12) members attend Scott Dialatush, 2108 Jarvis Road, Phone: 721-6900, advised support and his beliefin religious freedom The following registered in OPPOSITION: Dan Franken, 4161 West Neck Road, Phone: 426-0476, advised he and his wife have been good neighbors to the applicant, who purchased the residence without talking to the neighbors about the planned activities. The activities far surpassed previous descriptions: first five (5) cars and then up to fifty (50) with tour buses, porta potties, etc. The residents filed a protest. Louis Cullipher, 1449 Princess Anne Road, Phone: 426-2212, his statement is hereby made a part of the record. In recent years, he City has strived to identify fratures distinguishing one community from another, to make different parts of the City unique and enhance the quality of life. One such community is the Pungo Ridge landscape surrounding the property of the applicant Jerry Lang, 1476 Princess Anne Road, Phone: 426-5445, 21-year resident Amy Lang, 1476 Princess Anne Road, Phone: 426-5145, advised the applicant has been working without the Conditional Use Permit for the past eighteen (18) months Carol Lobus, 4/32 West Neck Road, Phone: 721-0864 Michelle Fryman, 2429 West Landing Road, Phone: 620-3089 Dr. CarmenJ. Maldowado, 4120 West Neck Road, Phone: 626-0052 Donna Franken 4161 West Neck Road, Phone: 426-0476 Michael L. Cullipher, 2088 Jarvis Road, Phone: 721-6446 A MOTION was made by Council Lady Henley, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, TO ADOPT the Ordinance upon application of THANH CONG DOAN for a Conditional Use Permit for a Relif!ious Faci/itv CONDITIONED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS WITH NO STAFF RENEWAL, WHILE AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION IS FOUND August 28, 2007 - 35 - Item V-I. 2. PLANNING ITEM #56772 (Continued) Upon SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Councilman Wood, seconded by Councilman Uhrin, City Council ADOPTED the Ordinance upon application of THANH CONG DO AN for a Conditional Use Permit CONDITIONED FOR ONE (1) YEAR WITH NO STAFF RENEWAL AND SHALL COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL (stal/to assist in locating new site for activity): ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF THANHCONG DOAN FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RELIGIOUS FACILITY R080734235 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Thanh Cong Doanfor a Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility on property located at 4/77 West Neck Road (GPIN 2402800135). AICUZ is Less than 65 dB Ldn. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE The following conditions shall be required: 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary alteration permits and a Certificate of Occupr;mcy for the change of use .from the Department of Planning I Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department before occupancy and use of the existing buildingfor a religious facility. 2. The applicant shall obtain approval.from the Virginia Department of Health for the increased use of the building and any required improvements to the wastewater and water supply systems. 3. The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Department of Planning I Development Services Center for the development of the required parking and landscaping improvements to the site. 4. Category IV screening shall be installed along the eastern and southern property lines. The landscaping along the sides of the property shall begin at the intersection of the side lot lines with the .front property line. There shall be a minimum 20-foot landscape bed provided Existing landscaping along the western property line shall be maintained. If the landscaping dies or is replaced, it shall be replaced with Category IV screening. 5. There shall be no more statues installed on the site. All existing statues shall meet the required .front yard, rear yard and side yard setbacks. 6. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan for review and approval. 7. Meditation services are limited to Sundays. 10:00 A.M to 1:00 P.M There shall be no more than twenty (20) individuals, or the number of individuals approved by the Building Official, Fire Official, and Health Department. whichever is less, on the site during services. August 28, 2007 II - 36- Item V-I. 2. PLANNING ITEM #56772 (Continued) 8. Special observances are limited to three events per year: Chinese / Vietnamese New Year (in February), Buddha's Birthday (in May) and another event in late-July / early-August. There shall be no more thanfifty (50) individuals, or the number of individuals approved by the Building Official, Fire Official and Health Department, whichever is less, on the site during services. 9. The applicant shall resubmit an application to the Planning Commission and the City Council for review and approval of the proposed self-standing Meditation Hall. The Meditation Hall is not approved with this Conditional Use Permit. 10. Administrative review shall be conducted periodically by the Zoning Administrator for compliance with the conditions of the use permit. Failure to comply with the conditions shall result in revocation of the use permit. The use permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of City Council approval. 11. There shall be no administrative renewal. Staff shall assist the applicant in locating a new site for this activity. Any new applications shall be subject to Planning Commission review and City Council action. 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 Twenty-eighth of August Two Thousand Seven Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) 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 Wi/son and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None August 28, 2007 BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER Map K-16 M",p Not to Scale ;" Co) ... . Buddhist Education AG I .. America Inc. '0 .. C9 .AG 2 Cl AG-Z Ill< - o~ ModificatIon uf Conditions Relevant Information: · Princess Anne District Evaluation and Recommendation: · Approval with conditions. AG-2 ClC t:? 0 'I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER, Modification of a Conditional Use Permit (religious use), 4177 West Neck Road, PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The applicant, Buddhist Education Center, seeks a Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility with conditions as to the size and scope of the religious services to take place on the property. The property is zoned AG-2 and is a residential lot located among other residential lots near the intersection of West Neck and Princess Anne Roads. The home located on the property is occupied by three monks who also seek to conduct religious services there. On August 28, 2007 the City Council granted a conditional use permit for a religious facility. The permit contained conditions allowing weekly services with up to 20 participants on Sundays and three larger festivals of up to 50 people. This permit was limited to one year with no opportunity for administrative review. On August 26, 2008, the City Council denied a request for a Modification of the 2007 Conditional Use Permit. This modification would have extended the term of the Conditional Use Permit with the other conditions imposed in the 2007 permit remaining in effect. Applicant and others filed suit against the City, alleging that the denial of the modification substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of state and federal law. The parties have reached a proposed settlement that calls for the City Council to consider granting a Conditional Use Permit that allows weekly religious services similar in nature and scope to those approved in the 2007 use permit but requires all other events, including the large festivals, to be conducted off-site. . Considerations: On March 17,2009, the Court entered an agreed stipulation and order, which refers consideration of the more limited Use Permit to the City Council. The Order requires the City to take action by May 1, 2009; therefore, this Modification of Conditions application was advertised for the April 28, 2009 City Council hearing. . Recommendations: Approval of this request is recommended subject to the following conditions: BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER Page 2 of 3 1. Meditation services are limited to Sundays between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. There shall be no more than 20 individuals on the property at any one time during the services. In the event of the death of a temple member of their immediate family, the number of individuals on the site for the service on the Sunday following the death shall not exceed 30 individuals at anyone time. Applicants agree to use reasonable efforts to provide prior notice of any memorial service to the City's zoning office by telephoning the number provided by the City in order to avoid unnecessary zoning enforcement. It is understood that circumstances may arise when applicant will not have advance notice of an increase in attendance for a memorial service, and therefore may be unable to comply in advance with the notice provision. 2. Except as provided in paragraph 1 above, there shall be no religious assemblies, including, but not limited to special observances, festivals, special events, or the like held on the property; there shall be no additional structures or facilities permitted on the site; there shall be no portable toilets or similar temporary facilities on the site, and there shall be no charter buses permitted on the premises save and except accessory structures permitted by right under the City Zoning Ordinance. 3. The number and size of statues on the property shall not be increased. All statues shall meet the required front yard, rear yard and side yard setbacks. 4. Existing landscaping on the property shall be maintained. If the landscaping dies or is replaced, it shall be replaced with similar landscaping. 5. Failure to comply with the conditions contained herein may result in a revocation of the use permit under the procedures set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance. 6. The applicants acknowledge and agree that any expansion of the use or intensity of the use allowed herein would be incompatible with existing land uses in the surrounding area and have an adverse impact upon the properties in the surrounding neighborhood. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval with the stated conditions. BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER Page 3 of 3 Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ~ L%~ BUDDHIST EDUCA TION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 August 13, 2008 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie ~ . ~D '" - AG-' AG-' REQUEST: ."-'udliut/O/1 uf (om/it/om Modification of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on August 27, 2007 for a religious facility ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 4177 West Neck Road GPIN: 24028001350000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 4.058 acres The Conditional Use Permit permitting a religious facility was approved by the City Council on August 27.2007. The Conditional Use Permit has 11 conditions: SUMMARY OF REQUEST 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary alteration permits and a certificate of Occupancy for the change of use from the Department of Planning I Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department before occupancy of the existing building for a religious facility. 2. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Virginia Department of Health for the increased use of the building and any required improvements to the wastewater and water supply systems. 3. The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Department of Planning I Development Services Center for the development of the required parking and landscaping improvements to the site. 4. Category IV screening shall be installed along the eastern and southern property lines. The landscaping along the sides of the property shall.begin at the intersection of the side lot lines with the front property line. There shall be a minimum 20-foot landscape bed provided. Existing landscaping along the western property line shall be maintained. If the landscaping dies or is replaced. it shall be replaced with Category IV screening. 5. There shall be no more statues installed on the site. All existing statues shall meet the front yard, rear yard and side yard setbacks. 6. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan for review and approval. BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Itef'n 4 Page 1 'I 7. Meditation services are limited to Sundays, 10:00 am to 1:00 pm. There shall be no more than 20 individuals, or the number of individuals approved by the Building Official, Fire Official and Health Department, whichever is less, on the site during services. 8. Special observances are limited to three (3) events per year: a. Chinese I Vietnamese New Year (in February), b. Buddha's Birthday (in May), and c. Another event in late July I early August. There shall be no more than 50 individuals, or the number of individuals approved by the Building Official, Fire Official and Health Department, whichever is less, on the site during services. 9. The applicant shall resubmit an application to the Planning Commission and the City Council for review and approval of the proposed self-standing meditation hall. The meditation hall is not approved with this Conditional Use Permit. 10. Administrative review shall be conducted periodically by the Zoning Administrator for compliance with the conditions of the use permit. Failure to comply with the conditions shall result in revocation of the use permit. The use permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of City Council approval. 11. There shall be no administrative renewal. Staff shall assist the applicant in locating a new site for this activity. Any new applications shall be subject to Planning Commission review and City Council action. The applicant's representative met with the Zoning Administrator in December 2007 regarding Conditions 3, 4, and 6. The Zoning Administrator determined those conditions were intended for the site if it was granted a permanent Use Permit for a religious facility. Thus, those conditions do not have to be met unless the applicant is granted approval for long-term use of the site as a religious facility. Condition 10 limits the duration of the Conditional Use Permit for one (1) year from the date of City Council approval. The applicant is requesting a modification to the time limit and desires to use the site as a religious facility for an additional two (2) years, during which time the applicant will continue searching for a new location for the facility. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A single-family dwelling, used for religious functions on Sundays and three special observances during the year, occupies the site. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: · West Neck Road · Across West Neck Road are single-family dwellings and a plant nursery I AG-2 Agricultural · Farm fields I AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural · Vacant parcell AG-2 Agricultural · Single-family dwelling I Agricultural South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is located within the North Landing River watershed of the Southern Watershed Management Area. There are no significant natural resources or cultural features associated with the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. BUDDHIST EDUCA liON CENTER OF AMERICA,INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 2 IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES There have been no significant impacts to City Services during the past year. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this requested modification, as conditioned below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map identifies this area as agricultural/rural with uses related to farming, forestry, rural residential and other rurally compatible uses. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area, as religious facilities are considered compatible. Evaluation: Staff finds the request to modify the time limit acceptable. The applicant has been unsuccessful in their quest to find another suitable property and is requesting the additional time to locate a site. One (1) complaint, on July 6, 2008, has been received since the conditional use permit was approved on August 28,2007. Apparently, the applicant held a special observance and two (2) buses were parked in the driveway. Staff does not find the request unreasonable and recommends approval of the request. CONDITIONS 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 10 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on August 28, 2007 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 10 of the August 28,2007 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: Administrative review shall be conducted periodically by the Zoning Administrator for compliance with the conditions of the use permit. Failure to comply with the conditions shall result in revocation of the use permit. The use permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of City Council approval. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes 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. BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 3 AERIAL OF SITE LoeA TION BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 4 ""--"" TIll$. 1S 'to ~ nlAT ON lICM)lllEll lB. 2003. I SUJlI/MO n. ~ _ ANI) 1HM 1IiE llUj: tJIO Me !lH'I'SlCH. ~ ME SHOWN ON 'll1l! PlAT~.~..::~J!:!i~ PU,T S'IRICl1.'l' WlIHIN. '!HE TITLt ~tS l1l<<I THEN: HIt. !Ill ~ OR ~ ~~ """...II]S STANn THE RESlCEl<<:E !tIOWH IlEREOII AI'l'rARll '1'0 lIE III fUlOO ZONE -x:' ,"-~ f\lIM WAP 0ITl' Or YIIIGJN/A lIEACt1 CQt.IIOl\l1'IY NO. 515531 WI' lItV\Sll)Il, 00:. II. 1088 PANa NO. QIl8.4 E 1Ii1S SUII\IEl' PERFORfllED WITI\IllIT 'TIlE: _ Q$' A 'II1l..&: R!llOfI1'. HUlt: $1llt PlIOl'Elm UIG ARE 'SHOWN SliORrel:D 'lO FIr SHEff 5lZE AN/) .ARE lWT 10 $41tU.. ~,. --- _:~ ~ ::;;-- 'li f ~t. v LOT I I LOU \ ~ ). I ~ I ~ \ a '" Jr- . I ~ I l; I: 'i ;J -.eo ,'. <<f l)I\/f'llll.LIl. ISIIlrG8'WE 2BO.OO' WEST NECK ROAD (10') . PHYSICAL SURVEY OF' 4177 WEST NECK ROAD. VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA lOT 2 PRoPW~IONd,.,~1r AU ....B. 'S!. p. .19 . Jl'OR~ ROSEMARY l<EATINCl _'~~...c. -- OAIli'_:lI'l._ I .... ;101. ,.. 19 JlIIIl" "2'" EXISTING PHYSICAL SURVEY BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 5 'I EXISTING STRUCTURE BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 6 Map K-16 M<'lp Not to Scale Buddhist Education AGI ... AG-2 110: = l? D '0 - "' ., . c 0 orJ ~. t:::l c:::J 7' U . . AG-2 .~ Modification of Conditiol1S There have been no rezonings or conditional use permits approved in the immediate area in the past year. ZONING HISTORY BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 7 z <=> I . !< C-' I . ......:t =-- ~ CI"::;J ~ I I H ~ C-' ~ <=> Z <=> I t !< C-' . . ~ , . ~ <=> =s DISCLOSURE STATEM APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If me applicant is a corporation pannershlp. firm business or other unmcorporated organization compfete the folloWIng 1. Ust the applicant name fallowed by the names of all officers members trustees partners, etc below. (AUBefl fist If necessary! Buddhist Education Center of America. Incorporated Thanh Gong Ql..\i.H\, Cim; Van f'ham 8.11h lnnh. 1.&& .Jgi:lFl t.4iFlR amI Tl:lwy TRi 9),,1:\ Wgl/yell 2. Ust ait nusmesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity" relationship with the applicant. (A/tach list tf necessary) nia o 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 foHowed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, ete below: (Attach Itst if necessary) Thanh Cong Dean 2. list all bUSinesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entity" relationship with the appUcant. (Attach list if necessaryJ nia o Check here if the property owner IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, bUSiness, or other unincorporated organization. 1 2 & See next page for footootes Does an offie/alor employee of the.9t1 of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes _ No L- If yes, what is the name of the officla! or employee and the nature of their interest? ~{ht:.&b;.:m 01 C~lh0n'sAf,:.~ncatM)fl lC 0111 'r~:VG7 BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 8 CLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES list all known contractors or busmesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, inclutling but not limited to the providers of architectural services real estate services-, financial services, accounting services> and legal services (Attach list if necessary} See attached List 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship' means "a reialtonsFup that exists when one corporation directly or Indirectly owns shares poss6ssmg more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation' See State and Local GOl/emment Conftfct of Interests Act Va Code ~ 22-3101 ; -Affiliated bUSiness entity relationShip" means a relatlonsl'np other than parent- subSidiary relationship, that eXIsts when (i) one business entity has a controliing ownership Interest in the other business entity, (ill a oontroUing owner in one entity is also a contro!lmg owner in the other entity, or (iil) there is shared management or control between the bustness entities. Factors that should be conSIdered in determinmg the existence of an affiliated I business entity relatIonship InClude that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entfltes; there are common or commmgled funds Or assets, the bUSiness entitieS share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share actMlies resources or personnel on a regular baSIS or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entitles" See State and Local Goyernment Conlhct of Interests Act. Va Code S 2.2-3101 CERTIFICATION: I certify thatlne mformahoo conlained herein is true and accurate 11.lMffistand that upon reoolpt of notification (postcardl that the app1icaboo has !:leen SCheduled for pubHe hear:n9> I am responsible lor obta,mng and PC$(ing lhe 'e.qvired sIgn on the suole';! property a1 leasl 30 days pnor to lhe scheduled public heanng according to the instructions ''1 IhlS package The underSigned a\so consents to entry upon the subject pro~rt... by employees of the Department of Pllll10mg to photograph and View the sile for purposes of processmg and evaluating thiS apphcalton ~!i ~~_/+t _ .. 'l{ Thanh Cong Ooan. Olfector Pnn\ Name Thanh Cong Donn Pnnt Name ,/'I ~1t-- ~.z>~""er.--" / i_ u.-..... ,;,ll,,~ A.ppficanfs Signature Property Owners S.gnatum (if different than applicant) Mndi~caU"f\ of CWO"iMO .Apphta!!OO 1101'11 7r3lZOC"~ z <=> 1 I ~ c:....:> J I ~ ~ ea c:.I":) z ,~ i,-, J I E-t I C 52 <=> c:....:> ~ <=> Z <=> . t ~ c:....:> I C ~ I I ~ ~O ::s BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda ItefT! 4 Page 9 I I I I :; : : :::: .. .. '~ :~' ~ ~ .: ~ ;~ ~ ~ 1 _ ~ ~ ''\ .r ~ .' ~ ,- "'..~ '\0 ". ""', ,. . .,.. , .~ ...'. ~.... ... ." ,.... . . ,# t ?" '", ,Y . ... "'... '" .. .~.- TO aiNH DONG H 'NG _~ _ ~~~~:" 4177 West Neck Rd, VtrglMlBoactt VI glOl<l 23456.3861 ",,:,~~..f :'1(. '::.;' ". Phone! Fax (751) 669-3408.E.mall ~.11i.2:1~11.@.YJ;L1Jm cnm .. -:-: :... r.......? __, ._"__ <:-> IJST OF PEOPLE WHO WO FOR TKMJ>L.~ 1. DRIVEWAY - COl\TRACTOR: MR RODGER GRE(iORY, PH (757) 435...8456 2. LANDSCA.PING: - MR. SCOTI DILATUSH (AR'nST TN THE UARD ~. PH (757) 721 - 6900 - MR. TrEN LE, PH. (757) 510.4292 3. W.ELL - PLUMM1NG: MR BRUCE, PH (757) 467.4210 4. AC REPAIRING: - MR. TII0NU. PH (751) 553 - 0874 - CH"RlS' MECHANICAL SERViCe, INC. PH (757) 36 -1935 5. ELECTRlCITYREPAIRTNG: TUO TRAN, PH, (157) ~93 - 9938 6. CPA: . MR. E. WAYNe BOST AIN, CPA PH (751) 486 - 67 7 - MSS, THAD TON (PROFESSIONAL INCOME T SERVICE), PH. (703) 532 -.5125 7. P API!;R WORK: Due Pllfu\1. PH. (751) 305 ~ 7498 S.LA WYERS: t. STAJJNGS& al~CHOFF, PC. PH. (757)422-470 - KHVIN W. BRUNICK, PH. (7S7}375 . 2438 - TARIQ K LOUKA, PH. (757)589-2243 2. I,AN Quoe NGUYEN & ASSOCIATES. Pit (714 9. ADT SECURITV: PIL (157) 852 - 5016 THOMAS E. BRTCKERS. PH. (757j 536-0286 10. WEB DESIGNER: ALAN l':OtJYEN. PH. (714) 839 -4000 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 10 (J Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Modification of Conditions 4177 West Neck Road District 7 Princess Anne August 13, 2008 REGULAR Janice Anderson: I will ask our secretary to call the only item that we have on the regular agenda. Donald Horsley: Thank you Madam Chairman. The application is Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc., for a Modification of Conditions for a request approved by City Council on August 28,2007. The property is located at 4177 West Neck Road, District 7, Princess Anne. Janice Anderson: Mr. Fine. C ../ Morris Fine: Ms. Anderson, Planning Chairwoman and other members of the Planning Commission. I represent the Buddhist Temple, who is asking that the Use Permit be extended for a period of two years. Ed Weeden: I'm sorry. I need your name for the record? Morris Fine: Morris Fine. I am a local attorney. This matter was before the City Council, as you heard, one year ago, August 28,2007. They granted on the very same conditions that are going to be before you a one year Use Permit. The conditions that existed then that granted that permit, are the same ones that are here today. What the Buddhists want to do is to keep the status quo. As a background of this matter so that you will know, Buddhists had a place of worship on Kempsville Road that was subject to eminent domain, and it was taken from them. I'm some naivete, they decided they would buy the piece of property that they bought. They paid $950,000 for this piece of property. Well, since they paid that, the property has gone upside down in value. And so, they were sort oflocked in. They couldn't sell the property and get enough money to relocate. That was the reason with the conditions that were granted by the City Council, that the City Council gave them the permit to operate for a year. Well, the fair market value of all residential real estate has fallen even further. It is probably in a free fall, and the values have continued to go down, and they don't have the ability, financially, to go out and buy something else. So, they're asking that this Use Permit be extended. And, they are only asking the status quo, and as I indicated to you, the very same conditions that were before the City Council are here before you now. They may, and you hear probably some opposition to this. They may pray in a little different manner than a great majority of us here, but they are very quiet, reticent people who, I don't think, interfere in any way with the neighbors that are there. The conditions say it would be on Sunday morning between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., and I think that is basically true. There are only c) c~, o Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 2 25 people that can come. I think only, from what I understand 10 - 15 people come to worship. They worship at their home, and it is quiet. There is no alcohol. There are no big celebrations taking place. And, they come and they go. They are not intrusive. There are three times a year that they have celebrations. And the City Council put a cap on 50 people coming there. These celebrations, and there is one in February. It is the Chinese New Year. Then they have another time that they have a Mother's Day celebration, and then some other celebration. But, those times are also in the morning and it is 10:00 to 2:00, and there are no more than 50 people. I have met with the neighbor, who I must say is very open and a good neighbor. He opposes this. I understand his position, but it isn't anything that can be done by these people who use this house as their place of worship. And, I don't think the residential market is going to come back probably for 4 or 5 years, but certainly not two years, which is what is being asked for an extension. Ultimately, this matter is going to come before the City Council in a couple of weeks, and I would ask you to endorse what they did before, and let the City Council hear it again in a couple of weeks. I must say further, that the staff, who has been very cooperative with everybody and listened to everybody, has heard this, and they have urged the approval of this application. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Fine? Kathy? Kathy Katsias: Has the house been actively marketed for sale? Morris Fine: No. It has not. It is just impossible to get anything near that value for that house. I mean that house is not worth it. About a year ago, it may have been worth $750,000, but I doubt that it is worth much more than $500,000 at the present time. I mean the value of real estate and residential real estate is just in a free fall. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Any other questions at this time? Joseph Strange: Is there any reason why they haven't listed with a real estate agent? I mean you say it is impossible but most people try. Morris Fine: I have not gotten any indication why they haven't, but they haven't. But I think the City Council acknowledged and it largely in their hands. They were the ones that granted the year. They acknowledge that it was an upside down situation, and that they couldn't do anything about that. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Fine. Morris Fine: Thank you. Donald Horsley: We have another speaker in support. Samantha Niezgoda. Ct Morris Fine: She is with the monks of the Buddhist church. () c) () Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 3 Janice Anderson: She doesn't want to speak? Do they want to stand up and be recognized? Thank you. Genez Malebranche: I can clarify why they haven't listed the property for sale. I didn't ask to speak today. Janice Anderson: You can come up ma'am. We'll get a card filled out. Morris Fine: Please identify yourself. Genez Malebranche: My name is Genez Malebranche. I don't represent them in anyway, but I'm familiar with the piece of property. I live past them, and I have been going by there for years. I used to be a real estate agent. And I know for a fact that when a house is put on the market for sale, and somebody contracts to buy it, and requires a loan to complete the sale, the house has to be appraised, and the appraised value has to meet with the sales price in order for the new people to get the loan. So, if they purchased it at $900,000, and now, it is not going to be able to be appraised for more than $500,000 or $600,000, the loan amount wouldn't be approved, and there are not a whole lot of buyers out there with an extra $400,000 that they're going to want to sink into a house. You see, it really doesn't make any sense if these people need that full $900,000 back in order to buy another piece of property. What good is it for them to put it on the market for that when it won't appraise for anything near that? You see what I'm saying? That's the situation. It would be a waste of the realtor's time and effort, and it wouldn't make any sense for them to try to put it on the market if they got to get their $900,000 back in order to turn around and buy another piece of property. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Barry Knight: Jan? Janice Anderson: Ma'am? Mr. Knight has a question or a comment. Barry Knight: You said that you were in the real estate business? Genez Malebranche: I had been. Yes, several years ago. Barry Knight: So, you're somewhat knowledgeable. My thought is that in a high market if you get top dollar and then, you turn around and want to buy something else, you have to pay top dollar. So you have a differential. But if you have to take less money than generally, you can buy something else for less money; so, you still have the same differential. Genez Malebranche: Then you still got to pay the bank. If they still have a loan that they're paying off, and say it is $800,000 loan, and they can only get $500,000 for the property, then they still owe the bank $400,000. You know what I'm saying? And then they have to turn c::' o () '[ Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 4 around and buy another place that they also would be making payments on. Is there anybody else? Janice Anderson: Thank you ma'am. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker is in opposition. Donna Franken. Donna Franken: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Donna Franken. My husband Dan and I live immediately adjacent to the applicant's residence on West Neck Road. If you would like, I can show you where we live. Janice Anderson: Yes please. Donna Franken: I hope I don't have to use a pointer. Janice Anderson: Ma'am. The little pointer right there. Donna Franken: We live right there (pointing to PowerPoint). Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Donna Franken: Last summer, Council voted that the applicant's house, which was being used as a religious enterprise, cease its operations. Council did grant one year for the applicants to find a suitable location. I have really lost confidence in the Planning Department. The Commission needs to vote "no" on continuing further extensions. Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Franken. Donald Horsley: Okay. Our next speaker is Daniel Franken. Daniel Franken: Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Macali, Mr. Whitney, and all your staff. I'm Daniel Franken, Donna's husband. I want to first of all make some comments about the comments that Mr. Fine made while they're fresh, and then I have a short set of comments spoken in manner of representing the people who are in opposition to this application. But for those that are here in opposition, please rise. Thank you. There is a much larger group that signed a petition a year ago. And, I'm becoming ad hock leader of this group of people in opposition to this for, I would say, for strategic reasons. I won't go over last Council session, but we really don't want this to be the start of something in that particular area of the country that leads to things that have instates that none of us want. And that is where it is all coming from. Council illuminated all the issues last year and vigorously debated the subject, and I would say gave the applicant a yellow light, which would turn red in a year. The first discussions were for six months, and some people stepped forward, including myself and said a year sounds acceptable. None of us knew then the rate of decline in the market for sure, but I'm not sure C"\ C) ('~\ ....... Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 5 that's our job. But I did want to allow the applicant some reasonable opportunity to look, not only for an alternative site, but maybe just maybe an alternative site for their education center. And I want to touch on that right now. We're always talking about having to sell tius place and go elsewhere. They are our neighbors and I say that in the most positive light, and I said last year, and I'll say it here again today, I hope they can remain our neighbors. I don't know what you call a parsonage for a Buddhist church, but it is an ideal place for the Master Monk and his staff to live. And, I would think with the market right now, it would also be a wonderful opportunity to find a perfect place for their education center. Now, the Planning Department. I know they go to work everyday planning to do a good job. And they work very hard. I know how hard they are to run down and get a hold of. It is amazing to me how after what Council said last year, as a matter of record, they would come up and recommend a two year extension. And, perhaps irrelevant is an issue as the market is bad. I hope we're not getting into that business. Incidentally, Mr. Fine said that occupancy of the applicant went from Kemspville to here. There was an intermediate stop along the way somewhere down in Creeds, I believe. So, I'm sure they have been told something by real estate agents and people have sold them things along the way, but I don't believe that is our business to worry about why they got where they're at, and I think it is a good opportunity to get an alternative site. On a more recent relevant basis, all of the conditions that were set out last year have practically been violated. The numbers of people per service on Sunday, and we're not talking about something that lasts from 11 :00 a.m. to noon, we're talking about 3 to 4 hour blocks where people are coming and going. We're talking about exceeding the red line that was set for special events. These are photos, Madam Chair, from last week, of just the cars that are on each side of the yard. I stopped counting at 50. So, Mr. Whitney, someone on your staff is giving you bad information. I live right there day in and day out. The resident, the occupant, clearly intended to move in there and flip this house into an education center without getting any beforehand sanction from the City for any kind of a Conditional Use Permit, and immediately starting moving in artifacts and statues, and putting in an expanded driveway of mismatched cement, thousand feet of concrete, to facilitate cars parking and tour bus driving on it, all without any sanction from the City whatsoever. It was only when we complained about crowds that increased from 20 one week, to 30 cars to 50 to 100 to porti-potties, that the applicant then sought a Use Permit. So, I will state again that I would love if they would remain to be neighbors, but the Council has already elucidated all the reasons why they don't want this to be a religious facility in a house that is zoned and is built to be a house. So, I urge that you forward to Council a "no" vote, and we give the current applicant time to find a suitable facility. I think two years is out of the question. And, something much less would be much more reasonable given the circumstances. I have not seen a for sale sign in the yard nor have I heard from City Planning what they have done to help the applicant find an alternative site. I would imagine the market would be rich with opportunities right now. Thank you for your time. And are there any questions? Janice Anderson: Go ahead Henry Livas. Henry Livas: Would you be agreeable to a one year extension? c~> C) c.:) 'I Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 6 Daniel Franken: I would be agreeable to a one year extension ifthe applicant would confirm that no further extension would be sought. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions for Mr. Franken? Daniel Franken: And within the limits currently set and they would abide by them. Henry Livas: That could be added in the conditions. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Franken. Bill Macali: I'm not sure that you can require the applicant not to apply as Mr. Franken said. The applicant can confirm that but as a binding condition. I don't think you can say that they're not entitled to apply. Janice Anderson: Okay. They can be put into the minutes that this is the intent that there would be no more renewals. Something to that can be put in the minutes. Bill Maca1i: Yes absolutely. As well as the applicants affirming that they won't. Janice Anderson: But it couldn't be a condition. I see what you mean. Bill Maca1i: Right. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker is Judy Hoffenberger. Judy Hoffenberger: Good afternoon. I'm Judy Hoffenberger. Excuse me. I live at 4021 Dawley. I just wanted to let you all know that I've seen this residence grow. And, I expected this Spring to see a for sale sign, which I did not see. And, it was very disappointing to see another Conditional Use sign. The bottom line, as I see it, is rules are rules. We need to follow them. And, homeowners expect them to be upheld, and to preserve, as we said earlier, the value of our homes. And, we need to stick to that. This is not a business area. It's residential and agriculture. And we should remember that. So, I hope you do. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Hoffenberger. Are there any questions of Ms. Hoffenberger? Go ahead Dave. David Redmond: I didn't understand the point about the value of your homes. Could you expand on that a little bit? Judy Hoffenberger: To preserve the value of our homes. I feel that if we allow businesses to start cropping up next to our homes, it could devaluate of our homes. c> Ci C. '\ i ,,,j Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 7 David Redmond: In what way is this a business? Judy Hoffenberger: It's a religious organization. I believe it says Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc., and it has grown. David Redmond: But it is a non-profit religious church. Isn't it? Is a Catholic church a business? Is a Baptist church a business? Is any other church a business? Judy Hoffenberger: I still believe it is a business. It is running. It is making money. David Redmond: Ijust find that's a precarious definition of what churches do. Judy Hoffenberger: Well, basically, they are. It is my opinion that they do believe in religion. They preach the Gospel and things like that, but they have a budget that they have to have, so that is why I feel they are a business, and when you put "Inc." behind it, that kind of helps it. David Redmond: Do they sell goods and services to turn a profit. Judy Hoffenberger: I don't know. David Redmond: That is what businesses do Judy Hoffenberger: You are correct there. David Redmond: I think you're being a hard on them with the term of business. I'm not aware that they are a profit-making enterprise or conducting any sort of business out of there other than the fact that people go there to worship. I'm not sure that is real fair. Judy Hoffenberger: The religious part has nothing to do with it. It is zoned the way it is and I just want it kept that way. David Redmond: Okay. Thank you. Judy Hoffenberger: To protect our values. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you ma'am. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker is Michelle Fryman. Michelle Fryman: Good afternoon ladies and gentleman. I live on West Landing Road, which runs off of West Neck Road on a very small farm. We purchased our home and the residence that we live in about 7 or 8 years ago because of the generations and my husband's family that have lived in Pungo. And, we purchased it in an effort to continue what we were purchasing. A home in an agricultural area that we wanted to maintain and that is what we (H' 'I Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 8 chose to be surrounded by. In an effort not to repeat everything that has already been said. When the family purchased this single family home, the idea was to purchase a home, not to purchase a temple. It is not about how they pray. They are very respectful. I ran into them in Sandbridge and in different areas. The idea is to preserve and kind of keep that status quo of a single-family dwelling in a residential and agricultural area. A year ago when we met here and they were given the one. year permit and asked to try to :find a new place to build the temple, the market wasn't as low as it was now. And they could have started to put it for sale or listed it a year ago, and would have had a better chance at making a lot of the money that they still owed. The world is too expensive to keep coming back and fighting the same :fight over and over again. So, I hope you uphold a lot of our beliefs and keep the single-family home the way it is, the way it was intended, and possibly having the City offer them assistance in finding a temple in a place that is designed for that. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Fryman. Are there any questions for Ms. Fryman? Thank you. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker is Carol Lobos. Carol Lobos: My name is Carol Lobos, and I live at 4132 West Neck Road. This is a few doors up and across the street from the parishioners. I am opposed to the building at 4177 being used as a religious facility. I, like the other people here, feel it should be made a ("') residence. It was a residence to begin with, and I think the building should just remain as "-.;:- such. We have lived at West Neck about 8 years. The reason we moved there. It is a lovely area. And I never in a million years would have thought, because it was agricultural residential. And I just feel it is owned that way, and that is the way it should be kept. And, there were so many people the other day there, as you saw in the pictures with the cars. There are ditches on both sides. It is just waiting for an accident to happen if they have a lot of people coming there. But I just am in agreement with_ the other lady that just spoke. I thank you very much. (~) Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Lobos. Are there any questions for Ms. Lobos? Thank you ma'am. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker is Louis Cullipher. Louis Cullipher: Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Louis Cullipher. Becky and I reside at 1449 Princess Anne Road and or place is just beneath the word America. Weare separated by 500 feet but the parcel ofland that is sandwiched in, the piece that is just below the yellow rectangle (pointing to PowerPoint), my son and I farm. So, we're familiar with the property. My comments also represent my son Mike and his wife Jane, who cannot be here today, and they reside at 2088 Jarvis Road. We oppose the request for a two year extension for the following reasons. In recent years, the City has strived to identifY features that distinguished one community from another to make different parts of the City unique and enhance the quality oflife for alL One such community is Pungo Ridge, which surrounds the applicant. Generally, this area is darted with well maintained two-story ('J ............ () ~"J l,: Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 9 fann houses. Most buildings were constructed in the early 1900s. This is a working landscape, which is the only memory left of what the City was like in the 20s and 30s. The City just published a publication "50 Most Historical Significant Homes and Structures in Virginia Beach" and one structured listed in this publication is about a mile from this area. The request for two year extension of the residence for a large religious education center is not consistent with existing land use or the view shed nor their expectations of a rural citizens. It has been one year since City Council granted the application, a Conditional Use Permit for one year and was specific no staff renewal. City Council also asked city staff to assist in locating a new site for the facility. There were several other stipulations regarding the number of people. That is already mentioned from 10:00 to 1 :00. The numbers were limited to 25 individuals at anyone time, three special events up to 50. It was also asked that the Development Service Center (DSC) approved the parking and the landscape. Staff worked with the applicant with was also requested by City Council to locate. What data do they have regarding the number of individuals? Do we know how many people were there? This also applies for the special events. Has the applicant made a sincere effort to acquire suitable zoned parcels? Have realtors been contacted? I think we heard some insight on that. Are the contracts negotiated or signed? My belief is that the applicant has made little or no effort to relocate during the past year. I believe that City Council sent a strong signal regarding an extension when they specified that City staff could not grant an extension. It was an 11-0 vote. The community has not complained. I understand that in the write up that I just read there is one complaint, but personally I have not complained when I saw the tour buses and I saw the large number of vehicles, and perhaps the statues more in the front yard then it used to be because I was confident that the Planning staffwas monitoring this. Evidently that is not the case. Maybe our expectations were too high. We have no reason to believe that the mandate from City Council was accomplished at all. For these and other reasons you have heard, I request that you deny this application. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Mr. Cullipher? Go ahead. Donald Horsley: Mr. Cullipher, would you entertain any length of time for these people to get out honestly and try to find a relocation? Louis Cullipher: I guess they've had a year. I don't see any evidence that they have done anything frankly, Mr. Horsley. In wisdom of this body and Council to want to give them a few more months, but I mean if the past record is any insight of what is going to happen in the future, nothing is going to happen. In my view, nothing has been done. The strategy is not to relocate. Donald Horsley: Thank you. Louis Cullipher: Thank you very much Madam Chair. Janice Anderson: Thank you. C".'. Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 10 Donald Horsley: There are no other speakers. Janice Anderson: Is there anyone who didn't have an opportunity to sign up, if they could come forward, and we'll be happy to hear you. Please, just one at a time. We'll get you to sign up. We'll get a card. Welcome sir. Jackie Hembree: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Please state your name. Jackie Hembree: Jack Embry. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. (-) '---" Jackie Hembree: Thank you Madam Chairman and Commissioners. I live at 2080 Jarvis Road. I have been there for over 30 years. The reason why I came to this area to live was because of the well-maintained homes, wonderful people and the quietness and peacefulness of this area. I have not been disappointed until now. In my opinion, it looks like a junkyard with all the statues and everything out in front. Like it was said before, they have not met the things required by the City Council when they approved their thing back a year ago. I don't think there should be an extension. I think you should vote "no" today. I thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Hembree. Are there any questions for Mr. Hembree? Thank you sir. I believe there was another lady. Yes ma'am? Welcome. C':.. Samantha Niezgoda: I'm Samantha Niezgoda, and I'm in support of the monks. I would like to clarify a few things that I have heard. First of all, it is not a business. And they seem to think it is some hig huge school because of the title that it has as an education center. These are Vietnam Buddhists. They have a small amount of mostly Vietnamese people that come there to learn about their religion basically. There are some English American people that come as well to learn about it. And, on a typical Sunday, it is between 15 to 20 people. What Mr. Franken was referring to last Sunday was one of the larger celebratory events. They keep mentioning tour buses. That was a one time event where one person who lived in North Carolina came to see the Master. It was not a continual thing. As far as the house looks, most of the people that I know that have gone by or come there, it looks like a home with Asian inspired ornamentation. I'm sure you all agree that you've been in homes in your own neighborhoods where you live and grew up, or you think their ornamentation are tacky, and wouldn't agree with your personal preference. But I don't think they are in any way offensive, at least not to me but to other people they would be. Also, it is very interesting even with Mr. Franken, and the other people. This is no way they are interfering with them. For Mr. Franken, and his family to see how many people are there, he would have to walk quite a long ways, about a half a football field away, and go on their property to see how many people. It is not really visible from his property, and they are very quiet. I also have photos here of homes that are churches in Virginia Beach. So, I think the Planning Commission should vote "yes" and allow them to be here for two more years. C".', Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 11 Janice Anderson: if you would like us to review those photos, we would be happy to. You can hand them to Mr. Redmond. Samantha Niezgoda: Absolutely. Some of these are also photos right down the road from, actually they are right next door to Mr. Franken, which is a trailer park, which is an industrial place. I would think that would bring property values down more so than a very nice home with Asian inspired ornamentation. So, some of those are those photos. The other photos are houses that are churches or huge churches that are right next to a residential home right in Virginia Beach, very close to the same area where the temple is. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am. Samantha Niezgoda: Okay. Janice Anderson: Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? Ma'am, do you have something new to say? Genez Malebranche: Yes. I do. I have something new to say. Janice Anderson: Yes ma'am. (-- ~) ~:~~:nt~:~~~e~~~~ o~:~~~~;l~~~~:n:: ~~~: p:~t:~~gy~~~~ :~~1:~:~:: put up a new building on Princess Anne Road that is relatively close to the Buddhist temple. There is a church that's south of West Neck Road on Princess Anne Road that has recently constructed; a very large building that they use as a school. That's the specific use of the building. And, as she just pointed out, and I won't repeat what she said about some of the other businesses that are in the area. But there is also a structure across the street and just to the west on West Neck Road that is about to fall down, and it has been there, and I don't know how many years, but ever since, I've been driving up and down the road. And I would . think that things like that would be more of a concern as far as property values are concerned then the Buddhist temple, which still for the most part looks like a singleMfamily dwelling. That's my comment. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Phil. Philip Russo: Ma'am, are you able to speak on behalf of the organization? My question is does the organization, if you know have any particular milestones as far as relocation? Genez Malenbranche: I don't know. I'm sorry. Philip Russo: A general timetable? (~~; Genez Malenbranche: I don't know. C~', Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 12 Janice Anderson: We'll bring Mr. Fine back up. Maybe he can answer that. Philip Russo: That may be more appropriate for Mr. Fine. Okay. Thank you. Genez Malenbranche: Sure. Janice Anderson: Excuse me ma'am? Joseph Strange: To your knowledge, are any of these buildings in any type of violation of zoning? Genez Malenbranche: The buildings that I just mentioned? No. Joseph Strange: Do they not have the property permits? Genez Malenbranche: Not that I know of. No. Joseph Strange: So they are within the boundary. Genez Malenbranche: They are all legal. I'm sure they jumped through all the legal hoops that they needed to before they built their structures. But those were new structures that were C) being built and had to be approved before they could be constructed. Joseph Strange: But they all have the right permit? Genez Malenbranche: As far as I know. Yes. Janice Anderson: Thank you ma'am. Mr. Fine. Oh, there is one more? Donald Horsley: One more lady over here. Janice Anderson: Okay. Please come. I didn't see you earlier. Thank you. Welcome. Sara Hembree: Good afternoon Planning Commissioner members. I'm Sara Hembree. My husband just spoke Jack. We live on Jarvis Road. We have been there for 30 years. I feel that this should be in opposition to the religious ceremony. I think it really should stay the way we asked last year. It seems they had a year to make up their mind if they wanted to move, and it seems they have not made any move to do this. So, I would just ask you to wrap it up and say no. I feel this is the way it should be done. Janice Anderson: Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that I missed? Okay Mr. Fine. c) Morris Fine: Mr. Russo, in answer to your question in my conversations with the Buddhist people and Sam, who spoke to you. We have not discussed a plan in order to sell it because C"'} " c) C') Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 13 the market is so bad it would be fruitless. I hear what you're saying. You would like at least have a for sale sign up, and I will certainly counsel them to approach a real estate agent or perhaps put a for sale on the premises, and see what can be done. Obviously, we need some time, a large amount of time probably for bringing something to fruition on an upside situation that they owe more than what it is worth. Philip Russo: I can appreciate your problem, but with any organization, whether it is a business or not, they are in a difficult position. They still need to do some planning to make a bad situation less bad. Morris Fine: I will certainly counsel them. We will take steps to do that. Philip Russo: Let me ask you also. Do they have any numbers as for whether or not their congregation has grown over that past year? Morris Fine: In my conversations with them, they adhere pretty much to the conditions. From what I'm told, the numbers that were granted to them on Sundays. You know they only go from 10:00 to 1 :00 and then staggered, and I think it is a maximum of25 on Sunday. I'm told that it was 10 to 15 people that come and that it staggered. Then on these three holidays they have a maximum of 50. And, that is also staggered. That is from 10:00 to 2:00 on those particular days. I don't think that anyone is saying that is an offense to what they are doing. I guess they don't want a church, a religious facility there. I guess maybe it isn't what was envisioned by the people that have opposed it. But we do need an extension. They need an extension. It isn't like they're offensive. I just don't they are, but I will counsel them and get a plan on this. Janice Anderson: Kathy? Kathy Katsias: Mr. Fine, with those pictures that we saw oflast Sunday's services, was that one of the holidays. Morris Fine: Yes. That was one of the holidays. Kathy Katsias: So, would they object to letting the City staff know when the holidays will occur or what day? Morris Pine: I think the City already knows it. Kathy Katsias: It says sometime in February, sometime in May, but a specific date. Morris Pine: We will get them specific dates. Sure. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Go ahead AI. ("'; ---'" Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 14 Al Henley: Mr. Fine, I seem to remember last year, I believe you made a statement that ideally, that the monks would prefer to move back to Kempsville, because that was originally their home. Is that true? Morris Fine: I wasn't here last year. I didn't represent them at that time. I don't know what was said. Al Henley: Do you know where they would prefer to move being that they are looking for another location? Morris Fine: I haven't gone into that with them. I honestly haven't. So, I can't represent to you what area they would like to go. I know they were happy where they were, and then eminent domain. The property was taken from them by the City for the expansion of the road they were on. Al Henley: Do you believe your clients will be willing to look for in another location for the education facilities, possibly renting another location, and at least giving them the opportunity to have those education facilities at another location, and the head monk. and his staff would remain to live at the same location but they would actively need an education facility to be located elsewhere in a rental facility until they could find a pennanent home? () Morris Fine: I've discussed that with them and I don't think that is feasible. I think from a standpoint of their religion, they pray where they live. And, that is part oftheir religion. That is their temple, from what I understand. So, from a religious standpoint, they don't break: it up. They couldn't have a storefront and have an education center separately. That is my understanding anyway. Al Henley: Okay. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Joe. Joseph Strange: What about these people that go there? They are not praying in their home. You say they only pray in their home? Morris Fine: They pray in this home. This home is the home of the Master Monk, and there are several other monks that live there. They come there on a Sunday as people go to church. And they go between 10:00 and 1 :00, and they pray at that time. It is my understanding. Janice Anderson: Kathy? Morris Fine: It might not be the same religion as you and I have, but that is what their religion is. (~', Joseph Strange: I don't think this was about religion. I don't think. anybody is trying to -' make that they're Buddhist an issue. I didn't hear anybody bring that up except you. C~'; Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 15 Morris Fine: No, except I'm saying it is different. It is different and it is hard. I don't understand it. I'm unacquainted with the Buddhist religion, so it is different for me. It is a different culture. I don't fully understand it. Joseph Strange: I don't think anybody has brought that up but you. Moms Fine: Right. Joseph Strange: That is what I'm saying. Janice Anderson: Kathy, you had a question? Kathy Katsias: I wanted to ask Ms. Christie something. She mentioned this morning that they had called and requested some information on several pieces of property that they were considering. Could you elaborate on those properties? Faith Christie: I don't have that information with me. I can provide that between now and Council though. Kathy Katsias: Okay. But they were not suitable. c) Faith Christie: Right. Kathy Katsias: Okay. Yes. That would be a good idea. Janice Anderson: I believe Gene had a question. C) Gene Crabtree: Mr. Fine, I don't think this is about religion. I lived in a oriental country for four years. I had a Buddhist temple less than 100 yards or 500 yards from my home. I'm familiar with what they do, how they live, and normally the Buddhists don't live in their temple. There were times when they were very quiet. There were times when they were very noisy. I think this issue is the fact that last year Council gave them one year to comply with certain conditions and to do certain things. It seems to be some controversy as to where these things have been accomplished or not. Apparently, some of them have not. They have had one full year. And at the end of their meeting last year in August, they had in September put a sign up for sale when the market was still up. I dort't think anyone sitting here right now could complain or could fault them for that. And the conditions clearly say that failure to comply with these conditions of any of these shall result in immediate revocation of the Use Permit. Prom where I stand from day one, those conditions have not been met or at least some of them haven't. So, therefore, it is just doesn't make any difference what religion it is. H has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. It's the fact that this group of people who are requesting a Conditional Use Permit in a residential area to another use have not complied with what they were told to comply with last year. Now they're asking for two years. From my standpoint of view, they have violated it and it should be revoked at this point. Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 16 (~..) Morris Fine: I hear you. Gene Crabtree: And from experience, I am experienced with the Buddhist religion and their temples. Morris Fine: Alright. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions for Mr. Fine? Thank you. Morris Fine: Thank you. Janice Anderson: I'll open it up for discussion. Donald Horsley: I'll start the discussion off. We had a lengthy discussion on this issue last year when it came forth, and we sent it on to Council. Council passed a Use Permit with one year to get the job done. They could stay there for one year and at the end of the year they should have been relocated. It was stated pretty clearly at the Council meeting this is what was supposed to happen. I think it is a betrayal ofthe citizenry if we don't uphold what decisions are made in the governmental bodies, whether it is here, or at Council. Last year we kind of appreciated the comments of the community, the residents, the neighbors and we said thank you but we think that maybe they need to be allowed to stay there for a year. The {', neighborhood has been very quiet. It has not bothered the residents of this property. \..::7; Because they knew that is was going to end in a year. That is what Council said. And now, all of sudden they see orange signs go up and say what is this all about? Then they start asking questions. Then they start thinking it's a breach of trust in the City government. I don't think this is a good thing for our City. I'm going to have to side with the residents on this. I mean, we've given them ample time for the relocation to occur. I don't think that anybody is having any problem with the people living there. I've been told by some of the residents that they are good neighbors. The people that live there are good neighbors. No problem at all but it is the use of the property in a residential area. When it gets down to it, it's a residential home in an agricultural area, and this use is just not proper for it. So, when time for a motion, I'm going to make a motion that the application be denied based on those comments. Janice Anderson: Are there any other comments? AI. c.\ Al Henley: I'll kind of summarize. I think we do not need to lose the thought of why we're here to begin with. Sometime ago this organization lost a property due to eminent domain at Kempsville where they were originally located. They looked elsewhere. They find a large home in a rural section of Virginia Beach. They purchase that home. They set up their facilities, their educational facilities, and they put a lot of the decorative items in the residential neighborhood. All this was done illegally without going through the property process, City local government. In the meantime, the local residents say, what is going on here? We don't understand. Inquiry is made at City Hall. Long story short, we found that it was an organization that moved into this particular neighborhood. We found out that it was C', ! C" -~) (\ ., Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 17 illegally placed. The land use for this particular location had not been approved for the use of this facility. That is one reason why we're here today because a year ago, they came before this body. We made recommendations. And those recommendations went to Council. Council set the bottom line, and say, these are the conditions. You must look for another place and they agreed to do that along with some other stipulations. We come back before this body a year later and we find out that those conditions, some of those conditions have not been met. And it appears that the organization have not been aggressive to try and locate another facility. I think that is very unfortunate. This particular process whether it be a tattoo parlor, a business organization, another religious facility, you can name the list. It would be the same for those applicants as it would be for these applications. Weare consistent in the land use positions in the City of Virginia Beach and the use of those facilities governing those particular geographical areas in the city. I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood the process while we're here today. We are returning to revisit those same conditions what City Council placed upon the applicant a year ago. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Go ahead Dave. David Redmond: A couple of things. Number one, this was not at all easy a year ago. It is not easier today. I don't expect it is ever going to be very easy. I spoke with Mr. Franken and Ms. Lobos both. I always appreciate the people that take the time to give you a call and talk to you about the agenda items. We had good conversations in both incidences. I sincerely appreciate that. I am unaware of which of these conditions they have not met. I have heard twice now that they have failed to abide by the conditions that were set. I would like to ask the staff if is their opinion if they failed to abide by the conditions that were set. Karen Lasley: Some of the conditions were written as if it was a full-scale long-term church. Some of them shouldn't probably even be here. As far as the number of people there, I had not received any evidence that those had been violated. David Redmond: As I understand it, the event last weekend, which troubled me, the picture of aU those cars was one of the three sanctioned special events it would appear they had. I don't know what it is that they failed to do. Second, we have a number of times granted Conditional Use Permits to people who didn't realize that their religious facility needed a Conditional Use Permit. Earlier this very day, by consent, we granted a Conditional Use Permit to a skateboard ramp in someone's backyard, and he didn't realize he needed a Conditional Use Permit. That doesn't make it illegal, because they didn't know that they had to do it to begin with, and we've done that rather consistently in any number of circumstances. I don't find anything particular earth-shattering that people don't understand that. Lots of people don't, and we deal with. them every month. The Council made a decision that I think they are going to have to make again. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we're trying to require someone not to avail themselves of a right that each, that every one of us has. These people want to come back in a year and request a Conditional Use Permit or a variance or Floodplain variance. They have every right to do that under the law. I think it is kind of unwise and not a terribly good idea to tell people forswear today that you won't avail yourself of the rights that all of us have under the Planning laws. I do not support this C.') () C) Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 18 application as written. I think two years is too long. I would support a one year extension. And I am completely unsurprised that these people don't have a realtor sign on their lawn. It would be a pointless exercise in trying to market this house and expect they could recoup their investment. They can't recoup their investment. They can't pay offthat loan. They can't lease a space. They're paying a mortgage on a $900,000 piece of property that they probably can't get halffor. I just don't see how you do that. It is not a realistic workable solution. Long term, I can't imagine that facility giving all these contingencies remaining in that house doesn't strike me as though they any sort of workable alternative. Their hands are tied financially; so, to expect that they can kind of wave a magic wand, and have themselves a new facility and be able to pay for it, is just asking for something that they can't do anymore than lots of other homeowners who overpaid for a certain piece of property can today. I will offer as an amendment to Mr. Horsley's approval motion allowing them to continue to operate for one year. I think that is reasonable. And very frankly, we'll just toss it right back to Council to have to deal with it. And I don't envy them anymore than any of us do either. It is not an easy thing to do. I think that is fair. I think we would probably all sleep better in that manner. I think Mr. Franken, and he may not like it, but you have indicated that you could live with that. You're welcome to change your mind, if you want to change your mind but that is what I thought I heard you say. Janice Anderson: I'll grab everyone's motion here in a minute. We'111et the discussion in, and then I'll come back to everybody. Go Henry. Henry Livas: Yes. I agree with Dave, and I would want to second the motion whenever we get a chance. We've been talking about Council did one thing last year and conditions haven't changed. That is not true. Conditions have changed. The real estate market has really gone down, and they have met some misfortunes that we couldn't anticipate a year ago. So, that is why I would be for extending their Conditional Use Permit for a year to give them a little bit more time to find another place, and also this eminent domain situation. That is unfortunate. It happens to people; so, therefore, I think we should be a little more understanding of this group since they have had that misfortune in that past. And I'm glad that we clarified the violations, because we have heard mixed stories about how many people have been there on the site. We even had a big deal about the sewage there a year ago. And I understand that is not an issue now. So, I think they should be allowed another year. Janice Anderson: Thank you Henry. Barry? Barry Knight: Mr. Macali, I would like to ask you a question if I can? We are wrestling with this situation where it is rural character and the character of life down there. The neighbors are telling me that they would dearly like to see the monks stay there but they just don't want to see it as a religious facility, where with most religious facilities you want to try and grow your congregation as much as you can. But, if, and I ask you from a legal standpoint, if we deny this application, they can't reapply for one year. And I think that is one thing that the people are worried about is that if you give them an extension, they keep coming back and they come back. So, if we deny this, and they can come back for one year, can we give them c> c) c\ Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 19 six months of some sort of grace period so that way they effectively get six months but they cant' come back and reapply. They have six months where they can't function. Bill Macali: Well, you can't really give them a grace period. If City Council denies the Conditional Use application, it is an illegal use, and the Council and Planning Commission have absolutely. It would not be a good thing just to say don't enforce it. This situation happened before in the context of, I think it was a Wildlife Rehabilitation Facility. The same situation applied. The way we worked it out is just to go ahead and grant the Use Permit for a limited period of time. That doesn't get to what you want to accomplish, but that is the closest thing that we can do is just grant a Use Permit extension for a short period of time. But you just simply can't ask the staff not to enforce the Code essentially. Janice Anderson: Kathy? Kathy Katsias: Well, my comments, I was going to support both Henry and David. I think I would be in favor in extending this for one more year. And it would be interesting to see what Mr. Christie comes up with as far as other locations that they did inquire about. I don't feel like they jeopardize any of the conditions in their previous Conditional Use Permit. The only thing that I would recommend is specific dates on the three holidays and letting the City know what dates these events are so the neighbors, so whether they put a sign out the front door or whatever. But, I would be in support of extending if for one more year. Thank you. Janice Anderson: I just want to make a comment myself on this. I think I swing a bit more toward Don Horsley's way of thinking. I really do believe that when it came to Council last year, they decided that it wasn't a compatible use. Churches are a Conditional Use Permit in all residential areas so, some places they are compatible and some places they are not. I think that was their ruling or finding or their way of thought that this wasn't compatible for a religious use, and that they did issue it for one year so that they would have time so they wouldn't get into a situation like Bill MacaU said where they're letting them practice but not enforcing it. And it was very clear that they told them that the one year would be a time so they could relocate. From my recollection and from the notes, I think that was the time limit that they gave them. Unfortunately, if we extend it for six months, I don't know if their financial situation is going to get any better. If we extend it for a year, I don't think it would help their position. Unfortunately, they purchased this property without knowing that they had to get a Use Permit to have a religious facility there. And that is kind of their situation that they are in. I definitely believe Dave, like you said it is a hard decision, but I believe that the City Council told them they had about a year to move and that was gracious for them because they didn't want to cut them off and have them not want them to use the facility while they're looking. But I believe that the citizens relied on that and we should follow through. Are there any other comments? If there is not, I'll take motions. Joe, you have a comment first? Joseph Strange; The only comment that I will make if there was some way we could assure the neighborhood that this was only going to be there for one year since the neighborhood is willing to go along with that, at least Mr. Franken is, I would support that, but there is no C'; c: C~\ Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 20 way. So, I can't support giving them an extension knowing that they can come back and get another extension. The City Council gave them a year. They can say what they want. They didn't put it with a real estate company. Maybe they could have sold it. Maybe they couldn't have, but I just don't see where they were proactive enough to even put it with somebody and give it a shot. Maybe somebody would have come along and been so enthralled with that area. It looks like a million dollar piece of property to me, quite frank! y. It is a beautiful out there. Somebody comes along and wants to spend that kind of money and they got it. Who is the say that somebody wouldn't pay a million dollars for it. You never know what is going to happen. All buying is emotional anyhow. So, somebody may have fallen in love with it and wanted to pay two million for it. Who knows? The point is to me nobody tried to sell it. Nobody put it a real estate company. So, I'm not going to be able to support the application because of that. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Go ahead Don. Donald Horsley: l'make a motion that the application be denied. Joseph Strange: I second the motion. Janice Anderson: A motion by Don and second by Joe. Dave, would you like to make an alternate motion? Donald Horsley: Madam Chair before that, if we can take out condition 3, 4, 6 & 9. That is only if is approved. It would just be denied. All of it. Janice Anderson: Okay? Dave? David Redmond: Madam Chairman, I make an alternate motion that we approve the application with the one change that it will be for one year and not two years. Henry Livas: I'll second it. Bill Maca1i: Madam Chair. Just for the record, it would a substitute. David Redmond: A substitute. Thank you for correcting. Bill Macali: And that of course take precedence and ha to be voted on before the main motion. Karen Lasley: Mr. Redmond, could we clarify that condition that would be attached to your motion? If you go to page one of the agenda item, the old conditions are listed. 1 and 2 are not needed if you keep the number of people attending on the special holidays under 50. And, ifit is a temporary one year approval, in my opinion would not need 3, 4. or 6 and then condition 9 ofthe old approval you could eliminate because there is no proposal at this point to build the meditation hall. Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 21 (~} David Redmond: Madam Chairwoman to clarifyt my motion was for a substitute motion to approve the application wit the change of a one year extension and accepting and that is removing conditions 1,2,3,4,6 and 9. Karen Lasley: I'm sorry, one more thing. Maybe on condition 8 ifthe applicant can notify the Zoning Administrator say a week before a special event. David Redmond: And, with a change, that the applicant notifies the Zoning Administrator, one week before one of three special events. Karen Lasley: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you David Redmond: Did we get that right? Karen Lasley: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Henry, so you do second the substitute motion. Henry Livas: Can I second and go on record that I would not vote for another extension next O year? J Bill Macali: As long it is understood that the only thing that is on the floor is the motion but you can say whatever you feel is appropriate. Henry Livas: Our colleague has a concern there, but we could say that we are not going to vote for it next year. Janice Anderson: Okay. We'll go ahead and vote on the substitute motion first. This is to approve the application for the religious facility for a period of one year with the deletion of those conditions that Karen and Dave had mentioned due to the short term year approval. Bill Macali: And the one condition that they notify the Zoning Administrator a week in advance of a special event. Janice Anderson: Thank you very much. Okay. AYE 4 NAY 6 ABSO ANDERSON NAY BERNAS CRABTREE NAY C\ HENLEY NAY HORSLEY NAY ABSENT 1 ABSENT , I c; c) c\ 'I I Item #4 Buddhist Education Center of America, Inc. Page 22 KA TSIAS KNIGHT LIVAS REDMOND RUSSO STRANGE AYE NAY AYE AYE AYE NAY Ed Weeden: By a vote of 4-6, the application to approve Buddhist Education Center has failed. Janice Anderson: Okay. We'll go forward on the original motion by Don Horsley. This is a motion to deny the application for an extension of the Conditional Use for a religious facility for a time period of two years. AYE 6 NAY 4 ABSO ABSENT 1 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE HENLEY HORLSEY KATSIAS KNIGHT LIVAS REDMOND RUSSO STRANGE AYE ABSENT AYE AYE AYE NAY AYE NAY NAY NAY AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 6-4, the application of the Buddhist Education Center has been denied. Janice Anderson: Thank you all very much for coming down. Is there anything further' business to be done? Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 'I I - 1'<: - Item II-H.6 ITEM /I 25496 PLANNING Attorney Edwin Kellam represented the applicant Attorney Robert Cromwell represented Ursula Jones and advised she had no objection to the proposed operation of the Manor House by Auslew Gallery. OPPOSITION: Mary Ruth Scott, resident of Sajo Farm Road Jack E. Greer, represented Mr. and Mrs. N. O. Scott A MOTION was made by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf to DENY Ordinances upon application of DONALD S. LEWIS, SR., AND DONALD S. LEWIS, JR. of AUSLEW GALLERY, INC. for a Change of Zoning from R-l Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay to R-I Residential District and a Conditional Use Permit for an art gallery. Upon SUBSTITUTE !lOTION by Councilman Robert G. Jones, seconded by Councilwoman Creech, City Council ADOPTED Ordinances upon application of DONALD S. LEWIS, SR. AND DONALD S. LEWIS, JR. of AUSLEW GALLERY, INC. for a Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF DONALD S. LEWIS, SR. AND DONALD S . LEWIS, JR., AND AUSLEIl GALLERY, INC. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-l WITH A PO-HZ OVERLAY TO R-l Z0686l096 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Donald S. Lewis, Sr., and Donald S. Lewis, Jr., of Auslew Gallery, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-l Residential District with a PO-HZ Overlay to R-I Residential District on property located 1400 feet east of Diamond Springs Road, south of Northampton Bouelvard on Parcel 3, Sam Jones Estate. Said parcel contains 4.45 acres. Plats with more detailed information are available in the Department of Planning. BAYSIDE BOROUGH. AND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF DONALD S. LEWIS, SR. AND DONALD S. LEWIS, JR. OF AUSLEW GALLERY, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R0686841 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Donald S. Lewis, Sr., and Donald S. Lewis, Jr. of Auslew Gallery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for an art gallery on property located 1400 feet east of Diamond Springs Road, south of Northampton Boulevard on Parcel 3, Sam Jones Estate. Said parcel contains 4.45 acres. Plats with more detailed information are available in the Department of Planning. BAYSIDE BOROUGH. June 9, 1986 - 46 - Item IV-H.2.d. PUBLIC HEARING PLABNING ITEM # 26994 Attorney Robert Cromwell, Pembroke One, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant, and distributed a letter and plat from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Forestry, advising the planting of approximately 630 loblolly pines in the 47 acres adjacent to Diamond Springs Road. (Said letter and plat are hereby made a part of the record.) Dr. Carolyn Jones, Vetenarian, daughter of Ursula Jones, represented the applicant and submitted a rendering depicting the animal hospital. This rendering was derived from consultation with E. John Mapp. Joe Basgier, Engineer for the Project, responded to inquires relative the Sanitary Sewer and Water. OPPOSITION: Lawrence C. Taylor, 5440 Lawson Hall Key, Phone: 363-0534 Anne Marino, 5400 Virginia Tech Court, Phone: 473-1069, distributed a petition containing the signatures of 34 residents (Wesleyans Pines, Wesleyan Chase and Sajo Farm). Said petition is hereby made a part of the record. Bob Marino, 5400 Virginia Tech Court, Phone: 473-1069 Reverend Geoffrey Guns, 1001 Larder Post, Phone: 464-3442 Molly Peagler, 5425 Lawson Hall Drive, Phone: 464-2630 James M. Halvorson, 5432 Lawson Hall Key, Phone: 460-6489 Frank H. Sparks, 1008 Larder Post, Phone: 464-3818 Upon motion by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Baum, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of URSULA JONES for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF MRS. URSULA JONES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL R09871 081 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Mrs. Ursula Jones for a Conditional Use Permit for an animal hospital on certain property located on the east side of Diamond Springs Road, 1982 feet south of Shell Road. Said parcel contains 1.346 acres. Plats with more detailed information are available in the Department of Planning. BAYSIDE BOROUGH. The following conditions are required: 1. Category II planting is required as screening along the northern and eastern property lines. 2. A five (5)-foot dedication along Diamond Springs Road is required to provide for the relocated 8- foot bikeway as shown on the Master Street and Highway Plan. 3. Category III screening (Cypress Trees) shall be provided on the side between the parking lot and the ditch. 4. Construction shall be in compliance with the rendering submitted for approval 9/14/87. 5. Any damage to the sprinkler system within the easement area on the adjacent property of Lawrence C. Taylor shall be repaired. September 14, 1987 'I - 47 - Item IV-H.2.d. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ITEM # 26994 (Continued) Voting: 10-1 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Robert G. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, John D. Moss, Vice Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and John L. Perry Council Members Voting Nay: Albert W. Balko Council Members Absent: None September 14, 1987 - 15 - Item V-G.l.a PlElIC HEARING PLANNING - RECONSIDERATION ITEM Ii 31633 The following registered In SUPPORT of the applIcation: Dr. Carol yn Jones, Vetenar I en, 1094 01 emond Sprl ngs Road, Phone: 464-6009, da ughter of Ursu I a Jones, represented herse If. Dr. Jones d I str I buted additional caples of her letter of May 26, 1989, relative clarification of her applicatIon for RECONSIDERATION of condItIons (Copy of saId letter Is hereby made a part of the record.) Upon motion by Councilman Perry, seconded by CouncIlman Helschober, City Council APPROVED WAIVER of COndItIons 1 and 3 In the OrdInance upon applicatIon of URSULA A. JONES for a Conditional Use Permit (ADOPTED: Sept~ber 14, 1987) ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF MRS. URSULA JONES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL R09871081 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Mrs. Ursula Jones for a CondItIonal Use PermIt for an animal hospital on certain property located on the east side of Diamond SprIngs Road, 1982 feet south of Shell Road. Sa.id parcel contaIns 1.346 acres. Plats with more detailed Information are available In the Department of Planning. BAYS IDE BOROUGH. The conditions to be WAIVED: 1. Cetegery II plaFltlFlg Is FeEjlllroa as sereeRIR!j aIElR!j tAe RertlleF'Fl 6R6 and "listen, prOp61"'t7 II"",,,. 3. Gate!j6P') III sel"eeRln9 (07Pl"e5! Tl"'e6s) shetf---be- pr':l" i d{jQ QR t!:le s I ae b~ihlol)6'" the .,." ~ I "!:I I vi dud tl'le dl'i'c:h. Vot I n9 : 10-1 Council Members Voting Aye: Albert W. Balko, John A. Saum, Vice /layor Robert E. Fentress, Haro! d He I schober, Barbara M. Hen ley, John D. "bss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, John L. Perry and WI Illam D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: Reba S. McClanan Councl I Members Absent: None August 14, 1989 RICHARD DAILEY Richard S. Daile \\ PO-H2 (R-50) Relevant Information: · Bayside District · The applicant requests a Modification of Conditions on a Use Permit for an animal hospital. · Applicant desires to expand the building and add parking spaces. · Building addition will match the style of the existing building. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Planning Staff recommended approval · Planning Commission recommends approval (11-0), but requested several modifications to the plan, which the applicant has made. · There was no opposition. 'I rr~~~~ p~ ~l": ,~% ~~i} ..................... CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: RICHARD S. DAILEY, Modification of Conditions, approved by City Council on June 9,1986, September 14,1987 and August 14,1989,1094 Diamond Springs Road. BAYSIDE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: On September 14, 1987, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit with five (5) conditions permitting an animal hospital. A Reconsideration of Conditions was granted by City Council on August 14, 1989 to remove two of those conditions. The current request is to modify the 1989 Conditional Use Permit in order to enlarge the existing animal hospital. . Considerations: The current Conditional Use Permit has three (3) conditions: 1. A five (5) foot dedication along Diamond Springs Road is required to provide for the relocated eight (8) foot bikeway as shown on the Master Street and Highway Plan. 2. Construction shall be in compliance with the rendering submitted for approval September 14, 1987. 3. Any damage to the sprinkler system with in the easement area on the adjacent property of Lawrence C. Taylor shall be repaired. Condition 2 requires that the construction be in compliance with the rendering submitted for approval on September 14, 1987. A modification of that condition is now necessary since the applicant is proposing an expansion and renovation of the existing building. The changes to the site consist of a 6,600 square foot building addition to the north side of the existing structure and a 1,300 square foot addition to the east side, as well as additional parking spaces to the rear of the existing parking lot and in the front of the existing structure. Staff concludes that the expanded animal hospital facility, as conditioned, will not compromise the quality of life found in the adjacent neighborhoods. The building architecture and proposed site improvements ensure that this facility will continue to coexist with the residential community in a seamless manner. There was no opposition to this proposal. The Planning Commission, however, did hear the request, suggesting to the applicant modifications to the site plan Richard S. Dailey Page 2 of 2 intended to increase the amount of open space on the site and to improve traffic safety by removing a proposed curb cut. The applicant has made those changes, as shown on the plan provided on page six of the attached staff report. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. All conditions, with the exception of Number 2, attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on August 14, 1989 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 2 of the August 14, 1989 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: When the Property is developed (a) the building shall have the architectural design and features substantially as depicted on the exhibit which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, and (b) the site shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "SITE PLAN FOR SAJO FARMS VETERINARY CLINIC ADDITION 1094 DIAMOND SPRINGS ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" dated 07/08/08, prepared by Land Design and Development, Inc. which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Conceptual Site Plan"). . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department /~ City Manage~\ ~~~ Modification of Conditions 'I #9 March 11, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD S. DAILEY STAFF PLANNER: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Modification of a Conditional Use Permit for an animal hospital - approved by the City Council on September 14, 1987 and modified August 14, 1989, for the purpose of expanding the existing animal hospital ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 1094 Diamond Springs Road. GPIN: 1468384531 ELECTION DISTRICT: BAYSIDE SITE SIZE: 1.32 acres AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST On September 14, 1987, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit with five (5) conditions permitting an animal hospital. A Reconsideration of Conditions was granted by City Council on August 14, 1989 to remove two of those conditions. The current request is to modify the 1989 Conditional Use Permit in order to enlarge the existing animal hospital. The current Conditional Use Permit has three (3) conditions: 1. A five (5) foot dedication along Diamond Springs Road is required to provide for the relocated eight (8) foot bikeway as shown on the Master Street and Highway Plan. 2. Construction shall be in compliance with the rendering submitted for approval September 14, 1987. 3. Any damage to the sprinkler system with in the easement area on the adjacent property of Lawrence C. Taylor shall be repaired. RICHARD S. DAILEY Agenda Item 9 Page 1 Condition 2 requires that the construction be in compliance with the rendering submitted for approval on September 14,1987. Since the applicant now desires to expand and renovate the building, the application requests modification of the condition. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Animal hospital SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: . Residential I PD-H2 Planned Development District (R-5D Residential Duplex District underlying zoning) . Residential I PD-H2 Planned Development District (R-5D Residential Duplex District underlying zoning) . Residential / PD-H2 Planned Development District ( R-5D Residential Duplex District & R-40 Residential District underlying zoning) . Across Diamond Springs Road is residential / PD-H2 Planned Development District (R-5D Residential Duplex District underlying zoning) South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: A significant portion of the site has a building and parking lot built on it. There are a few mature trees along the front of Diamond Springs Road. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Diamond Springs Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a four-lane divided minor suburban arterial facility. The Master Transportation Plan proposes a divided roadway with a bikeway within a 150-foot wide right of way. No Roadway Capital Improvement Program projects are slated for this area. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Diamond Springs 22,343 ADT 28,200 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use;!- Road (2008) Service "C") 140 ADT 30,600 ADT 1 (Level of Proposed Land Use 3 - Service "0") - capacity 32,800 ADT 1 (Level of 279 ADT /13 Morning Peak Service "E") Hour Vehicles (entering) /6 Afternoon Peak Hour Vehicles (entering) Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 7 .960 square foot animal hospital 3 as defined bv15,860 square foot animal hospital RICHARD S. DAllEY Agenda Item 9 Page 2 II WATER: This site is connected to City water. The existing 5/8-inch meter (City ID# 95050999) can be used or upgraded to accommodate the proposed development. There is a 12-inch City water main along Diamond Springs Road. SEWER: City sanitary sewer is available. There is an 8-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main along Diamond Springs Road. Analysis of Pump Station #327 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. Construction plans and bonds are required. STORMWATER: No comments at this time. FIRE: No Fire Department comments at this time. POLICE: No Police Department comments. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this requested modification, as conditioned below. Comprehensive Plan: This proposal is located within the Primary Residential Area where land use planning policies and principles focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. Evaluation: The Comprehensive Plan policies support conditional uses that fulfill a legitimate public need for compatible neighborhood support uses and activities. Such activities are generally acceptable in residential neighborhoods when they are adequately restricted, conditioned, and meet all State and local permit requirements. This expanded animal hospital facility, as conditioned, will not compromise the quality of life found in the adjacent neighborhoods. The building architecture and proposed site improvements ensure that this facility will continue to coexist with the residential community in a seamless manner. RICHARD S. DAilEY Agenda Item 9 Page 3 CONDITIONS 1. All conditions, with the exception of Number 2, attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on August 14, 1989 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 2 of the August 14, 1989 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: When the Property is developed (a) the building shall have the architectural design and features substantially as depicted on the exhibit which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, and (b) the site shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "SITE PLAN FOR SAJO FARMS VETERINARY CLINIC ADDITION 1094 DIAMOND SPRINGS ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" dated 07/08/08, prepared by Land Design and Development, Inc. which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Conceptual Site Plan"). 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. RICHARD S. DAilEY Agenda Item 9 Page 4 I I III[ "'"''J "'.~ ))" 1/' ./ (. ,~'''' ~ AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION RICHARD S. DAILEY Agenda Item 9 Page 5 - - _.,--,~:;~~, i , /" ~ '~ /~/ ~~~ "-"~.:;::::<-;::-:::~ \\ f~~ \ e~E \ ~o \ ~. o o o o \ N 73'36'4'" [ 339.40' \~. \.- \ ..\., \ ./ /. '. / \,'.\ '. -'.' ...--.....-'" ~\ " .;/ '../ \ \~-//// /~ ,.///// \~,. ~/ / <-- )\ \ '/'- "-\~.. )-/ I" ./ ~g: ~g o !I' z:" -~'----''M?-- 1O~ ~a '" ii " ...~ iii~ Ii . "l tv '~ "', Iii i ! i I : I 'I H :! -l? - - - l: n ~ ~ n~mm I zz ~~N Clo_!!'~i ;g~g ..~ ~ '0- 6~~~k;~ gJ~./..oli,t, ..~~~'C i lj 00' i. !II LI) utOO ~~8~ .... !%I ~l:l z E: ~ S " ..5 - Cl N 1JI :I: :0 ~ , p ~ l! I s r- t J ,~g III l '~~ "" io ~ -J. s 2 ~ L :- DD-? PREUIoIINARY SITE Pl.AH RIll SAJO FNlIIS vEl'EllIIWlY CUNlC -.noN AT 1094 ClAMONIl 5PRfNGS ROAD _ IDOl. _ ... & ': '" . LAHIl DESIGN AIlIlIlEYWlPllEHT, Dle, 6371 CENTER DRlIoE. SUflE 200 NORfOUC. \WllNlA 23502 (757}490-0672 FAX: (757)499-7319 PROPOSED SITE PLAN RICHARD S. DAILEY Agenda Item 9 Page 6 I I II I ",' // '/ _//,,/ r r-- I i ~z !iJ !iJ G G li:ltl g; g; ~ z 8~~~<n ~ ti:!!; ll: ;;;?3 ~ ~~ -:c ~c5 li:l I?:: ~ 51- ::;::'-" 0 ~ ~ ::;:: 8 e e iIi ;:lflllo! <J) ..... U ~ - ~ ~ f6 S m ~ s t;; :2 ~ PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION RICHARD S. DAILEY Agenda Item 9 Page 7 Richard S. Daile PO-H2 (R - 50) Modification of Conditions 05/23/06 Conditional Rezoning from R-10 to A-12 wi PD-H2 overla Granted ZONING HISTORY RICHARD S. DAILEY Agenda Itern 9 Page 8 z <=> . I ~ ~ . . r,~ ~ c:.I':) z, <=> J . :E--4 I . Q z: <=> c: ':) ~. <=> z <=> I . ~ <:...-' . I ~ . I Q <=> ::s II APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, finn, business. or other unincorporated organization, complete the following. 1 Ust the applicant name followed by the names of aU members, trustees. partners, €lte below. (Attach list if necessary) 2 List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entity: relationship with the applicant: (Attach Itst If necessary,; ''''-~.'''''-'''''-~----'''--''-~-~~--'---~-''''''''''''''''''''',""".", 31 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 corporatfon, partnership, firm., business, or other unincorporatedorgal1lzation, 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-subsidiaryl or affiliated business entity;' relationship with the applicant: (Attach Itst if necessary) IX! Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm, business. or other unincorporated organization for footnotes Does an official or employee of the City of Virgima Beach have an interest If'I the subject land? Yas _.. No ~_ If yes. what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of th~Hr interest? MW41G:>llon 0f U,.",:n",r, AppJif""tlon F'a::4~ ~D fA ~ ~ Rft\i1.Wtti J '3,:"'0 J RICHARD S. DAILEY Agenda Item 9 Page 9 ISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or wfll 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 servtces, and legal services. (Attach list if necessary) Huff. Poole & Mahoney. P.C"Legal services Land Design and Development, Inc.-DeSign services Andre MarquezArd1~cts-~r.~hllcctura[ 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 Si 2.2-3101. .. Affiliated business entity relationship" means "8 relationship, other than parent- subsitJtary relationship, that exists when (I) one business entity has a controlling ownerShIp interest in the other business. entity, (n) a controlling owner io one enhty is also a contmlling owner in the other entity. or (Hi) tnere is shared management or control between the business entIties Factors that should be considered in determining the eXlsten(",e 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 commmgled funds or assets, the business enl\tles 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 dose workmg relationship between the entities" See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va Code ~ 22-3101 CERTIFICATION: ! certify that the Information contained h;~r€Hn .$ true and accurate I understand that upon receipt of notification (postcard! that the appHcotlon \1:'IS been scheduled for pubhc hearing. I am responsil)le for obtarning and posllng the required sign on tl'lIR subiect property at least:m days prim to the schet.luled public: hearing according to the ins.tructlons In this paCKage The undEusigoor:l also consents to upon the subJecI property by employf)f)S of the Department of Planomg to photograph and '>II'!!W sr!e tor purposes of processing and evaluating ttus applicaHon i 1I1an Mn{tti~hrA": 01 Page 11 01 1 Revtsed At.Th;.iJtl>;)r, ~ I I E ;E2 ~ CI1"::I ~ I I :E-c ~ c::::~ c: ~ ~ o Z c:=~ I I ~ c"-~ I I ~ . I ~ o ~ RICHARD S. DAilEY Agenda Iter 9 Page 1 0 II I Item #9 Richard S. Dailey Modification of Conditions 1094 Diamond Springs Road District 4 Bayside March 11,2009 REGULAR -- Donald Horsley: The next matter is item 9, Richard S. Dailey. An application of Richard S. Dailey for a Modification of Conditions approved by City Council on September 14, 1987 and August 14, 1989 on property located at 1094 Diamond Springs Road, District 4, Bayside. Bryan Plumlee: Good afternoon everyone. I'm Bryan Plumlee, here for the applicant. I'm an attorney for Huff, Poole & Mahoney representing Dr. Dailey and Sajo Farms Veterinary Hospital. This is a request for a modification to double the size of the location. It is probably something that should have been done about 10 years ago for this facility. The first approval came back over 22 years ago in the construction ofthis current facility. It's a rather dated building. I know you all went by there. They got issues with parking currently to service the patients or the animals coming to the facility. To take care of them (these issues) they are making this expansion. They would love to see more business but they don't expect more business because of the expansion. What they are trying to do is to accommodate the current operation as it is. They are not trying to change the use in any way. Weare having to put in additional parking because of zoning requirements, as you know, this is going to tear up some of the front landscaping. We have talked with my client this moming, the request of Traffic to do away with the second exit here. The plan was to have an ingress here and an exit here. They're asking to get rid of this so there is just simply this one entrance and a main entrance heretogether. We've agreed to that but instead we're going to arrange it so that the parking slides down slightly, to give them plenty of room to expand the width of the entrance way so people can turn around safely and get out and not have problems with cars coming in while people are trying to safely turn around their vehicle the property. That was the purpose of the additional entranceway. With getting rid of this additional entrance you're going to save some of the landscaping in front as a result. I know there was a concern about whether or not the BMP could be relocated from the back of this property to here. I've spoken to Roger Pope who was the designer of the plan. That can't be done because of the grading. Everything flows to the back of the property. You would have to create this artificial drainage that would be tremendously expensive and probably not work well. And it is my understanding that is a very low water table, so if you put the BMP out front you're going to have a very ugly ditch there is going to have nothing. No water really sitting at the bottom of it because that is not where the water table is going either. So, that being the case we're asking the plan to be approved with the one change to accommodate the necessary parking. This is an expansion that is not in any way going to impact the neighbors. Dogs and cats are not going to be outside as a result of this change. Currently, we have at most, two to four dogs at any given time taken outside with a handler to exercise them. That is the purpose of the outside facility. It is not like a doggie daycare where you have kenneling Item #9 Richard S. Dailey Page 2 outside or anything like that. That is why there have not been any complaints about noise coming from the facility. That's not going to change as a result ofthis construction. So, I would ask and I would like to thank staff for their hard work on this. I know I've heard some people calling in to staff to ask about, what does this mean exactly? But I haven't heard of any opposition once they were notified that it was not going to change the operation of the facility, and greatly add to the demands on the side. I personally think that the upgrade of the facility is going to be primarily for beautification. It is going to look nicer for the neighbors. Quite a bit of money has been spent on the homes going back behind this structure. This is going to be an updated structure. It is going to look nicer. It is going to accommodate the cars that are currently going in and out of this place. So, I'm perfectly happy to answer any questions that you may have. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Mr. Plumlee? Thank you for checking into the BMP on whether or not it could be moved. We were afraid of that. Bryan Plumlee: I was afraid that I wasn't going to be able to get Mr. Pope on the phone this morning to get that back to you this afternoon. But he quickly said no. It is just physically not a good idea for the parcel to have the BMP moved to the front. Janice Anderson: I think Ron Ripley had a question. Ronald Ripley: Bryan, all we're talking about here is changing that one ingress/egress area just omitting it. And the parking configuration would stay pretty much the way it is designed? Bryan Plumlee: Right. It is going to slide the parking down a little bit to open up this front ingress a little wider. That is all you're really doing changing with the plan. And what I was told from Traffic is this is more of an aesthetic and potentially a safety issue from their perspective. They are trying to encourage only a single entrance and exit way. It may not be perfect for every situation but they are trying to make it uniform of that particular thoroughfare and that is fine. But it takes me a little while to work that out with my client because we just learned that this morning, and so we tried to take care of that. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Jay. Jay Bernas: I don't know if you know the answer to this but to the east, is that a regional BMP or that is like a drainage canal to the east? Bryan Plumlee: To the east where you're talking about where the required BMP is on the plan or are you talking about that drainage easement? I'm sorry. That buffer is going to remain. That is my understanding because that is a J;'equired drainage easement. You're talking about the wooded area? Jay Bernas: I didn't know if that was a regional BMP and if you still needed that BMP if you could share it? III Item #9 Richard S. Dailey Page 3 Bryan Plumlee: He is telling me that we do need this BMP. And that is something that I can't really address beyond what I am being told, and I'm just communicating that back to you. What my understanding is though is that wooded buffer where that drainage is currently located, that cannot be moved or adjusted. So, it is not like it is going to be somebody too come in and move right next to us anytime. Jay Bernas: I just wasn't sure if it was a regional BMP and if you still needed the one in the rear, or if you could just share it? Bryan Plumlee: I don't know the answer to that question. I just know that he was pretty adamant that this was a required easement. Jay Bernas: You can kind of see which way it drains. David Redmond: He didn't give you a reason why? Bryan Plumlee: He told me it was a required BMP. I was asking him about relocating it to the front. David Redmond: My question is the location, would I except the BMP required part? Bryan Plumlee: He did tell me that the location on the site plan is required also and it can't be moved to the front. The reasoning is because of the grading of the property goes all the way to the back. It is a sheet flow straight to the back and you can't accommodate to get that water to the front. Also because of the water table. If you were to move the BMP to the front it would be empty and an ugly BMP that would sit there. It still wouldn't work because the water would drain to the back. David Redmond: Thank you. Janice Anderson: In our informal we did address the matter about the parking out front. When we went by the site, and we believe this facility mixes very well with the neighborhood because it looks residential especially with the front yard as it is. We would hate this go but we definitely understand the need for the additional parking. but if you could save as much of the green space? Bryan Plumlee: Dr. Dailey wanted me to convey that he attends to save every tree that he could possibly save. This may actually save a tree not having this additional entrance way. There are three large pine trees there in the front. Two of them are probably going to have go but the one, and I'm not exactly sure of this because I don't' know the exact dimensions now that we're doing this shift. But he believes it is an opportunity to save that tree. He is going to do everything he can to do that. Item #9 Richard S. Dailey Page 4 Janice Anderson: I know this discussion just came up today with closing that entrance but when you do your site plan to go to Council if you could show them what is being saved out front and the trees, and try to address that. Thank you. Bryan Plumlee: I will do that. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions of Mr. Plumlee? Thank you. Bryan Plumlee: Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Do we have any other speakers? Donald Horsley: There are no other speakers. Janice Anderson: No speakers? I'll open it up for discussion. Ronald Ripley: I make a motion to approve the application as the site plan has been amended. Eugene Crabtree: I'll second the motion. Janice Anderson: A motion by Ron Ripley and a second by Gene Crabtree. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of Richard S. Dailey. Janice Anderson: Thank you. II i I I I.! I - 35 - Item V-K.2.e ITEM 58022 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED to September 23, 2008, Ordinance upon application of VIRGINIA BEACH INK for a Conditional Use Permit re a tattoo studio. ORDINANCE URON APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH INK, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TA1TOO STUDIO), 612 NEVAN ROAD, LYNNHA VEN DISTRICT Ordinance upon application of VIRGINIA BEACH INK, for a Conditional Use Permit (tattoo studio), 612 Nevan Road, (GPIN: 24078854840000). LYNNHA VEN DISTRICT. Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: William R. "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, 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: Robert M Dyer September 9, 2008 - 35 - V-L.2. PLANNING ITEM # 58066 Attorney R. Edward Bourdon. Pembroke Office Park- Building One. 281 Independence Boulevard, Phone: 499-8971. represented the applicants (Ben Johnson and Greg Hayes). This is a request for a tattoo studio in a 1200 square foot suite within an existing commercial center at 612 Nevan Road. The building is attractive with a brickfar;ade. Information containing letters in SUPPORT and articles re the Olympic Champ Carly Patterson and her tattoos and the Hampton Roads Magazine section re a tattoo parlor are made a part of the record. There will be no neon lighting. or tattoo selections posted on the walls of the business. The suite will be built out andfurnished as an upscale hair salon. Tattoo selections will be made from a computer screen. Mark Gilbert, 612 Nevan Road #114, Phone: 428-0200, owner of the commercial center on Nevan Road, spoke in SUPPORT. Ann Kaplan, 2244 General Booth Boulevard, Phone: 472-6767, registered in OPPOSITION and read the correspondence of Attorney Gary C. Byler who agreed with local businesses that the Hilltop area is not a proper location for the tattoo saloon. Copies of correspondence from fourteen (14) individuals and businesses who hadfiled written objections to the Conditional Use Permit are made a part of the record. Upon motion by Councilman Wood, seconded by Councilman Villanueva, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of VIRGINIA BEACH INK Conditional Use Permit re a tattoo studio at 612 Nevan Road. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH INK, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TATTOO STUDIO), 612 NEVAN ROAD, LYNNHA VEN DISTRICT R090835297 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF V1RGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of VIRGINIA BEACH INK, for a Conditional Use Permit (tattoo studio), 612 Nevan Road, (GPIN' 24078854840000). LYNNHA VEN DISTRICT. The following conditions shall be required: 1. The Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo establishment is approvedfor a period of one (1) year with an administrative review every year thereafter. 2. A business license shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Departmentfor consistency with the provisions of Chapter 23 of the City Code. 3. No sign, more thanfour (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall(s), shall be permitted on the windows. There shall be no other signs, including neon signs or neon accents, installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and/or doors. 4. The actual tattooing operation on a customer shall not be visible from any public right- of way adjacent to the establishment. 5. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, Monday through Saturday and from 12:00 PM to 8:00 PM on Sunday. September 23, 2008 IIII I - 36 - V-L.2. PLANNING ITEM # 58066 (Continued) This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (j) of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach. Virginia, on the Twenty-third of September Two Thousand Eight Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph. Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorj. John E. Uhrin, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Barbara M Henley September 23, 2008 VIRGINIA BEACH INK Relevant Information: · Lynnhaven District · The applicant requests a Modification of Conditions for a Use Permit approved last year for a tattoo studio. · The applicant now desires to add body piercing to the services provided at the studio. · There are no other changes. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Planning Staff recommended approval · Planning Commission recommends approval (11-0) · There was no opposition. · Consent Agenda II I ,.;6;~.~Ct(,,~ ,._~~"'_-;<"~, :f.~., /'J'"@- , ' :-1, ~: '<~t \~~." /".;;J ,..................... CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: VIRGINIA BEACH INK (BEN JOHNSON), Modification of Conditions, approved by City Council on September 23,2008,612 Nevan Road, Suite 114. L YNNHAVEN DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The applicant is requesting a modification to the conditions of a Use Permit for a tattoo parlor, granted by the City Council on September 23, 2008. The applicant desires to add body piercing and permanent make-up applications to the list of services provided by the studio. . Considerations: The current Conditional Use Permit permitting a tattoo parlor was approved by the. The Conditional Use Permit has five (5) conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit for tattoo establishment is approved for a period of one year with an administrative review every year thereafter. 2. A business license shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department of consistency with the provisions of Chapter 23 of the City Code. 3. No sign more than four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall(s) shall be permitted on the windows. There shall be no other signs, including neon signs or neon accents, installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows, and lor doors. 4. The actual tattooing operation on a customer shall not be visible from any public right-of-way adjacent to the establishment. 5. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m. Monday through Saturday, and from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. The request for a Modification of Conditions to allow the additional services of body piercing and permanent make-up at this location is acceptable. The business is compatible with the adjacent businesses and there is sufficient parking on the site for the proposed use. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda passing a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: Virginia Beach Ink Page 2 of 2 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 and 4 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on September 23, 2008 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 1 of the September 23, 2008 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo establishment with body piercing and permanent make-up applications is approved for a period of one year with an administrative review every year thereafter. 3. Condition Number 4 of the September 23, 2008 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The actual tattooing operation, body piercing, or permanent make-up application on a customer shall not be visible from any public right-of-way adjacent to the establishment. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ;\ ~ CltyManag~ ~~ l I I II I #8 March 11, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT: VIRGINIA BEACH INK PROPERTY OWNER: M&K PROPERTIES STAFF PLANNER: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Modification of a Conditional Use Permit for tattoo parlor approved by City Council on September 23, 2008. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 612 Nevan Road. GPIN: 24078854840000 ELECTION DISTRICT: L YNNHA VEN SITE SIZE: Site: 1 .163 acres Lease Area: 1 ,200 square feet AICUZ: Greater than 75 dB DNL surrounding Oceana. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a modification to the conditions of a Use Permit for a tattoo parlor to allow permanent make-up applications and body piercing. The Conditional Use Permit permitting a tattoo parlor was approved by the City Council on September 23,2008. The Conditional Use Permit has five (5) conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit for tattoo establishment is approved for a period of one year with an administrative review every year thereafter. 2. A business license shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department of consistency with the provisions of Chapter 23 of the City Code. 3. No sign more than four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall(s) shall be permitted on the windows. There shall be no other signs, including neon signs or neon accents, installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows, and lor doors. 4. The actual tattooing operation on a customer shall not be visible from any public right-of-way adjacent to the establishment. VIRGINIA BEACH INK Agenda Item 8 Page 1 5. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m. Monday through Saturday, and from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. Condition 1 allows a conditional use permit for a tattoo establishment but does not include body piercing or permanent make-up applications. The applicant requests revision of that condition to include body piercing or permanent make-up applications. Condition 4 does not allow the tattooing operation to be visible from the public right-of-way and shall be revised to ensure that the body piercing and permanent make-up applications are not visible from the public right-of-way. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Retail commercial strip center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: . Retail / B-2 Community Business District · Across Industrial Park Avenue is retail / B-2 Community Business District . Vacant property and office -warehouse / B-2 Community Business District . Across Nevan Road is a bank / B-2 Community Business District West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is impervious, as it is developed with a structure and parking lot. There are no significant natural resources or cultural features associated with this site. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES TRAFFIC: There will be no significant increase in traffic due to this modification. WATER and SEWER: This site is connected to City water and sewer. FIRE DEPARTMENT: No Fire Department comments at this time. POLICE: No additional comments at this time. HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The owner of the tattoo studio must secure a permit from the Health Department prior to beginning the additional operations. VIRGINIA BEACH INK Agenda Item 8 Page 2 I I II I Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this requested modification, as conditioned below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Evaluation: The request for a Modification of Conditions to allow the additional services of body piercing and permanent make-up at this location is acceptable. The business is compatible with the adjacent businesses and is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. There is sufficient parking on the site for the proposed use. CONDITIONS 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 and 4 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on September 23, 2008 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 1 of the September 23, 2008 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The Conditional Use Permit for a tattoo establishment with body piercing and permanent make-up applications is approved for a period of one year with an administrative review every year thereafter. 3. Condition Number 4 of the September 23, 2008 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The actual tattooing operation, body piercing, or permanent make-up application on a customer shall not be visible from any public right-of-way adjacent to the establishment. 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. VIRGINIA BEACH INK Agenda Item 8 Page 3 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION VIRGINIA BEACH INK Agenda Item 8 Page 4 !" -~;;_: ,', .; :ti \ '~ ,~,' .~: ; '-u:,'--.; .,.;-~:,-:--,:- .--..----.---- .._- ------.-..--- -::.;r;-'- ,s~r' III ,1 . ""-. -- E:?LD(~. I: -~ --, ~ ~l "'-,,^ ,I , I , -,'~'^ "-f ! j, (.---- ;. tk ~ -----~.- _.._-~---.,~.._..,.- ._- - ~ 0), =),~F?C: =,-,-t ~'> ~.._ ~_._---r q: - ('-' -- r-- ---- ...-.....< .., ---------------..-.---..-----' .-...--. -_._.._.__._--------_..--..__.~--- --", "1'> ! ;::- \ /I~, .1\ I L yf-\.\j -')r~ 1\ '"""'\ ;- '\-I i-, L.J '-c ,.... , "-.) ; PROPOSED SITE PLAN VIRGINIA BEACH .INK Agenda Item 8 Page 5 PHOTOGRAPH OF BUILDING VIRGINIA BEACH INK Agenda Item 8 Page 6 i I III 1 09/23/08 Conditional Use Permit tattoo studio) Granted 2 05/11/04 Subdivision Variance Granted 08/27/02 Conditional Use Permit car wash) Granted 06/19/78 Conditional Use Permit fuel sales) Granted 3 12/07/99 Enlargement of a Non-conformina use Granted 4 02/23/99 Conditional Rezoning R-10 to B-2 Granted 5 1 0/24/95 Conditional Use Permit (church) Granted 6 10/13/92 Conditional Use Permit (eating & Granted drinking establishment and commercial recreation) 7 03/12/90 Modification of Conditions Granted 08/22/88 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Granted ZONING HISTORY VIRGINIA BEACH INK Agenda Item 8 Page 7 z o I I ~ c~ I I ~~ ea ~ z c=~ I . f-4 . I c::::l Z o c::....:> ~ o Z c~~ I . I:d c::....:> I I ~ I I c::::l o ~ DISCLOSU APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership. firm bUSlOess, 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) 2. Ust all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entity" relationship with the applicant (Attach list If necessary) o Check here lIthe applicant IS NOT a corporat1on. partnership, firm business. or other unincorporated organization PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete aus section only If property owner IS different from applicant If the property owner IS a corporallon partnership firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. complete the follOWing 1. Ust the property owner name followed by Ihe names of all officers, members, trustees. partners, ete below (Attacll fist if necessary) S 2 list all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant (Attach list If necessary) o Check here if the property owner IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm. business or other unincorporated orgamzatlOn t & ~ See ;~)(t page for tootnot;;- Does an official or eryPlO, yee of the City of Virglnia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes L. No __" If yes, what IS the name of the official or employee and the. if" er~st? ,11', , ~ '1 ",'.' ......J....J jtf MOOitlmlicm d CtJ<,drtl(l!1s "'.!lpbcll1ron Page Hlcl t1 Rw,ss<1 7!'1!li7 VIRGINIA BEACH ilNK Agenda Item 8 Page 8 RESTATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List ail known contractors or bUSInesses that have Or WIlt provIde servIces with respect to the requested property use, including but not !1m/led to the providers of architectural serVIces, rea! estale services, financial services accountH')g services. and legal services (Attach list if necessary) 1 "Parent"subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship thai e xis Is when one corpO/ation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." Soe State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act Va. Code S 22.3101 '''Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent- subsidiary relationship that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlhng ownership interest/(! the other business entity (ij) a controlling owner in one enbty is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (ili) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business enttty relationship include that the same parson or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities, there are common or commingled funds or assets, the bUSll'H~$S entities share the use of the same offIces or employees or otherwise share achvlties, resources or personnel on a regular basis: or there is otherwIse a close wMrng relatll:mshlp between the entities' See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act Va Code S 2.2.3101 CERTIFICA TlON: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate I understafltl that upon receipt of notification (postcard I that the application has been schedUled for public hearing I am responsible torobtaimng and posting the required Sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the schedUled publiC heanng accordmg to the instructions in thiS package The undersigned also consents to enlryupon the subject property by employees of the Department of Plann~nJ? to photograph and \/IfNI the site fO! purposes of processmg and eva,uatmg this appllcatiol'l PropertyOwnefs Signature (If diffe;;ritthan applicant) ModrtatK1H of (,~rm(lHi()fl.~ ,A.~)p!kallon Pagel) of 11 Rll\l\tll<J''J,tlKJ II z <=> ) I ~ c:..J . c b~ ~ c.I":J Z <=> . f :E-c . t ~ Z <=> ~ ':J ~ <=> ~ . I ~ '--~ . I ~ . C VIRGINIA BEACH INK Agenda Itern 8 Page 9 Item #8 Virginia Beach Ink Modification of Conditions 612 Nevan Road, Suite 114 District 5 L ynnhaven March 11, 2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next matter is agenda item 8. An application of Virginia Beach Ink for a Modification of Conditions approved by City Council on September 23, 2008 on property located at 612 Nevan Road, Suite 114, District 5, Lynnhaven with three conditions. Greg Hayes: Good afternoon Commissioners: My name is Greg Hayes. I'm the owner of Virginia Beach Ink. I agree with the conditions which have been set. Joseph Strange: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? The Chairman has asked Kathy Katsias to review this item. Kathy Katsias: Good afternoon. This is an application for Virginia Beach Ink that was requested a Conditional Use Permit and was approved for a tattoo parlor in September. They are asking for a modification to their Conditional Use to include permanent makeup applications and body piercings. This application is acceptable and staff recommends approval. Therefore, we concur with staff and put it on the consent agenda. Joseph Strange: Thank you Kathy. Madame Chairman, I make a motion to approve agenda item 8. Janice Anderson: A motion by Joe Strange. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Janice Anderson: I have a second by Don Horsley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE I I II I Item #8 Virginia Beach Ink Page 2 RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 8 for consent. 119 I I II "11 118 iii:.. mlt~ ~~~~1 ;';..4."...~'! iii 1~4 y, j ..' .' .. i,.t~ .. ,~1' ,.~ U .;,.' -...Zir:;..... ..... IlI!'1 I'~., 1!1I11l1~ .._--w..... ~1".~"'~ I..... -'-'-" ~._i11 '. :~ ,~ ~. -.. II ... Ill. . WI . illig .-. !I!n~ -i."4 .. IIU!II: ......11 · 1M ..... iii .. .. r" -"lt~ . .'J -";1 I ........1II1l1i I: III" . .'. III 1..1il a ~.IIII - .~rP [II R. .1 d _III .... ..Il.~ -"4.' III .. ~ 1I!r.:I.-. ~_. 1IIIIIIII ~III . .... II '7 .. ...... ,..... II D, . lI!I!dt. l'ft5 ...... ..~ ".Ill ... .. ....... . .. .. ...... ....... -.- .. ....., "~-IIJ!I. ,.p ....-.. "':II!Bil_ .11 . .111_ ~.. -. ....... ., II.. .'" .. -;...II1II1.... .-1. '._...~~, .. ~~, .1 -_ II1II III -I11III . .. .. e> "-. . &I'.. " ''''11 "-.-a. ..._.~_~ '"'1-. -.. - ., - "'.... -. .dl.1IfIiiII . .-... .."....... -- - '" . !!""".~ ~1 '.. ""; .,....,!II..'; .. . .. ... . ..... . .. ....,1 . . _. . ~ .-. 'II.. . It~.. [t . . ..., '" , .- - v' , ..... .' III. '. '. .J a.': III. Iii l!!!l!I!!I ~ ~ ,.. ..... t ..,~ l-> .r .&In II" . II:. o ....., .'-R 1f .. '~"'...:.. ',... ..__ .. -- ...,. .. . -.... .. - .~.. ..... .. - - ... .' "'.'. -.... III ..... _.... ' lYil .....- 117 ~Iiq iJglHxil~;~ \ i~ _A_~.:"~~ , ,m~ ~.....- us A-' .........~-~ rp;~' 0 ~ .f ll.. < ~",.r, ~l 5! j::" ~i o ...I 911 -n 'f'Dt~~\ ....s . ~ ~2':\I"l ? Iol'Z~~ i > 8::' i .. ...:. r , . l;; ~ '< . .- . ..t~l'~' i i ;. L ~ ... #. .. l ! .i 5ilt!~ iH~ ~ il'i~ dO; -< n1,tI lIE.. o n~ h (i.b to \- z .- U1 ;f d _ II -......~..".., -~ , , " \ i ~t i II 'I! I II dl I I :1 ~f pat I ~i !l !~I i U I ~ x~ ili l !lk~IL~ 1"1 \\ ~ · I ii'l\ ~iI~ Iltl 'i I.~. ~ 'i t t .^l;;~ 'teLl '\'i 'It ll.111I ~. I I~I. i.\I1bllllil . " J~~ AU , . 0\ ,..: i .~ I \ \ o Ii \ \ i Ql \ \ ~ '....1 ~ 0 !i\ \al \el ~ 0 1-( i IlL II. ~ o ~ ~ G 'I- '< .... z 0( -' L , .. o o .. ~ cr bI GI ~ bI U UI o . ~ ,0( '0 IE \it, \ ' II ! \ 'II ! I ! , \ \ I I . \ i --. ~!H .ltnl, 'l't ;,t'll 1, i; 'I!' H. I II \ l. Ii.." 1 't i .qa'Ph'\li\1 'I ;~l.i .11.;1;;1..11\: .'~' III 'ill'ln.. iJ i ub 11 i .. lit' \t5 i I I nllu~\\qli~!lln!! I UHhnLt~!uh.n~: z;1 l~~ ~ ~.~ ,m \ il~ ~'" ' 11t~ ia", ~~ .\ \ \ .1I,t ~l'li? .-- . \ ____... __.:..1._.., ~J !1.11~! i Ii i'" 1% ii Iii" :( ~;l l ill f~ ~ l- :;1 Ii ~'ll it lit ! I~ nb : if i;~ '3 11;1 IVi ~~, I at U1li ~ n 'I! ~~f ni~' !!l" I~ lUF' ~ '1, !o ;~! i i '~1' !h~l I ;1 ~~, cn p,,! ~ !'I ii' I, fl .. ~I' Iii I X. Il5r i I ~~. Jl' ~ is" J !!Il hi in ii I! i!!i1l ! ~ U i ~ In <( ,fa A : 'lllJ ~!I ~al ll~!! ill_iI, q tt 11 ili1\ C i~ L t I tt~! ni ~I. :i ,!~ n ~ i - ~ q;i! ~ IJ: t · : I l:l;i if I ~'li hl9 ~ ~ . i .! I! i Cii I~t fill :hi di fI... JI II s ~;b i i I i ~ :~b c '_ !.! ;: Q) .,... ~ .'2: , (J) ~ ~ Q.. (J) a '- ~ .....) C"iS c.c OJ:: t..... = c.~ ,.. .- ~ ... 3 ~ ~ co... ~ ~ --I ~ ..... ~ -...J ,,, V) IJ') .....- '- l,f", ~ .- l..I... lJ..l ... r-..... . ~ a- t-- N ..x. ::v ::v '- U ~ c 3 ~ tr) -...0 C7\ . 0'\ r--... I ~ 0) "l'" t-- c: tl) .- "2:- a.. l...) \\5 I i II iBID SYKIS. ROURDON. UII AlIrnN & LM. P.c. Planning Commission and City Council Members Memorandum . April 8, 2009 Page 4 of 4 . Consequently, we have similarly situated citizens of the Commonwealth and within Virginia Beach suffering OBSCENELY INEQUITABLE treatment which completely undermines all respect for the law and its purpose! Note that under CBLAB's Guidance Manual for a trophic layered riparian buffer, the number of trees to be planted in 3800 square feet of Riparian Buffer would be 69. An even more ridiculous result. . There is no quantifiable water quality benefit which can be derived from this ludicrous piling on approach to waterfront homeowners, who only make up a very small fraction of the properties (residential and commercial) whose presently untreated or undertreated stormwater runoff flows through hundreds and hundreds of storm drains into the Lynnhaven River and the Chesapeake Bay. . If this same application had been filed and acted upon by our CBPA staff and Bay Board in 1993, the required onsite BMP treatment of stormwater would not have exceeded 50% of the total existing and new impervious surface. The riparian buffer restoration would have been at a 1 to 1 ratio of new impervious (i.e. 844 Sq. Ft.); and new tree planting would not have exceeded 6; no payment to the Oyster Heritage Fund would have been required (it didn't exist). What the Board would have required then (1993) exceeds what the law requires (then and now because these aspects of our law have not changed). What the Board would have required in 1993 far exceeds what is required in areas designated "Intensely Developed" which much of the developed shorelines of our sister cities in Hampton Roads are designated. ZoningAmendmentsjCBP AjHansen_Memo4-o8-09 UIB SYI~IS. YOURDON. mu AllJ;:RN & LM. P.c. Planning Commission and City Council Members Memorandum April 8, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Wharf and the excessive number of trees being recommended on this small well treed lot. As recommended by staff, the Buffer Restoration would have been approximately 4.9 to 1 or 490% of new impervious surface and 9 to 1 tree mitigation (18 for 2 removed). The CBPA Board, over the applicant's objection (and without the staff having so recommended) required that Ms. Hansen replace her entire driveway (existing and proposed) with a pervious paver driveway; they required 3800 square feet of Buffer Restoration to be installed, in addition to her BMP's (Bio-Retention Beds); they required 18 new trees to be planted; permitted the water dependent facility (boat wharf) as submitted; and required payment to the Oyster Heritage Fund. . Replacing the entire 1350 square foot driveway (existing and proposed), none of which is in the 100' RP A Buffer, with a pervious paver driveway reduces the total net new impervious surface on entire site down to 403 square feet, because the existing concrete driveway is 100% impervious. Consequently, Ms. Hansen's proposal which had provided for 100% treatment by BMP's of all stormwater runoff for existing (3437 S.F.) and proposed impervious surfaces (i.e. 425% more BMP stormwater treatment than the Ordinance requires); 260% buffer restoration for new impervious surface area, and 3 to 1 tree mitigation on a simple, non-controversial (i.e. no non-water dependent structures in the 50' seaward portion of the RP A and no opposition) renovation (not a teardown and rebuild of a new home) was imploded by the Staff and Board to a 9-4 to 1 or 940% Buffer Restoration of net new impervious surface with a 9 to 1 tree mitigation ratio. The result is just under $19,000 of additional cost to Ms. Hansen; pervious paver vs. concrete driveway ($8,100); 41.5% more buffer restoration ($8,400); and, 12 more trees ($2,280). In Norfolk, Portsmouth or Hampton, this Cape Story by the Sea community which existed long before the CBP A Act would be designated as Intensely Developed and all that would have been required is to reduce by 10% the amount of untreated stormwater runoff from the site. The cost to do so would be less than 5% of the mitigation costs Ms. Hansen will have to bear. I II 11m SYl{IS. ROURDON. 1111 Aln:RN & 1m. P.c. Planning Commission and City Council Members Memorandum April 8, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Proposal to renovate and build 2nd floor addition to existing home; replace and expand boat wharf; expand driveway; replace wood deck with expanded brick paver patio. );> Total proposed net new impervious surface area in the 100 foot RPA = 844 square feet (a) 105 square feet net in 50' seaward portion of RP A Buffer for a water dependent facility (i.e. replacement and expansion of boat wharf). (b) 295 square feet of new impervious surface in 50' landward portion of RP A Buffer; brick paver patio. (c) 444 square feet new impervious surface in the variable width buffer (i.e. outside the state mandated 100' RPA Buffer); driveway expansion. );> No swimming pool );> No non-water dependent impervious surface in 50' seaward portion of RPA .:. As proposed, bio-retention beds/BMP treatment is provided for ALL stormwater runoff from ALL impervious surfaces onsite; i.e. 100% treatment for all existing (3437 sq. ft.) and proposed new (844 sq. ft.) impervious surfaces. Please note, the CBP A Ordinance simply requires BMP treatment of stormwater runoff for all new impervious surface in the RPA Buffer. .:. As proposed by Ms. Hansen, an additional 1916 square feet of Riparian Buffer Planting Beds would be installed bringing the total area of turf to be replaced by Riparian Buffer Planting and Bio-Retention Beds to 2225 square feet which is 2.6 times or 260% of her proposed new impervious cover. .:. As proposed by Ms. Hansen, 2 of the 14 trees on this lot would be removed and 6 trees (3 to 1 replacement ratio) were proposed as replacement. The total number of trees on this small lot would total 18 (12 remaining plus 6). City staffs recommendation to the City's Bay Board, received on Friday prior to Monday AM public hearing, recommended an increase in Buffer Restoration from the 2225 square feet proposed to 3800 square feet; a reduction in size of the Boat Wharf by 50%; and, an increase in new tree plantings to 18 (bringing the total on this lot to 3Q); and payment of $193.00 to the Virginia Beach Oyster Heritage Fund. This applicant does not like turf and agreed to accept the increase in Buffer Restoration as recommended by City staff, but objected to reduction of the Boat m.m SYI([s. nOURDON, mil AII[RN & LM, p.e. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 MEMORANDUM JON M AHERN R EDWARD BOURDON. JR. JAMES T CROMWELL L. STEVEN EMMERT JACQUELINE A FINK DAVID S. HOLLAND KATEY KORSLUND KIRK B. LEVY o JACKSON MOORE, JR. JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES. JR. PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 To: Planning Commission and City Council Members cc: James K. Spore, City Manager William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney Jack Whitney, Director, Department of Planning From: R. Edward Bourdon, Jr., Esquire Date: April 8, 2009 Re: Example of Actual Application and Treatment of Applicant by CBP A Board to illustrate necessity for Clear, Reasonable Guidelines Case #12, January 2009 CBPAAgenda Applicant: Ms. Cherrie Hansen 2117 E. Admiral Drive Cape Story by the Sea Neighborhood developed 50 years ago, south side Shore Drive; Modest sized lots zoned R-10; Entire neighborhood would qualify for a designation as "Intensely Developed Area", and would be so designated -in most of our sister cities in Hampton Roads. . Subject lot contains 11,144 square feet on a canal. . Entire buildable area of lot (i.e. within building setback lines) is within the RPA Buffer (50' seaward; 50' landward and variable width). . Existing home built 44 years ago; prior to the City's adoption of a stormwater management ordinance; 26 years prior to CBPA Ordinance. . No onsite BMP's; no onsite treatment of existing impervious surface areas which total 3.437 square feet. I i II "I I i SYK~:S. ROURDON. AIlillN & lIVY. P.c. The Honorable William D. Sessoms, Jr. Members of the Virginia Beach City Council James K. Spore, City Manager April 14, 2009 Page 2 My intent is to help facilitate an understanding and awareness of a regulatory process that for many reasons has permitted significant "flexibility" in the imposition of regulatory "conditions" on applicants seeking to redevelop (or develop) their property. Unfortunately, that high level of flexibility has, after a lengthy period of fairly consistent and equitable imposition of conditions (initial 12 to 15 years of our program), given way to ever expanding impositions of more onerous, costly and inequitable conditions without any public discourse, public hearings, or public forums with those citizens being regulated and no legislative actions by City Council or any other elected body. While there may be more than one reason this has occurred, I personally believe one primary reason has been the incessant, often ill- informed, arrogant and threatening, interference in our local program, from the CBLAB staff in Richmond. Regardless of the circumstances which have brought us here, these changes will not hinder the City's exemplary efforts, under our very expansive Bay Act regulations, to achieve the purpose and intent spelled out for us in the State legislation which led the City to adopt our Bay Act program in 1990. Thank you for your consideration. REBjrjarhm Enclosure cc: William M. Macali, Deputy City Attorney Clay Bernick, Department of Planning Claudia Cotton, TBA ZoningAmendmentsjCBP AjSessoms_Ltr 4 -13-09 Sincerely, ~.... -----~~-----::> ./ ------. \ /" c. . .',,- ----::> -.<.:... - . -0 Bourdon, Jr. m.m sYJ([s. ROURDON. rAO Al.U~RN & lfi. P.C. PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23462-2989 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 April 14, 2009 JON M. AHERN R. EDWARD BOURDON. JR JAMES T. CROMWELL L. STEVEN EMMERT JACQUELINE A. FINK DAVID S. HOLLAND KATEY KORSLUND KIRK B. LEVY O. JACKSON MOORE. JR. JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES. JR Via Hand Delivery The Honorable William D. Sessoms, Jr. Members of the Virginia Beach City Council c/o Ruth Hodges Fraser, City Clerk City Hall Building #1, Room 281 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 James K. Spore, City Manager Office of the City Manager City Hall Building #1, Room 234 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Re: Proposed Amendments to Section 106 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance to be considered by City Council on April 28, 2009 Dear Mayor Sessoms, Members of City Council and City Manager Spore: I want to express my support for the proposed Amendments to Section 106 of our CBP A Ordinance which will be on your April 28, 2009 agenda. These Amendments are the product of a lengthy, collaborative public process which should make the treatment of homeowners whose properties have been impacted by our CBPA Ordinance more predictable and equitable. Most importantly, I believe the proposed wording of the Preamble clearly expresses the City's favorable position with regard to the installation of inground swimming pools upon most properties which were subdivided for residential development prior to the enactment of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. This was clearly the position held by the City Council in 1990 when our CBP A Ordinance was adopted, and was reflected in the decisions on hundreds of cases before the City's CBPA Board prior to the last two (2) plus years. I have enclosed herewith a Memorandum which I hope that you will each have an opportunity to review. I provide this solely as background information to illustrate one of the problems that is being addressed by the proposed Ordinance amendments. " II III I ..-r~\,iCti:~ ~r ~~",;'>.,~:':,~ ~/,..;., ~fi' if ' t;., :': .,~t (" ") ..,~ ,.< ;./ ~':~~.:.~~:~'./ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to amend the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance by including the surface area of swimming pools as impervious cover for purposes of calculating stormwater management requirements and by establishing uniform buffer mitigation standards. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 . Background: The Commonwealth's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board (CBLAB) is required by law to review local Chesapeake Bay programs to determine whether such programs are in compliance with all applicable State requirements. In June 2007, CBLAB found the City of Virginia Beach noncompliant with its implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) Ordinance. The City was directed by CBLAB to comply with nine (9) enumerated recommendations from CBLAB by July 1, 2008 to have its implementation of the Ordinance found compliant. On June 24, 2008, the City Council adopted amendments to the City Code that moved the City toward compliance; however, a proposed amendment requiring swimming pools be considered impervious, was not adopted. Subsequently, in September 2008, CBLAB found the City's Ordinance to be in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations, except with respect to regulations that require that the surface area of swimming pools be considered as impervious surfaces. . Considerations: Since September, the City has been working with property owners, developers, professionals, representatives of the Tidewater Builders Association, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) staff, and others to determine the best method to equitably regulate all impervious surfaces, including swimming pools. The result of that work are the attached amendments to Section 106 of the CBPA Ordinance, which provide a new set of buffer restoration standards that will apply to those cases where buffer restoration is required by the ordinance. The amendment to Subsection (A)(8)(d) [Line 96] makes it clear that the surface area of swimming pools is treated as impervious cover for purposes of stormwater management calculations in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - AMENDMENT TO CBPAO Page 2 of 2 The amendments in Subsection (C)(1) [Lines 100-150] set forth the standards for buffer restoration for new impervious surfaces in Resource Protection Areas. These standards are intended to make the restoration requirements more uniform and predictable. The remaining amendments [Lines 152-158] require that areas disturbed as the result of shoreline hardening projects (i.e., bulkheads and riprap) must be restored with whatever vegetation was removed. They also provide that trees may not be planted within 15 feet of the shoreline where the trees would shade marshes or compromise the structural integrity of the bulkhead or other shoreline hardening structure. There was opposition to the proposed amendments. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission voted 10-0 for adoption of the amendments, with a proviso that the Green Ribbon Committee be tasked with the development of buffer mitigation standards and that those standards be reported back to the Planning Commission for consideration. . Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Amendment Recommended Action: Staff recommended approval. Planning Commission recommended approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department i \ \ \. ) City Manag . k - 0:3~ r III I #25 April 8, 2009 Public Hearing CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I AMENDMENT TO CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA ORDINANCE (CBPAO) REQUEST: An Ordinance to amend the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance by including the surface area of swimming pools as impervious cover for purposes of calculating stormwater management requirements and by establishing uniform buffer mitigation standards. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT The Commonwealth's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board (CBLAB) is required by law to review local Chesapeake Bay programs to determine whether such programs are in compliance with all applicable State requirements. In June 2007, CBLAB found the City of Virginia Beach noncompliant with its implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) Ordinance. The City was directed by CBLAB to comply with nine (9) enumerated recommendations from CBLAB by July 1, 2008 to have its implementation of the Ordinance found compliant. On June 24, 2008, the City Council adopted amendments to the City Code that moved the City toward compliance; however, a proposed amendment requiring swimming pools be considered impervious, was not adopted. Subsequently, in September 2008, CBLAB found the City's Ordinance to be in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations, except with respect to regulations that require that the surface area of swimming pools be considered as impervious surfaces. Since then, the City has been working with property owners, developers, professionals, representatives of the Tidewater Builders Association, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) staff, and others to determine the best method to equitably regulate all impervious surfaces, including swimming pools. The result of that work are the attached amendments to Section 106 of the CBPA Ordinance, which provide a new set of buffer restoration standards that will apply to those cases where buffer restoration is required by the ordinance. The amendment to Subsection (A)(8)(d) [Line 96] makes it clear that the surface area of swimming pools is treated as impervious cover for purposes of stormwater management calculations in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / AMENDMENTS TO CBPAO Agenda Item 25 Page 1 The amendments in Subsection (C)( 1) [Lines 100-150] set forth the standards for buffer restoration for new impervious surfaces in Resource Protection Areas. These standards are intended to make the restoration requirements more uniform and predictable. The remaining amendments [Lines 152-158] require that areas disturbed as the result of shoreline hardening projects (i.e., bulkheads and riprap) must be restored with whatever vegetation was removed. They also provide that trees may not be planted within 15 feet of the shoreline where the trees would shade marshes or compromise the structural integrity of the bulkhead or other shoreline hardening structure. RECOMMENDA liON Staff recommends approval of the amendments. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / AMENDMENTS TO CBPAO Agenda Item 25 Page 2 III Item #25 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to Amend the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Bay Area Ordinance by including the surface area of swimming pools As impervious cover for purposes of calculating stormwater Management requirements and by establishing uniform buffer Mitigation standards April 8, 2009 REGULAR -, Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item 25. This is the application of the City of Virginia Beach for the Ordinance to Amend the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance, which refers to swimming pools as impervious cover. Karen Lasley: Madame Chairman, we have Clay Bernick who is here. He is our Environmental Management Administrator. Janice Anderson: Okay. Karen Lasley: He has a presentation which summarizes the proposal, which you have already heard and City Council has heard yesterday. I don't know if you would like him to go through that again. Then, we have members of the Tidewater Builders Association here, who haven't seen it. We did give them a copy of the presentation. Janice Anderson: I think I'm satisfied with the prior presentation. They have been given copies of the presentation itself Karen Lasley: Justthe Tidewaters Builders Association. Janice Anderson: Okay. I think we're fine on that. We can probably hash everything out. Just the review. Thank you though. Karen Lasley: Very good. Janice Anderson: Clay, do you mind coming up and just giving us a 'non-presentation'. Clay Bernick: Madame Chairman and members of the Commission, I'll be glad to give a 'non-presentation' presentation. As we reviewed earlier, and as you have been involved in this issue for some time, this is one of the compliance conditions that was placed on the City by the State's Chesapeake Bay Board. We were found compliant in all ofthe other matters that were amended sometime ago. This one we were granted an extension through the end of 2008 to make this final amendment regarding how we calculate impervious cover regarding swimming pools. We were not able to complete that modification by the end of the year. The State's Chesapeake Bay Board found us non-compliant with their regulations, at a meeting they held on March 23,2008, and directed the City to make amendments by April Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 2 30th of this year. In doing the work on this, we conducted two public meetings with citizens and consultants. Based on that, we've gone through about seven revisions of the draft ordinance to the one that you have before you today. The ordinance in its current form was an attempt to try and reach consensus with all of the parties who attended the public meetings. We believe that it was a good compromise effort. We did receive some comments from those who, in particular, felt that the recommendations on our buffer mitigation requirements were either too restrictive or too relaxed, depending upon which way you went. Some ofthe environmental community felt like we should have a ratio of 4 to 5 times replacement for buffer, and on the other side, some on the development community felt that a 1 to 1 replacement be sufficient. Staff was of the opinion that 2 to 1 ratio was appropriate given the fact that the buffer, when it is replaced, doesn't immediately function as the original buffer would have, and it needs a period of time to grow in to really assume and function the way the buffer is intended to do. The vegetation has to establish the canopy conditions needed to become appropriate and mature as the vegetation grows in. And, that's in line with other kind of other mitigation you see in natural conditions such as wetlands mitigation. So, staff is recommending the 2 to 1 ratio there. We also placed a number of other recommendations in there that would allow in the ordinance that this would be a cap maximum that the Board or staff would be able to approve buffer mitigation requirements in the future. And there is also some flexibility in that cap that it could be lower if, after the applicant presents information that either there is vegetation on the site that could do the job or that a structural BMP could be placed on the site to handle water quality, then the ratio can be less than two. With that, we would suggest that you consider this so that we can satisfy the compliance issue and get back to bigger issues regarding Chesapeake Bay Preservation. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Bernick. Clay Bernick: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Clay at this time? Ronald Ripley: I've got a question. Clay, when the other items that were out of compliance were deemed to be in compliance, what date was that? Clay Bernick: We made those amendments. I believe they were all done a year ago this time. I think they were last June that we made those amendments that were found compliant. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eugene Crabtree: Madame Chairman, we have three speakers in opposition. The first speaker is Mr. James Crocker. Janice Anderson: Welcome sir. James Crocker: Thank you. Madame Chairman. First of all does anybody back in here on the Commission live on the water? "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 3 Ed Weeden: Sir, state your name for the record please. James Crocker: James E. Crocker. C-R-O-C-K-E-R. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. I live on the water. James Crocker: Have you tried to do any construction anywhere on your property in the last 10 years? It is unbelievable. I have never tap danced more in my life than I have just to get a driveway replaced. I have certain objections to the ordinance that you all are working on today. One is the City's ordinance has been one ofthe most successful Chesapeake Bay Ordinances in the State in accomplishing the goals of protecting and enhancing water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. I don't see how you say that to City Council when you have absolutely no documentation as to what improvements we've made to the Bay because you can't prove a negative. You simply can't. I have now learned, according to this if this is approved, that gravel is impervious. Water does not go through gravel does it? Have you put gravel in a bucket? Put holes in the bottom of the bucket and pour water in it and see what comes out of the bottom? It is water. Gravel is not impervious. I am so tried of having my property rights subjected to subordination to the Chesapeake Bay. I can't believe it. I had to hire an attorney just to replace a driveway. Asphalt driveway with gravel. If that makes any sense to you, I think we are all crazy. I also object to the area dealing with swimming pools where you have to put in a BMP because we want to recapture ground water. If that is the case, when you live on the water, that should be the case for every swimming pool built in the City of Virginia Beach because that water doesn't flow into the Bay, it would also have to go into a BMP. So, I think this is just another attempt to erode the rights of property owners who live on the water, who also, by the way, pay the highest taxes of any individual in the City. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Crocker. Are there any questions for him? Thank you sir. Eugene Crabtree: The next speaker is Mr. John Olivieri. John Olivieri: Good afternoon. My name is John Olivieri. I'm here on behalf of the Tidewater Builders Association. I think we visited this issue before a couple of months ago when they were trying to deal with it, saying that pools are impervious. It went to Planning Commission and want to City Council. City Council told staffwe don't want it declared impervious. Go back to CBLAD and try to work something out. Here are back again, and pools are still impervious. And, on top of that, here are some more regulations, some more standards. And I understand what they are trying to do. I do agree with Clay that we need to do something about the whole standards of the program. The buffer mitigation and it is very arbitrary. You go before the Board. You don't know ifit is 9 to 1,2 to 1,5 to 1 until you get before the Board, and then they may change it when you get before the Board. It just seems like it is still very arbitrary. We didn't have much time to look at this. We were given a call. We got the ordinance, the first draft on a Friday afternoon. The first public hearing was Monday. Then a week from that Monday was another hearing. So, we were on the phone mustering up people. We got consultants, property owners, and people down here. We Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 4 worked with Clay and his staff and they did address some of the issues. But there are still a lot of things in here that we don't like. What we are asking today is to at least give us some more time to work on this. I know that the State is saying that there is this deadline. You have to do it. We've been saying this all along. We don't think CBLAD has the authority they're saying. They have never sued anybody. We've looked at the statute. The title of the State enabling legislation is "cooperative" state and local program. CBLAD is there to advise and assist the localities. I don't know how threatening to sue the city is cooperative. I don't see that. I think they could give us some more time to sit down and work t~ out. Using this goal standard of buffers that is their riparian documents, we didn't have any say so in how that was put together. We weren't consulted on that. I think it is better for the City, for us to sit down and come up with our own. That is the whole idea of the Chesapeake Bay Program. We're supposed to come up with our own regulations, our own rules, and work in cooperation with them. Not have them say these are the rules. These are the standards that you are going to go by, and if you don't, we're going to sue you. So, that is the biggest problem that we have with it. I could hand this out. I did a little just under their guidelines. I did an example. A 20 by 40 foot pool with an 8 foot concrete patio around it would require a total of 10 canopy trees, 20 understory trees and 30 shrub - so 30 trees and 30 shrubs. On top of that, you can't put them within 15 feet of the shoreline. You got to put them where turf was. It gets into the same thing. How are you going to get this? Again, why do we have to have this perfect mix of this perfect trophic layering? Where is the scientific data that shows that this really happens? They, by their own omission, say it takes 20 years for these buffers to fully function. Well, you can put a BMP in and it functions today. Again, I understand they're trying to replace buffers and restore buffers, but where does it make sense? And there is a lot of, and staff has understood they have put a lot of things in the ordinance that say where you can present, again, how does a property owner demonstrate the natural site conditions as such as a lesser buffer restoration requirement is there. And they still say that they still want to hold on to this trophic layering. That you still, even if they give you some leeway on the buffer, they are still going to want to see all three of these components. There is still a lot of ambiguity in this. We would just like to sit down and maybe come up with something that is better. We've looked at other cities around here. For example, Chesapeake - their requirement is either one larger tree or two small trees or 10 shrubs. They don't require all of it but they require much less. And CBLAD has signed off on theirs. There is just a lot of things in here. Like I said, I don't want to sit here for an hour and go on. I've submitted these to the staff. And they have addressed some of them. But I think the biggest problem is the ambiguity in it, and the fact that we are kind of under the gun with CBLAD. They're just forcing us to do this. I think the City should stand back up to them and say, you know, we don't have to do that. And again, where is the consistency? How come Chesapeake doesn't have to do it? How come Norfolk doesn't have to do it? And on top of it, they are expanding it also to shoreline hardening. Now, they're saying if you're gong to redo your bulkhead, you're not even doing a new home or anything, they're saying now you're going to have to get a CBP A variance for that, and you're going to have to meet. Originally, they were saying that you're going to have to restore all of your buffers even if you had grass up to your bulkhead but, now they have backed up off of that. They said, well only if you can do existing buffers, you can replace those if you have grass, you can replace that. That is already required by your Wetlands permit anyhow if you go before the "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 5 Wetlands Board. You have to get Army Corps and VMRC permits. If you disturb buffers, they require buffer restoration. So, why are you going to make somebody go through another process and get another variance? Again, it is just a lot of laws of unintended consequences. So, I guess to sum it up here, that is what we are asking is could we get some time to defer this, whether it is 30 days, 60 days. Really, 60 days would give us some more time to really look at this stuff. And also see the documentation from CBLAD. Show us that what you're proposing really works here or is there something better we can do. Janice Anderson: Oaky. Are there any questions of Mr. Olivieri? Go ahead Ron. Ronald Ripley: You mentioned Chesapeake. You're saying Chesapeake developed it's own guidelines? John Olivieri: Yes, all the localities throughout the State. Basically the way the program works is they develop their own guidelines, and then, CBLAD will come through every year. CBLAD helps them in the development of it, and then, after so many years, they come and evaluate it like they did ours. And of course ours has been passed for many much years, and again, everytime, they revise these riparian guidelines or the CBLAD guidelines, all of a sudden we have to abide by those. We don't get a chance to say wait a minute. They don't work for us. Can you help us? They may have a hearing up in Richmond sometime. We don't even have anybody that sits on the CBLAD Board right now. The City of Virginia Beach doesn't have anybody. So, we're not even represented up there. They are making these regulations and pushing down on us and we don't even have any say so in it. So, but the other ones, and yes, to answer your question, the other cities they have different guidelines, and some have been approved and some ofthem haven't. But we're not aware of any in Hampton Roads that have been required to do what they're requiring us to do. Ronald Ripley: So, in Chesapeake you might have the Elizabeth River area and it's very low waves. It doesn't erode as bad so they have a different level oflayering to accommodate them there? Just like maybe in Richmond, where it's the James River and it's mountainous. It's a difference of plants. John Olivieri: That's true. I'm not sure. I assume they take all that into consideration when they look at each locality's programs. But I'm not really sure. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Go ahead. Eugene Crabtree: One question. Don't you think you're sort of preaching to the choir when all ofthis is controlled by Richmond? And all were doing is trying to comply with what Richmond tells us too? It is not that I don't agree with you exactly what you're saying. But how do we get to Richmond? Changing it here before us or City Council is not going to change Richmond. John Olivieri: Well, I agree, but I think, but I think that again the thing is that City staff had some direction from maybe Council or you all to say look, go back to them and give us some Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 6 time to work some more things out. Again, why again, let's have some consistency here. Again, we don't really believe that CBLAD can even sue the City or they're going to sue the City. I mean, again, we've looked at the regulations, and we asked CBLAD. Show us where you actually have the authority. They really haven't. They point out code sections, but the code sections all say that they are there to assist the localities in the enforcement. Not to enforce it themselves or force enforcement. We don't see that. Again, it's shaky and I'm not a lawyer. It is shaky legal ground I'm sure. We just feel like you shouldn't just do it just because CBLAD tells you too. I mean, I guess that is where we're getting back at? Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Bill Macali: Madame Chairman, I can help with that. The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board does have the right to take administrative and judicial action against the City for non- compliance with the regulations. We can help out Mr. Olivieri with the code section. We'll do that, but they certainly do. There is no question about it. Whether or not they would is something else, but they do have that authority. Kay Wilson is right here. She can give you that section. John Olivieri: I understand that. We also have the ability to declare the city an Intensely Develop Area. And then we can do away with all of these requirements and only have to meet the 10 percent reduction requirement. We don't want to do that, but ifCBLAD is going to say well, this is what you're going to do. I mean, again, what kind ofleverage do we have against them when you ask what can we do? We have options. Like Norfolk has taken that route. And, we have, CBLAD admits, we have the most number of variances of any locality in the State. We know the shoreline here is about 95 percent developed so to say that we don't quality for IDA status is not correct. I can guarantee you that. And that is an option that we have. Again, ifthey're going to cram this stuff down our throats, then maybe we should look at other options that we have. Again, I'm no advocating that, but it is just something that we need to think about. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Eugene Crabtree: I've had two other people sign up to make comments and then the final speaker. Mr. Brad Martin. Brad Martin: Good afternoon. My name is Brad Martin. I'm a civil engineer. I have my office on Lynnhaven Parkway. It was not my intention to speak today. I don't have anything prepared so I'm afraid this is going to go badly. That being said, I want to make it very clear, abundantly clear, that I'm here as a member of the development community, as a civil engineer. I'm here as a citizen of Virginia Beach. I live up on Shore Drive. I am also an appointed member of the Chesapeake Bay Board. I am not here representing the Chesapeake Bay Board or any our members. I just want to make that perfectly clear. With that being said, I want to commend staff, everybody on staff from Mr. Bernick on down, for identifying a challenge with the buffer restoration standards that are being passed down to property owners. I do want to raise some concerns about the changes as they are in the ordinance "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 7 manual right now. This is the guidance manual this is being made reference to in the ordinance changes that you have in front of you today. And I find it hard to read from a document without sounding condescending, but I'm just going to read one sentence. "In the preference of this very manual, it says where a property has a lawn prior to the adoption of the local Bay Act Program, no additional planting is required. Although the addition of woody vegetation is encouraged for the benefits they would provide." This very manual says that where there was a lawn before there should not be buffer restoration or reforestation required as part of the CBP A variance or approval. That is one point. I have two others. Just by virtue of the fact that in these guidelines the reforestation of these CBP A buffers is so, it is definitely made consistent with these ordinance changes, but it is so onerous and costly and burdensome I think there are gong to be unintended consequences. What you do once you figure out how many square feet of buffer restoration you are required to do is that you divide that by 400 square feet. And for every 400 square foot unit, you have to plant one (1) over-story tree, two canopy trees and three bushes. An over-story tree is 35 feet tall or taller. An understory tree is 12 to 35 feet tall. In this very room there are about six (6) ofthose 400 square foot units in this 2,400 square feet of room. So to reforest this room to these standards, you would need to plant eighteen (18) trees. I don't. I guess that could go either way. Some of you may say boy that is not enough, or I hope you would say boy, that's an awful lot. So, the costliness of these ordinance changes are prohibitive in what they would let property owners do, which they could do by-right now or with a variance. The third thing Mr. Olivieri mentioned was the unintended consequences. I think what you're going to do in adopting this ordinance, if you choose to recommend the adoption ofthis ordinance, you're telling property owners on the waterfront that they can't do what they want to do with their property in terms of redevelopment or new development without creating a forested buffer between them and the water, which is probably why they leave on the water in the first place. For a property owner or a new owner to buy a piece of property, tear down the old house, which might be a 1950s ranch house on Bay Island or something and put up a new house, they are basically going to have to block their entire view ofthe waterfront, which I think we would all agree is why you would choose to live on Bay Island in the first place. The other thing is in this ordinance, this proposed ordinance change, it says that the trees and the mulch and the beds must be maintained, which I believe to be in perpetuity. Even the guidance manual says there should be about a two year time frame when this stuff should stay in place. The ordinance manual as it is written right now says it shall be maintained, and I'm adding in perpetuity because it doesn't put a time limit on it. The challenge with that is what happens when another Hurricane Isabel comes through and knocks down all these brand new trees that have been planted as a part ofthis buffer restoration? Is the City going to require these property owners to go out and reforest their buffers because an act of Mother Nature has demolished what the City imposed them to put in because of their development? So, again, those are some of my concerns as a member of the development community, as a civil engineer who has been aware and a part of these projects since 1992, when I started in this business. I hope you think very thoughtfully about what you have in front of you today. Thank you for your time. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 8 David Redmond: That went really badly though. Brad Martin: I figured it would. Eugene Crabtree: The next person to make a comment is Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much. I'll let the esteemed Mr. Ainslie, who was if not the best, one of the best Chairmen of the Bay Board that we ever had. I won't comment on where I think the Bay Board has gone since he is no longer on it. He'll speak last. I have provided you all this morning yet another lengthy dissertation. You all were nice enough to listen to me and review what I gave you all back when you, along with City Council unanimously denied what CBLAD was selling. But I gave you this today and hopefully you, or some of you, had a chance to review it to give you a sense of why we are here on some of the other issues that are in these changes. I'm frankly here not in opposition to what is before you. I look at is as half full or half empty and what is before you, in my view more than half full in terms of where we are and where we need to go. I am particularly heartened by what I hear from Mr. Bernick, and I certainly hope that message is delivered loud and clear to the members of our Bay Board currently as well as to the staff. And, I'll talk about staff in a second. The big, big problem that we're dealing with, and it is reflected in a lot of the lengthy comments I've provided here, is that we have a scale that is just sliding all over the place in terms of what people are supposed to do with these buffer restoration standards. I've been dealing with this from before we had a Bay Act. And, initially it was 100 percent of the new impervious that you put on the site, you had to put a buffer restoration in, that is in addition to treating it with a BMP. And, it has over the years slid down a slippery slope without any governmental action by any elected body, without any public discussion, nothing at all. It all just comes floating down from Richmond, and our Bay Board, our staff just starts piling it on, piling it on, and piling it on when nobody has ever talked to the citizens who are being regulated by this buffer stuff. So, we're here in part because Mr. Lilly talked to me along with Mr. Macali, Mr. Bernick about wasn't there a way to try resolve some of this stuff after the Council did the right thing and say no to the impervious surface. And my reaction to what they wanted to talk about was yes. I think maybe we can resolve some of this because the lady who came to Council from CBLAD put on the record that CBLAD was not opposed to any people building swimming pools. I can tell you that they come to many a meeting trying to intimidate our Bay Board into denying people swimming pools. So, I felt that was an opening to try and get somewhere. Okay. It seems like we're going to have to take a step back and decide they are not opposed to people having swimming pools, maybe we can make some progress here. That is kind of why I think we're here in part. I'm going to back up for a second. I'm going to read you the intent of our State Code that created the CBP A Ordinance. The intent is define and protect certain lands which if improperly developed may result in substantial damage to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Let me think about stopping it from being developed. Just keeping if from being improperly developed; and (b), very important Mr. Crabtree. This is important to what you asked Mr. Olivieri. Local governments have the initiative for planning and implementing the Bay Act. The Commonwealth, Richmond, the Commonwealth is to act in a "supportive role" and provide resources, that is what the law says and in my view that "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 9 supportive role when it comes to CBLAD and Virginia Beach is non-existent. I'm not sure about the resources. The Bay Act's purpose is to encourage and promote (1) protection of existing high quality state waters and restoration of all state waters. That's those that are not high quality state waters. I would submit to you that the Lyunnhaven River on a scale is high quality state water. Not saying it perfect, to restore those that are not and to maintain those that are high quality to a condition or quality that will permit all reasonable public uses and will support the propagation and growth of all aquatic life including game fish, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them. Folks, you go down the Lynnhaven River and the Lynnhaven River basin, and I would suggest to you that there is probably the most utilized body of water of its size in the Commonwealth of all manor of recreational use, fishing, crabbing, boating, swimming and water skiing taking place in that watershed. I think we're there. It could be better, but we're certainly not a water body that has any lack of quality; (2) to safeguard the clean waters of the Commonwealth from pollution. There may be some pollution in the Lynnhaven River Basin, but it comes more from bilge tank discharges and from City storm drains that are draining property off the waterfront that are not treated. And there are thousands of those. And that is our big challenge. Not the people who live on the water who aren't trying to pollute the water they live on; (3) to prevent and increase of pollution. That has been a slam dunk in Virginia Beach. And Mr. Henley's request for information this morning at your informal is right on the mark. What we have been doing over the last 18 to 19 years, if we went back and documented it, it is magnificent. I have been dealing with these applications that entire period of time; and last, to reduce the existing pollution. Again, we have slam-dunked that purpose of this ordinance. Swimming pools: they are not a pollutant. If that was a scenario, we would never have a Bay Act if all we were worried about is swimming. But the CBLAD people, at one point did not want swimming. People shouldn't have swimming if they have to put them in the RP A, the Resource Protection Area. We have thousands of lots that were platted before there was a Bay Ordinance with development, existing houses, and they can't build a pool anywhere else. And we were approving pools routinely until a matter of about 2 to 2 Y2 years ago when CBLAD started trying to muscle in. They came to the Bay Board meetings. They started trying to intimidate our Bay Board and our staff, and all of a sudden pools are no longer a good idea. Our City Council, as I made real clear a few months ago, and Council certainly agreed, and have always believed we ought to be able to have swimming pools. CBLAD sat at the Council meeting in December. What is before you today, I think, makes it as clear as it can be, that we intend allow people to put in swimming pools as long as they treat those with a BMP. Well folks, the cost of putting in a BMP for that swimming pool area, even though it may be an overkill, its far, far less than the cost of all this buffer stuffthat they are requiring us to do. And, I gave you an example of one where they wanted 940 percent buffer restoration. It's obscene, $19,000 in additional cost to the application. It's obscene, and that is what we're having to deal with. This proposal to limit it to 200 percent, and it can't go above 200 percent, it's not perfect in my view, but it's a heck a lot of better than where it is. I would suggest to you that Mr. Bernick, that there were environmental concerns, they weren't at either of the two workshops that were held. And I don't think. I've been involved in the Green Ribbon Committee. I'm a constant contributor to the Lynnhaven Now Group. Their focus is where our focus ought to be is not the people who live on the water. We're doing a heck ofa lot. We just don't know the extent of it. And again, Mr. Henley's question Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 10 to staff, as to why we don't have it, and we should be able to get that information. That will solve that problem. You will see how much they have done over the last 18 to 19 years. We got to deal with the real issues and quit beating on the poor folks who happen to live on the water or on ditches and other areas that are aren't really what you call valuable waterfront property that are still covered by these regulations. We don't have an IDA. We can make an IDA out of, and we can declare a huge portion of our property as IDA, and save people hundreds of thousands of dollars in total, but we haven't chosen to do that. I'm not here advocating doing that. By him advocating that we do our own thing and just don't listen to bureaucrats from Richmond who are supposed to be supporting us. They're not supporting us. And we need to do a better job defending ourselves. We need to do a better job of having members of our community on the CBLAD Board, which we don't even have, as Mr. Olivieri correctly said. So, I think this is a significant step in the right direction. I would like to see us do our own riparian buffers under our own standards rather than simply approve whatever Richmond suggests to us. I think we can do a better job on that. I know smaller lots to 200 percent that's in here won't work, because there is not enough room. But again, Mr. Bernick is correct in my view, as long as the discretion is there to go lower, in those cases where you have to go lower, then I do think 200 percent is a standard we can live with. I would like to see in a perfect world, to be lower, but from where we are it is a huge step in the right direction. And, not having people just simply willy-nilly to decide they want to have more buffer on applications, and if we can limit it to that, as Mr. Bernick says this does, that is great step in the right direction. Sorry to run on. Janice Anderson: Mr. Bourdon, you evidently would like this deferred so you can work more on this ordinance. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not taking a position. I'm not unco,mfortable to with what is here. I do believe, however, whether we do it the way it is or whether you defer it, the only thing that I have a concern about is what goes into the buffer. In other words, their guidance versus creating local riparian buffer standards, and I think we can do that whether we do it before we push this stuff through or rather we do it after. I don't think it would preclude it from doing our own but putting theirs in now and going back. I'm not a landscape architect. I've been told by enough people, and enough people I've represented on applications, how costly this can be. My biggest thing, and I'm glad we're doing this, and I wish there were more people participating in respect for the process. Weare losing that respect for the process. I've been at several Bay Board meetings in the last six months, and every one of them, where the Bay Board members whine and complain that they are seeing all of these after the fact applications that people are just going ahead and doing it, because they have lost respect for this process. We've got to restore. There has got to be a public participation. There has got to be dialogue with those who are being regulated. None of that has happened over the last 17 to 18 years when these rules have just gotten worse, and worse and worse. It is not a way to run a railroad. But I actually am pleased that we have come with this. I'm not here opposed just as an excuse to be opposed to it. I'm very happy with Clay, with Mr. Macali, with Judge Lilly now, and Rick Scarper. The staff, they have worked very well with us to try and come up with a better way. I think we are way on our way to that, so again, it is more than half full in my view. I really would like, however, for some of our landscape architects and other "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 11 people who are familiar with this area to possibly work on those guidelines, because if you look at who developed those guidelines in that book, they are all academics, and state bureaucrats. There was nobody in the private sector involved. They got a list of everybody who worked on those guidelines. I think Mr. Bernick's name may be on there but there, was nobody down here who was involved in that process. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions of Eddie? Go ahead Ron. Ronald Ripley: Eddie, if you did decide to have some workshops to kind of work through local guidelines, how long do you think that would take you, given your experience with what we're dealing with today? How long do you think it would take to develop such a document? Eddie Bourdon: Well, my biggest problem is not being able, and I don't want to portrayed as advocate, because I'm not. It's who in the private sector, the Billy Almonds of the world. The Doug Orans. The landscape architects in our area, and whether they are willing to put in some of their time, because they are the ones with the expertise, not lawyers like me or even engineers like Mr. Martin. We deal with it everyday from a client standpoint, but if you got the local landscape architects, a couple or three that are willing to put in the time maybe with the City Arborist, I think it can be done very quickly myself. Again, I'm accepting some of the things that maybe TBA is not with regard to calling a pool an impervious surface. I'm now okay with that with the understanding that we're making it very clear that people can put in swimming pools as long as they do the things that are going to improve water quality. A pool is not going to harm water quality. I'm accepting ofthat, and the other only concern that I have about any of this, as it is currently before you is what constitutes the right planting ratios for the buffer. That is my biggest issue. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. I'm sorry. Janice Anderson: Mr. Macali, if we pass this ordinance as it is now and then later come up with our own standard, local standards, we can amend the ordinance right? Bill Macali: Certainly. I should mention just a couple ofthings if! may? Janice Anderson: Yes sir. Bill Macali: One may have gotten the impression that these buffers standards in subsection (c) are something that don't exist and we are making people put in buffers as a result of this ordinance. That is not the case. Variances that are granted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area board all have mitigation requirements. The reason that these were put in there at all, is because of a widespread perception, and I'm not saying whether it is true or false whatever, but there is this perception that the Board is not entirely consistent or uniform in imposing the mitigation requirements. This attempts to make them more uniform. It does Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 12 not establish any new buffer requirements. I think Mr. Bernick, who's had a lot more experience before the Board will tell you that. I'm a little bit surprised that some of the speakers seem to have indicated that they believe there are new requirements we're putting on people as a result of this ordinance. That is entirely not the case. I don't believe Mr. Bourdon thinks that or said that either. Eddie Bourdon: No. I don't mean to jump here. What's happening is that these requirements were imposed upon an applicant, in terms of what type of plant material, starting about a year and a half ago without any of this process ever having occurred. That's the problem. That is what it's been now for a while. Prior to that time, our staff said 'x' amount of trees. It was basically our own standard. It wasn't in a printed guideline. That is where the problem has arisen. It just suddenly came down from the heavens without anybody's participation, and that is why this is a good thing. Bill Macali: That is why when the Chair asked if we can go ahead, and if this ordinance is passed work on that aspect later. My answer was yes. It is yes. Eddie Bourdon: I would agree with that. Janie Anderson: Okay. Eugene Crabtree: Madame Chairman, we have one last speaker. Mr. Jeff Ainslie. Janice Anderson: Welcome. Jeff Ainslie: Good afternoon. Madame Chair and members of the Commission, my name is Jeff Ainslie. I have the enviable position of being the last speaker. Thank you. I've lived here most of my life. It's on the other side over there, which is probably not as much fun as it is being on this side. In 1974, just to give you a little history of where I came from. I'm a builder and developer, and I've been building houses for years now forever and ever. In 1974, we started the Save the Lynnhaven Foundation, which is a precurser 15 years later when you saw the Save the Bay Foundation. It was a group put together by Nick Savage and six area high schools here that went around and did a bunch of science work, real science, on trying to determine the water quality and so forth. I served as Chairman of The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board here for 1997 to 2005. I've heard about 1,800 different cases or applications come before the Board. I will tell you this, that Virginia Beach is the best of the best. I've served on many State commissions and studied all the different bay boards up and down the coast and all over the Chesapeake Bay area. The program we have is better than any place else on the Chesapeake Bay. More is done for water preservation than water quality improvement in Virginia Beach than any other place. Ron, you mentioned earlier, is it different in Chesapeake because they are on the Elizabeth and they have lower areas? Yes. It is a little different. Is it different in Richmond or in areas up on the Rappahannock where you have a huge sheet fall of water that comes from cliffs? Yes. It is very different. Virginia Beach has a self-imposed standard of 6 percent slopes, where once we exceed a six percent slope, and you can imagine a six percent slope isn't very much., we really jump in III Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 13 and require an awful lot more of buffer restoration and mitigation than is required by the State guidelines. We're also instrumental in getting civil penalties approved for violations of the Chesapeake Bay Board level here. We went out and spent weeks in Richmond. We imposed a lot of civil penalties, and believe me, I still see some of those folks that we imposed penalties on, and we have interesting conversations. We gave our program to the City of Chesapeake. You had a question about that too. We gave our whole booklet to the City of Chesapeake, to their legal staff down there. They took our program and then revised it to make it their program. They had no program at all up until about 10 years ago., The Green Ribbon Committee was put in place back in 2005, I think. The City instituted a Green Ribbon group, and Andy Fine had the head of that up along with 30 different folks, many of them who were City staff and industry professionals. They made 55 different directive recommendations to the City. The number one recommendation was analyze and reengineer our stormwater program that we have in the City of Virginia Beach. Eddie mentioned it earlier. We have 1,800 to 2,000 outfalls that directly discharge storm water, untreated, into the watershed. Not from homes that are long the water so much, but from homes that are back in other communities that are further away from the water. The number one priority should be to try and get those things taken care of quickly. The Lynnhaven River 2007 and it is now called Lynnhaven River NOW. Someone mentioned earlier do we have any measurable statistics? Has the water been cleaned up? Well, yes it has. We achieved milestones in water quality improvement in the Lynnhaven in the last five years. It is fully documented; scientific and other evidence is out there. So, what we're doing is really working and it is working really well. My philosophy is that we need to shift the paradigm. And that is, we have entire communities again that discharge all of that runoff directly out there. And in many applications that came before this Board years ago, we would actually go through, and as one of the conditions of approving the application, we would ask them to retrofit those outfalls. We could if they weren't so much City and some are private. Things were done differently years ago. Every mile of right-of-way, these are some outstanding statistics, every mile of right-of-way that has these outdated stormwater, these catch basins or street basins that just dump the water out, is the equivalent of 425 to 475 swimming pools. Every mile of roadway, and that would be equal to 27,000 trees and shrubs. So, we're asking people to put in 30 trees and 30 shrubs. For every mile of roadway we have out there right now, just right-of-way, we have 27. That is the equivalent of them installing 27,000 trees and shrubs. The thing to talk about the pool and we've fought it for years. We finally got them to agree that pools were okay. Pools are pervious. The water enters in the pool. The water stays in the pool. The water evaporates from the pool. Any of you that have pools know you constantly have to fill your pool up in the summertime. In Virginia Beach, the water just continues to evaporate. We're not having to treat the water. That raindrop that is falling from the sky and hitting the pool. God is taking care of that for us. It is going back into the atmosphere. But what we do need to do is address the water from the concrete area surrounding that, and that is of course is included in here as well. I'll finish up by giving you a few, just a few suggestions that I think we need to look at. Because we have a model program and because we recognize a lot of the applications that have been put forth and executed extremely well in the past, we should, this summer, if possible, get some interns brought in here, have them run through all the applications that have been done since 1989, and we have records of all of these. Let's see how much we have done. You can get an Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 14 intern for free. Let them work during the summer, two or three ofthem and have them gather all this information and tabulate it for us. CBLAD has been coming down here for years trying to bully us around. I think what happens is that they see the things that we do, and they go to other parts of the Bay area, and they take the best of the best, and they want to come back and enforce all of the best on everyone. Well, every locality is a little different. Every shoreline is different. Every riparian forest floor is different. What Virginia Beach is doing, the staff, Rick Scarper, that whole group down there is phenomenal. It's phenomenal. There is nothing like it anywhere else that I've seen. I would like to be able to take that historic data and create a matrix to outline some basics. It looks like we're starting that process here where you're saying if you take every 400 square feet of impervious cover that you apply these guidelines for trees and shrubs and plantings. Well, that's the beginning, but that is really not there. We need a matrix that when engineers are working with clients and they know they have an outline of a foundation for a building or an improvement on a piece of property, that they can with some certainty know exactly what it is going to cost and what's going to be expected so when they do that design layout, they can layout the BMPs or they can layout the planting beds, or they can coordinate everything across that whole site plan. It would make it much easier as far as the application process is concerned for the Chesapeake Bay Board because they would they have some standards by which to accept all these applications. Let's ensure that the city gets started on those 1,800 catch basins. If you want to walk the walk then you need to talk the talk. I mean, if you want to talk the talk you need to walk the walk. I think some of that work has been started. They have commenced working on different basins, and they are analyzing those. We need to make that happen more quickly. And lastly, lets recognize and promote the best ofthe best. Let's use as models some of these applications that have been brought forward using good science from the engineers that Eddie and John Olivieri just talked about before. These folks in the private sectors that are willing to give up their time and their talent, come through and prove to us these systems work. We've seem them for years. We've seen all the Vortec systems being brought before us, special driveway sections that absorb the water, drainable pavement. So, there are many good things and so many processes out there. We need to let the folks that are out there making applications know what's available to them so they can incorporate it into their designs. By that, I'm asking you to defer the application for, and Ron you asked a question, how long? Will it take 60 days? 90 days? 180 days? How quickly can you get scientist to work? They're faster than economists, I know that. I would just act that we provide enough deferral time in there so we can really go back and take it to another level and keep Virginia Beach on top of the scale, because we are there today. Janice Anderson: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Ainslie? Go ahead Jay. Jay Bernas: I think one of the options, I guess that is on the table is that if we were to approve it today, and then, come back with an update later to amend what gets approved. Do you see that as being a feasible alternative? Jeff Ainslie: It's feasible, but if someone goes to put a pool in today, how much do you think it costs them to adhere to this requirement for just the pool, not the whole house, just the pool? It is going to be more than now. It will be more than now because instead of putting "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 15 in a BMP, which we know works full bore from the start, we're going to put in a treed area that is going to take 4 or 5 years before it can work. You can spend $250 or $500 on one tree and it might be 8 or 10 feet tall. These things are calculated based on full canopy coverage when they reach 35 feet. How long is it going to take an eight foot tree to get to 35 feet? It's a phenomenal amount of money. It is $7,000 to $10,000 for just the pool, and for someone to come in and meet these guidelines, they're going to spend between $60,000 to $75,000 in plantings, and BMPs, to meet the requirements that are stipulated the way ordinance is written today. How can you provide affordable housing? And this happens everywhere. It is not just people that live on the water because typically those lots are bigger and a lot of this stuff already exists. You're penalizing those folks that are living on smaller lots. They really don't have enough room to put all of those trees and shrubs. I'm not a big proponent of grass, so I think there is a good balance there. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Jeff Ainslie: Thank you. Eugene Crabtree: That's all the speakers. Janice Anderson: All the speakers. Clay, do you want to make any final response? Clay Bernick: Madame Chair and members of the Commission. I guess just a couple of points of clarification I would like to bring out. As far as the State Manual goes, it is not perfect. I'll be the first one to admit that. I served on the Committee that helped put it together. I believe we did have local input in that. It was adopted through a public hearing process at the State level before it was implemented and suggested to people. So, I believe it was there. Mr. Martin suggested that the Manual said that if you have lawns, then you're in compliance. I think the comment he made is probably out of context if you read the rest of the Manual. It basically says if you don't do anything with your property, you're in compliance. Kind of like a non-conforming use. But if you trigger development activity in the Resource Protection Area, then you put yourself under the buffer requirements, and that is straight from the State regulations. The other thing that I would suggest to you is that in terms of putting together what is in the draft before you, when we mentioned we had the two public information meetings, there was a City staff group that include, the City's arborist, our two stafflandscape architects that work in Parks and Recreation, people from the Development Services Center, as well as myself and other planners in the Planning Department. We went through the past three years of Chesapeake Bay Board variances that had been approved by the Board, as well as the staff recommendations, even for the ones that were denied by the Board, and all of the staffs administrative decisions. In looking at those, as I mentioned this morning at my presentation to you, the average was about 4 to 1 ratio over the past three years of what has been required on vegetation replacement. So, we conscientiously put in the ordinance draft before you a reduction from what has been the requirement for the past three years or so down to 2 to 1. It is has been 4 to 1. We believe that was appropriate though, because we believed by looking at them that the past decisions have been excessive, and that 2 to 1 would sufficiently protect water quality. We see that as Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 16 a cost savings, the property owners and the applicants going forward. We believe it does level the playing field. We believe it does, as I mentioned before, level that predictability and consistency issue that have been a big concern. And those are the only other comments I add today. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you Clay. Are there any questions for Clay? Ronald Ripley: I got a question. -, Janice Anderson: Clay? Ronald Ripley: I agree with you Clay. I mean setting the standards, I think what you're doing is absolutely right on the point. Because being able to have a standard to work from versus arbitrarily sitting up here and making decision and changing things is very difficult. I think the staff, as I said in the informal hearing, I think again, my opinion of CBLAD, and I've heard other people express it in here, and I won't repeat it, I think there really are, and you have an incredibly good program that is very well administered, and I think the application is scrutinized exceptionally good, and I think Jeff said it well, the quality ofthe program is second to none, and guys like yourself, Rick Scarper, and the Wetlands people and everything, it's all really a tremendous program. My question is. You heard the industry ask for some more time to try and work out, I think, these guidelines or maybe a local guidelines manual. I think that is what I'm hearing. How can we make this? That is - more a local set of guidelines so that we're not one thing that's all sort of thing. How would you feel about spending sometime with them if this were deferred? I don't know what is going to happen here. It may be passed like just like it is. I'm a little concerned about seeing it passed as it is, because once you pass something, it is really hard to change something sometimes, but maybe this is not the case here. But how would you feel about working with the industry more if it was given another 60 days or 90 days, or try to develop these local guidelines that would be workable within the City and workable within the community too? Clay Bernick: What I would suggest might be a way to move forward here, frankly from several perspectives, and trying, again to balance this out between the interest of the environmental community, the development community, the State over here, and the City over here, all over the place. My suggestion to you would be that you adopt the proposal you have before you today, and if you want to caveat that in your recommendation that maybe, through the City's Green Ribbon Committee process that Mr. Ainslie mentioned, that this be an item that is placed on their agenda for consideration of an action and bring back any further modifications to what's in and what you would adopt today in a reasonable time period. I think it does two things. One, it keeps the heat on that and makes it happen like you're suggesting your concern is - that it just doesn't fade away. The other thing is as Mr. Ainslie and other speakers mentioned, we are doing a lot for water quality in Virginia Beach. We do, I think, have one ofthe best programs in the State. We do have evidence ofthat in the fact that we have reopened this year over one-third of the Lynnhaven for marketing of oysters that have not been opened for shell fishing for close to 80 years. So, we have documentation that things have improved. But by not making this modification, and it is a "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 17 small issue regarding the swimming pools really, I think we set ourselves up for a lot of unfair scrutiny, and it makes the City looks like we're not interested, not whether that is accurate not, I don't think that is true. But the point is the perception in the public's mind or throughout the Commonwealth is that we don't care. And I think that is a disservice to all the work that have tried to improve the Beach, and I think frankly, it makes everyone in the city take a black eye when we don't need too. Janice Anderson: Yes. Bill Macali: Can I expand on that? Janice Anderson: Yes. Bill Macali: Mr. Bourdon told you a little bit about the procedural history when the city Council denied the original amendment. I don't think they told us to go back to CBLAD and negotiate anything, because the regulations clearly do say that swimming pools are impervious because the water that falls in to the swimming pools can't percolate into the ground, etc, etc. That definition is in the State's Stormwater Management Regulations. However, I talked to the City Attorney, at that time, and told him that I think the issue doesn't seem to be just swimming pools. It seems to be something more than that, and let's get together with Mr. Bourdon and whoever else is interested and address that issue. We've been working very hard at that, and when it say 'we', I really mean more Mr. Bernick and Kay Wilson and folks like that. They have been working exceptionally hard at it. It's unusual to have the public outreach where ordinance amendments there have been. They were well-attended, and the people there gave some pretty good comments. And, as a result, we have this that is before you. These don't set up any new requirements. It is not like you can build a swimming pool now in the RP A and not do mitigation and have that mitigation be free. This significantly reduces, if you go by the average, you heard Clay say 3 or 4 times as much. Clay Bernick: It reduces about half of what we have been requiring. Bill Macali: Right. I think that shows that the City staff is pretty interested in listening to the folks and addressing some of the issues that are out there. Apparently, there is another issue about the composition of the buffers. And frankly, I have no doubt that the local talent that we have, the people who work for the City, like Mr. Bernick and Mr. Scarper, as well as some of the folks that Mr. Bourdon mentioned, could come up with something that is better than anybody else. I just know what the talent is like around here, and the talent has always been pretty darn good in the past. There really is no reason given that the City has acted in such good faith and with such dispatch as it could in getting this together. The situation under this will be better than the situation is now, because it does reduce the amount of mitigation that has to be done. There is absolutely no reason to expect that the City staff is going to dig in its heels and not go ahead and come up with these standards for what the buffer comprises. I think to the extent that is possible for the people in this room to commit to that we can commit to that. It is important that the City adopt this ordinance. We like to Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 18 say that we have the best Bay program in the State. We do have the best Bay program in the State. We can't say that if we do things like declare intensely developed areas or say that the 6 percent slopes, which we refer to as highly erodible soils are no longer part of our RP A. We want to continue to have the best program in the State. We are, right now though, the only Bay program in the State that says swimming pools are not impervious, that again is not that great big of an issue. The issue is the buffer mitigation and now the buffer composition. We can work on that, and we will certainly work on that. And just one other point. Mr. Ainslie made a very, very good point about a lot of this pollution isn't from the waterfront; it's from the City's own separate storm sewer systems. He's right. We do have to work on that. The good news is that we are going to be working on that because it is a requirement of the Clean Water Act. Our permit, which is called a MS4 permit, stands for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit, which you have to have from the EP A or the DCR, and really the DCR because the EP A allows the DCR to administer it. It is requiring us to get that permit renewed. There are going to be a bunch of standards in that permit that are very stringent. Now, the final permit hasn't been issued, but the indications are that the EP A is insisting that the standards be very strict. The EP A has the right to reject any permit by DCR; so, you can imagine that the standards will be very strong. The bottom line, what I'm trying to say is, that the next thing that the City is going to address in a great big way, probably more than a lot of people realize, is the discharges from the City's own separate storm sewer system. The storm water pipes into the water. The effect on water quality will be striking. It can't be anything but because these permits will require the water to be quite a bit cleaner than it is now. So, we will have that synergy of waterfront pollution control and things like the Bay Act, as well as the MS4 permit, which will control other kinds of discharges into the Bay. So, the moral of the story is that the City is working very hard and will be working even harder on improving water quality not just from people who happen to live on the water but everybody. We've made a lot of strides, including in the last 6 or 8 months since the Council denied the original amendment, and we got together with Mr. Bourdon and the folks to try to change things. The mpmentum will not disappear if the Planning Commission recommends approval of and the City Council actually adopts this ordinance. I have no doubt that the staff will work with the development community. The environmental community will come up with some buffer standards, which are superior to anything that is out there now. Janice Anderson: Thank you Bill. Go ahead AI. Al Henley: When I was employed by the City of Virginia Beach, one of the many titles that I had was working with the CBP A regulations anywhere in Virginia Beach where new development. We did post inspections. We did home going current inspections for underdevelopment to make violations weren't occurred. We were asked to go in and do an evaluation, inspection and documentation on violations of homes that were cut trees downs and filled in wetlands and so forth. So, I do know a little history about this and I do have some knowledge. One particular property really stands out to me, was the old Bayville Farms, which is currently called Church Point. We just heard an item today on that. Originally Bayville Farms was a dairy farm. It was absolutely beautiful farm but what is a dairy farm? It was hundred of dairy cattle that were grazing on a farm, and what do cows "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 19 do? They graze, produce milk and other items of body functions, they do not porti-potties like we do. So what happened? Bayville Farms went away. It was developed into the beautiful subdivision as we know today, as Church Point. That developer is required to install hundred of thousands of dollars of BMPs on that farm. I would, if I was a betting man would say that the water quality today on that subdivision is a much higher quality water that is leaving there today than the dairy cattle lived there. So that shows you that the City of Virginia Beach does have a very impressive program that we have intensely regulated since the beginning, and it is the best in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am sure CBLAD, if they deny that then they don't know much about our program. Also, dealing with State and Federal agencies when I employed here, if we needed an extension and they knew we were working under good faith efforts, and if we requested an extension, every federal or state agency that I've ever had any dealings with in the City Attorney's office, they always agreed with us. Okay, if you need a little bit more time, and I know you're faithful in doing that, and they allowed us. I've never known the first time that those extensions would never denied. Because they knew that we had that good faith effort, and the employees and the staff did an excellent job. The first speaker that we had today, the gentleman, that is only one individual of virtually thousand of citizens that have been through this process, and he is only that shows you the frustrations and the expense and time to hire an attorney just to put in a driveway that he had to go through. I do not perceive that process and as w go through time in the future that those regulations will never go away. It is because we are good stewards of the land and we are even greater to improve our way of dealing with storm water runoff and development in general. We want to be good stewards of the land and I think we are. But as I mentioned this morning in our briefing, I have a lot of questions and at least four questions that I think we need to know. And I think this information once it has been gathered and supplied to staff, staff could use this, as well as our citizens, and we can hopefully establish better communications with our citizens and CBLAD. And, I've got this right here and I'll read it if I may? After 18 years plus of development, the most critically redevelopment of Virginia Beach properties that fall under the regulatory provisions of our CBP A Ordinance, we should have, and I believe we do have a very impressive to tell. In order to tell it, we should need the fax. The gentleman said it this morning. The first speaker. We need facts. I would like to know the answer to the following questions. One, how many shoreline miles are in the RP A in Virginia Beach? Two, how many properties have been redeveloped, which includes additions, pools and accessory structures that have gone through this regulatory process because some or all of the property is in the Resource Protection Area. Three, how many square feet of exiting impervious surfaces on lots impacted by the Resource Preservation Area that were not being treated by the BMP are now being treated? Four, how many square feet of riparian buffers have been planted along the adjacent to our shorelines as a requirement of the CBP A site plan in various approvals? This search should also include not only private properties but also city properties that have been developed, which include Public Utilities, Public Works, and also our school systems. They are also required to do this. So, once this inventory, and I think Mr. Ainslie pointed out it, took a lot of my thunder away from me and I appreciate that but it can be done very inexpensively. A staff doesn't have to do that. You can an intern come in. I can see a college student come in and with the environmental resources we have out there, I'm sure a college student will be more than willing to come in and give this information that is either on microfilm or at the City of Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 20 Virginia Beach, gather this information in a timely matter, present it to staff, and we can share that and use that for improvement to water quality. Another indication is another important source of information is the document performed by the Green Ribbon Committee that also I served on. It has some valuable source of information that we have. We have so much information here that we really need to gather, and I think the City of Virginia Beach and CBLAD, if we can just convince those people. We just need to request an extension. I disagree with Clay with what he said earlier that they mayor someone may feel that this is a black eye and that we're not willing to cooperate. I think in the other hand, I think they will be extremely impressed on the information that we're going to be gathering. It will actually help them in seeing how Virginia Beach and also the other surrounding cities, and counties that fall within the Chesapeake Bay Regulations that they will be impressed by this and hopefully, they can do the same thing. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you AI. Are there any other comments? Eugene Crabtree: I don't think I need to say anything else. I think he just said it all. Janice Anderson: I'll just make a comment on this. Actually, I'm more likely to go forward with the ordinance. I think that staff has worked on it for a long time. It has been over a year since Council said this needs to be worked on. Don't use the pools as impervious. And then the staff, Kay, Clay have worked on it, as well as Bill, and they really addressed the problem, which was the restoration percentage. Everybody stated that this draft of the ordinance is a lot less than what is going on today. It gives you a guideline. This better than what we have now. I think the big issue is the buffer restoration standards. And right now, they are just using what they have in the State Code, and whether we can get a local standard. I think that can be done later. But I do believe that it addresses. AI, ifthey were going to give us more time, I think they would have given us more time. I'm sure that Clay and Kay said when they gave them a deadline, can we have some more? It has always been a year. I think we should go forward in your suggestions and your four items, then, come back and readdress it and make an amendment to it. But I do think it is appropriate to go forth. It is better than we have now. It does give a standard. It gets us in compliance. And then, we can work on getting better our own ordinance to meet Virginia Beach's unique situation. But, I definitely agree with you and those things need to be addressed. We need that information to make our ordinance better. So, I would be very supportive of that, and I think the staff would jump on it. But I would go forward on approving the ordinance as proposed. Are there any other comments? Do I have a motion? Henry Livas: Well, I make it ifno one else makes it. I move that we approve the ordinance as proposed. Janice Anderson: A motion by Henry for approval. Is there a second? A second by Jay Bernas. Ronald Ripley: Madame Chairman? "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 21 Janice Anderson: Yes. Ronald Ripley: I would like to ask before there is any vote. Did Jeffleave already? Janice Anderson: He is right there. Ronald Ripley: Jeff, could you come up for a second again please? You heard what the discussion is at the moment. You heard what Clay said. Clay made a comment that if you approve it, you have something better than you have now, providing however, the Green Ribbon Committee, and I don't know if that is the appropriate place for it to be, but I know it is a pretty good spot for it to be, I think. If the Green Ribbon Committee is directed to develop local guidelines and take actions on the buffer restoration area that addresses the composition ofthe buffer, what is the appropriate composition of the buffer, and what is the appropriate mitigation within the buffer, and then report back to the Planning Commission for their action, would that be acceptable you think? Do you think that would make sense? Jeff Ainslie: I think so. I think one of the things that you have to love about the City of Virginia Beach, and of course I lived here all my life, I serve on the Technical Review Board for the Uniform Statewide Building Code in Richmond, and we hear all the appeal cases that have been through every other court. We're so fortunate here that we have such a good, even in Hampton Roads, have such a good working relationship with all the municipal bodies that we have. But in Virginia Beach, especially, is that when Clay gives us the word that we're going to move ahead on something, and we're going to study and come back and make the program better, you can trust what he says. So, I'm in agreement. I think you need to do this to save face. Bill is right. Kay is right. We need to do this to save face, because we know we're going to continue to move forward. Eugene Crabtree: One question. How can we incorporate AI's recommendations? Janice Anderson: That is what the Green Ribbon Committee would do and Clay would study. Eugene Crabtree: We want to give AI's recommendation to the Green Ribbon Committee to act on? Janice Anderson: Yes. Ronald Ripley: What Al was talking about is going to take a lot information. To develop the guidelines, I think you may be able to develop those quick. You can probably work on both at the same time but the guidelines, I think would be developed quicker. Al Henley: If I can expand on that. My proposal will take a little bit of time for research and everything to gather that but the Green Ribbon Committee actually the different elements in that but what they discussed at great length was stormwater discharge, which was shoreline as well as upper reaches of Virginia Beach Boulevard, Laskin Road, and so forth, so what Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 22 Bill had indicated the National Discharge permit, which is DCR and so forth. We incorporated that as "WE" as a Green Ribbon Committee, so all of those items are addressed in that document. And City Council already has those documents, as I understand, and so does staff. Janice Anderson: Okay. Jeff Ainslie: Many of those initiatives have already begun; so, I assume that since this was number one on the list that the background work has started on that as well. I know there is a funding plan in place. This isn't probably the best economic time to be raising money to do all of this, but at some point, we have to come to reality and balance that out, but I agree that AI's and my approach to studying what we have done, because I think it helps to develop a basis of where we are and how we can move forward. It's critical, but I think we can move ahead with the other recommendations first, and as that information that Al has requested comes forward, we may find that we want to go through and tweak it a little bit more. Janice Anderson: Okay. Great. Thank you Mr. Ainslie. Eugene Crabtree: Thank you. Jeff Ainslie: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: So, would it be appropriate to add it to the motion? Janice Anderson: That we go forward? Ronald Ripley: Do you want a separate motion on that? Janice Anderson: I think we can add it on with the motion. Do you want to word it for Henry? Ronald Ripley: I'll try. Provided however, the Green Ribbon Committee is to develop local guidelines that address the buffer area, and that they take action on one, the planting composition that is appropriate within the buffer area, and number 2, they develop mitigation guidelines for the buffer area and report back to the Planning Commission. Janice Anderson: Okay. Is that part of your motion Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: That is fine with me. I think they were going to do that anyway, but if you feel better that you put it in the motion, it's okay. Ronald Ripley: I do. Henry Livas: Okay. "I Item #25 City of Virginia Beach Page 23 Bill Macali: The second ofthe motion simply has to accept that. Janice Anderson: Yes, Jay. Do you second it? Jay Bernas: Yes. I wasn't going to make it part of the motion, but when we got to the discussion part, I was going to mention it, but I think it is stronger being in the motion. Janice Anderson: Okay. Jay Bernas: I agree. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any other comments? AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSO ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved the application of the CBP A Ordinance with a stipulation that the Green Ribbon Committee provide local guidelines. Janice Anderson: Thank you all for coming down on that matter. No further business. The meeting is adjourned. 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 2 PRESERVATION AREA ORDINANCE BY INCLUDING THE 3 SURFACE AREA OF SWIMMING POOLS AS IMPERVIOUS 4 COVER FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING 5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND BY 6 ESTABLISHING UNIFORM BUFFER RESTORATION 7 STANDARDS 8 9 Section Amended: Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 10 Ordinance Section 106 11 12 13 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach originally adopted the Chesapeake Bay 14 Preservation Area Ordinance (the "Ordinance") on November 6, 1990; and 15 16 WHEREAS, the City's Ordinance has been one of the most successful 17 Chesapeake Bay Ordinances in the State in accomplishing the goals of protecting and 18 enhancing water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries; and 19 20 WHEREAS, in developing and implementing its Ordinance, the City chose to 21 maximize water quality protection by: (1) including highly erodible soils as components 22 of the Resource Protection Areas (RPA), notwithstanding the fact that the controlling 23 statutes and regulations do not require the inclusion of highly erodible soils as an RPA 24 feature; (2) by declining to designate certain areas of the City as Intensely Developed 25 Areas (IDAs), in which development restrictions are substantially less stringent than in 26 RPAs; and (3) by designating all lands within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed not within 27 RPAs as Resource Management Areas (RMAs), thereby greatly expanding the land 28 area within the City that is subject to the Ordinance; and 29 30 WHEREAS, in September 2008, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board 31 found the City's Ordinance to be in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation 32 Area Designation And Management Regulations, except with respect to regulations that 33 require that the surface area of swimming pools be considered as impervious surfaces; 34 and 35 36 WHEREAS, swimming pools intercept rainfall falling into them, thereby capturing 37 such rainfall and preventing it from running off into adjacent waterways, and as a result 38 are different from other impervious surfaces such as driveways and rooftops, which do 39 not capture rainfall; and 40 41 WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that, under applicable state 42 regulations that are binding upon localities, swimming pools are impervious because 43 they "significantly impede or prevent the natural infiltration of water into the soil 44 underlying them," a process known as "groundwater recharge;" and I I II "I I 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 WHEREAS, the City Council fully appreciates the importance of groundwater recharge to the natural environment, including the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, to-wit: groundwater recharge provides a sustainable water supply to trees and shrubs located within Chesapeake Bay buffer areas, thereby helping to improve drought tolerance and promote healthy plant growth; allows for soils to filter out excessive nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants through chemical bonding to soil particles, thereby reducing nutrient loads to adjoining waterways; and helps to intercept excessive nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants in the soil before they reach the groundwater table and begin to flow toward waterways; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council that the City's Ordinance be fully consistent with all applicable requirements of law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reaffirms that it was not its intention in originally adopting the Ordinance, and that it is not its intention in adopting this amendment to the Ordinance, to preclude all reasonable development, including swimming pools, within RPA buffers, but to fully protect water quality through appropriate and effective mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, it is the further intention of the City Council to establish uniform and effective buffer restoration standards to be applied where RPA areas are developed with impervious surfaces, including swimming pools and other impervious structures, so that such development does not cause or contribute to a degradation of water quality; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 That Section 106 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance (City Code Appendix F) is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 106. Performance standards. (A) General performance standards for development and redevelopment. Except as otherwise provided herein, the following standards shall apply to all development and redevelopment in both Resource Protection Areas and Resource Management Areas of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area: 2 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 iQ} (8) For any development or redevelopment, stormwater runoff shall be controlled by the use of best management practices that achieve the following results: (d) Calculations involving the percentage of site area under impervious cover shall be based upon the lot area landward of mean low water and wetlands. Impervious cover shall Rat include the water surface area of a swimming pool. Buffer restoration standards. The followino standards shall apply in cases in which buffer restoration is reQuired pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance as a result of development within a Resource Protection Area: (1) For new impervious cover: (a) Buffer restoration of an area eQual to two (2) times the proposed impervious cover in the Resource Protection Area shall be provided. The City Manaoer or Board. as the case may be. shall allow a lesser area of buffer restoration if the property owner demonstrates that site conditions or structural treatment methods are such that a lesser buffer restoration area will adeQuately protect water Quality: (b) Pool water surface, decks. pavers and o ravel driveways shall be considered impervious for buffer restoration calculations; (c) In accordance with the Viroinia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance "Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual. 2003, Reprinted 2006, and all further amendments thereto and editions thereof (Guidance Manual). in order for the buffer to function as intended, it shall contain the full complement of veoetation that includes shade trees. understory trees. shrubs. and oround cover. whether the ground cover is veoetation. leaf litter, or mulch. The composition of the buffer restoration area shall be per Appendix D, Table A of the Guidance Manual: (d) Salt and flood tolerant plant species shall be planted below the 5-foot contour to ensure oreater survival of the plantinos: 3 i i II 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 III I (e) Trees shall not be planted within fifteen (15) feet of the shoreline where such plantina would result in marsh shadina or interference with the intearitv of shoreline structures; (f) Buffer restoration shall be located in the Resource Protection Area. includina in areas occupied bv turf or where impervious cover is removed. To the extent possible. such restoration shall be located in the 50-foot seaward portion of the buffer. The City Manaaer may require a site evaluation to determine the location and extent of veaetation needed to meet this requirement where specific site conditions warrant. includina. but not limited to, the presence of steep slopes and existina veaetation recommended for buffers in Appendix D. Table A of the Guidance Manual: and (a) All trees. plants and aroundcover. required as buffer restoration shall be maintained and not removed or allowed to revert to turf. (2) For shoreline hardenina proiects and replacement of upland retainina walls. where construction disturbs veaetation in the Resource Protection Area. such veaetation shall be replaced and may be replaced in kind; provided that trees shall not be planted within fifteen (15) feet of the shoreline where such plantina would result in marsh shadina or interference with the intearitv of shoreline structures. COMMENT The amendment to Subsection (A)(8)( d) [Line 96] makes it clear that the surface area of swimming pools is treated as impervious cover for purposes of stormwater management calculations in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. The amendments in Subsection (C)(I) [Lines 100-150] set forth the standards for buffer restoration for new impervious surfaces in Resource Protection Areas. These standards are intended to make the restoration requirements more uniform and predictable. The remaining amendments [Lines 152-158] requires that areas disturbed as the result of shoreline hardening projects (i.e., bulkheads and rip rap] must be restored with whatever vegetation was removed. They also provide that trees may not be planted within 15 feet of the shoreline where the trees would shade marshes or compromise the structural integrity of the bulkhead or other shoreline hardening structure. 4 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this _ day of I 2009. CA-10855 March 26, 2009 R-7 APPROVEID AS TO CONTENT: }..L-~ !~~ A?JJ;;;;;/Y);;;J: City Attorney's Office - Plan in~ Department J 5 i I II "I I :iit, :t d, ;>, ':(...--:.:;:,.;;~! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Appendix C, Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B pertaining to floodplains and the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. MEETING DATE: APRIL 28, 2009 . Background: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed the modernization of the city's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Since the last update in 1996, technology has improved dramatically and has enabled FEMA to more accurately define the boundaries of flood zones in our city. . Considerations: The attached proposed amendments to Section 58 of the Site Plan are required to allow the City of Virginia 8each to continue its participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The revisions at lines 41 and 49 reflect the date of the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The other revisions bring the ordinance into compliance with the current NFIP regulations. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on their Consent Agenda, voting 10-0 to approve the proposed amendments. . Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommended approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department )\ \ ,,\ City Manage~" \C-:~~ r " !! I! "I! #23 April 8, 2009 Public Hearing CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (FLOODPLAIN) REQUEST: An Ordinance to Amend Appendix C, Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B pertaining to floodplains and the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT The attached proposed amendments to Section 5B of the Site Plan are required to allow the City of Virginia Beach to continue its participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The revisions at lines 41 and 49 reflect the date of the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The other revisions bring the ordinance into compliance with the current NFIP regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - FLOODPLAIN Agenda Item 23 Page 1 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX C, SITE PLAN 2 ORDINANCE, SECTION 5B, PERTAINING TO 3 FLOODPLAINS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 4 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 5 6 Section Amended: 9 5B of Appendix C 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 9 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 11 That Section 5B of Appendix C of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended 12 and reordained to read as follows: 13 14 Sec. 58. Floodplain regulations. 15 16 17 5B.2. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following terms shall be 18 defined as herein indicated: 19 20 21 Flood. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of 22 normally dry land areas from: 23 24 (a) The overflow of inland or tidal waters; 25 26 (b) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff or surface waters from any 27 source; or 28 29 (c) Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) Mudflows which are proximately caused or 30 precipitated by accumulations of water on or under the ground. The 31 collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of 32 water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents 33 of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an 34 unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a 35 severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or 36 an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable 37 event which results in flooding as defined in (a) of this section. 38 39 Flood insurance study. The flood insurance study for the City of Virginia Beach 40 prepared by the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated I\ugust 41 18, 1992 May 4, 2009, and subsequent revisions which is declared to be a part of this 42 section and which shall be kept on file at the office of the city engineer. 43 44 45 5B.3. Establishing the floodplain areas. The floodplain shall include areas 46 subject to inundation by waters of the one hundred (100) year flood. The basis for the I I II 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 "I I delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and accompanying maps for the City of Virginia 8each prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated December 5, 1996 Mav 4. 2009, or the most recent revision thereof. (a) The regulatory floodway is delineated for purposes of this section using the criteria that a certain area within the floodplain must be capable of carrying the waters of the one hundred (100) year flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one (1) foot at any point. These areas are specifically defined in Table a Z of the flood insurance study and shown on the accompanying flood insurance rate map, which is a part of the Flood Insurance Study. 58.4. Use regulations. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channel or of any watercourse, stream, etc., a permit shall be obtained from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. A joint permit application is available from any of these agencies or the city. Further, notification of the proposal shall be given to all affected adjacent jurisdictions, the Division of Soil and Water Conservation Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Manaaement of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Federal Insurance Administration. 58.5. Special requirements applicable to the floodplain: (b) Regulation of flood fringes and approximated floodplain. New construction or substantial improvements to existing structures permitted in the flood fringe and approximated floodplain shall be so located, elevated, and constructed so as to resist flotation and to offer minimum obstruction to flood flow. All development shall provide base flood elevations on any plan of development or final subdivision plat. Residential dwelling structures shall not be located within the floodplains subject to special restrictions set forth in section 58.5(c) of this ordinance on lots created after the effective date of this ordinance (October 23, 2001). (e) Lowest flood elevationlfloodoroofinq recorded. (1) When the base flood elevation data or floodwav data have not been provided. the city enaineer shall obtain. review. and reasonablv utilize any base flood elevation and floodwav data available from a 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 federal. state, or any other source, in order to administer the provisions of Section 5B.5 of this section. When such base flood elevation data is utilized. the city enQineer shall obtain: (i) the elevation, based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), of the lowest floor (includinQ the basement) of all new and substantially improved structures; and (ii) if the structure has been flood proofed in accordance with the reQuirements of this ordinance, the elevation based on NAVD 88 to which the structure has been floodproofed. (2) When the data is not available from any source the lowest floor of the structure shall be elevated to not less than 2 feet above the hiQhest adiacent Qrade. 5B.8. Floodplain variances: (Q) A variance within any floodwav shall not cause an increase in the one hundred (100) year flood elevation. COMMENT These amendments are required to allow the City of Virginia Beach to continue its participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The revisions at lines 41 and 49 reflect the date of the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The other revisions bring the ordinance into compliance with the current NFIP regulations. The definition of Flood has been updated (line 29). The appropriate state agency to receive watercourse changes has been updated to the Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management (lines 69-70). The revisions at lines 81-82 require the base flood elevations to be included on all plans of development and final subdivision plats, and provisions if this information is not provided (lines 88- 108). The revisions at lines 114-115 do not allow a variance to change the one hundred year flood elevation. of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: P~A.~~ Public orks - Engin ering CA11076 R-4 March 25,2009 "I I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~. City Attorney's Office Item #23 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to Amend Appendix C, Site Plan Ordinance Section 5B pertaining to floodplains and the requirements Of the National Flood Insurance Program April 8, 2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next application is the item 23 from the City of Virginia Beach. It's an Ordinance to Amend Appendix C, Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B pertaining to floodplains and the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Karen Lasley: This proposed amendment is mainly housekeeping issues that bring us into compliance with State and Federal Law. These changes are required for the City of Virginia Beach to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program. So, we are, of course recommending approval of this amendment also. Joseph Strange: Thanks again Karen. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Madame Chairman, I will make a motion to approve agenda item 23. Janice Anderson: I have a motion by Joe Strange and a second by Kathy Katsias. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSO ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY KA TSIAS AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved item 23 for consent. "I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCUACTIONS V I DATE: 4/14/0? L D S L E D H E A W PAGE: I D S I E J S U N I A T E D N 0 S H U L W AGENDA V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D I/WIII/IV 1 CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED CERTIFIED 9-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y VVVE SESSION B S T A I N E D VIIIF/G MINUTES APPROVED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y InfonnaVFormaI Sessions 3/24/09 H11 VIRGINIA MUSICAL THEATER Margaret Eure, Loan Payment of$ 1 5,000 President Barbara Lewis, Board Member 2 NATIONAL AGENCY RE- Cindy Curtis, ACCREDITATION AWARD Director - Parks and Recreation III PUBLIC HEARINGS: LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY NO SPEAKERS Beach Events Office 302 22nd Street POLLING PLACE CHANGE - Magic Hollow Precinct NO SPEAKERS 2 LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY Fanner's Market, spaces 30-33 3 SALE OF EXCESS CITY PROPERTY NO SPEAKERS 4337 Country Club Circle (DISTRICT 5 - BA YSIDE) J/K/I Ordinance to AMEND 92-321 of City ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Code re membership of Social Services CONSENT Advisory Board 2/a Ordinances re LEASE of City property: ADOPTED. BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONSENT BACK BAY MINING COMPANY re 30- 33 at Farmer's Market b Beach Events at 302 22nd Street ADOPTED, BY 9-1 A N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONSENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V I DATE: 4/14/09 L D S L E D H E A W PAGE: 2 D S I E J S U N I A T E D N 0 S H U L W AGENDA V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D 3 Ordinance to ADOPT the 2009 Annual ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Housing Choice Voucher Agency CONSENT Plan/AUTHORIZE the Plan to (HUD 4/a Ordinances re SPSA ADOPTED 8-2 A N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y REVISED PROPOSED Financial Assistance Plan b APPROPRIATE $11,200,000 re disposal ADOPTED 9-1 A N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y costs 5/a Ordinances to ACCEPT/ ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y APPROPRIATEffRANSFER funds re CONSENT FY 2008-09 Budgets: $425,000 grant from Va Land Conservation Fndatn to Parks/Recreation re purchase of land adjacent to the Adam Thoroughgood House b $750 donation from Farm Bureau re ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y agricultural burn signs/"farm use" CONSENT vehicles c $194,424 to General Registrar re Primary ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Elections on June 9, 2 CONSENT d $375,000 to Finance to meet STOP ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Program obligations with DMV CONSENT e $17,500 grant from FEMA re 2009 ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Presidential Inaugurati CONSENT f $183,963 within Human ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Resources/COMIT re Payroll (InSITE) CONSENT system g $738,228 grant from Homeland Security ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y re Electrocardiogram monitors/driving CONSENT simulator; TRANSFER $184,557 within Fire DeparUnent I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCU ACnONS V I DATE: 4/14/09 L D S L E D H E A W PAGE: 3 D S I E J S U N I A T E D N 0 S H U L W AGENDA V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D '-. 6 Ordinance to REIMBURSE legal ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y fees to Animal Control Officer case CONSENT dismissed UI BRADLEY CAPPS EXDansion of APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nonconforming Use re one-story addition at CONDITIONED, 316160, Street - DISTRICT 6 - BEACH BY CONSENT 2 DAVID C. LANDIN Exnansion of APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nonconfonning Use re a porch/patio CONDITIONED, enclosure at 6202 Oceanfront Avenue - BY CONSENT DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN 3 Variance to ~4.4(b) of Subdivision APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ordinance that all lots meet CZO for REVISED MICHAEL MEGGEIL YNNETIE CONDITIONS, HUME re 2032 Hackbeny Road - BY CONSENT DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN 4 OLD BEACH FARMER'S MARKET APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CUP re outdoor Market at 620 19th Street - CONDITIONED DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 5 CASEY WELSH CUP re firewood APPROVEDI 9-1 A N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y preparation at 3445 West Neck Road- CONDITIONED, DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE BY CONSENT 6/a BARRY D.lPAULA W. KNIGHT re APPROVEDI 9-0 A Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y CUP - DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE CONDITIONED, B BY CONSENT S Private Heliport at 1852 Mill Landing Road T A I N E D b Private Helistop at 3501 Baum Road APPROVEDI 9-0 A Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y CONDITIONED, B BY CONSENT S T A I N E D 7 SEVEN CITIES ELECTRIC, INC. COZ. DEFERRED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y from R- SD to Conditional B-1 at 1945 INDEFINITELY, Centerville Turnpike - DISTRICT 1 - BY CONSENT CENTERVILLE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V I DATE: 4/14/09 L D S L E D H E A W PAGE: 4 D S I E J S U N I A T E D N 0 S H U L W AGENDA V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D 8 GA TEW A Y ENTERPRISES, LLC COZ APPROVED/ 9-0 A Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y from AG-2 to Conditional 0-2 at 2084 PROFFERED BY B Princess Anne - DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS CONSENT S ANNE T A I N E D 9 Ordinance to further EXTEND the date APPROVED/ 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y for compliance in the closing a portion of EXTENDED Grimstead Road for JOSEPH W. COMPLIANCE FREEMAN, JR. (approved 10/23/07 and \0/14/08) TO 10/27/09 BY CONSENT M APPOINTMENTS: RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S CHESAPEAKE BAY ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM (ASAP) MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL AUDIT COMMmEE Reappointed \0-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y JoAnn Augone 3 Yr. Term 5/15/09 - 5/14/12 ARTS AND HUMANITIES Appointed \0-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y COMMISSION Sally Saunders Reappointed Robert N. Melotti Warren E. Sachs 4 Yr. Terms 7/1109 - 6/30/13 OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMmEE Appointed 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Kirk D. Berkhime Unexpired thru 5/31110 TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT Appointed 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROAD Mark Schnaufer, (HRT) Alternate 2 Yr. Term 5/1109 - 6/30/11 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCU ACnONS V I DATE: 4/14/09 L D S L E D H E A W PAGE: 5 D S I E 1 S U N I A T E D N 0 S H U L W AGENDA V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D TOWING ADVISORY BOARD Reappointed 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Earnest A. Cooper, J r. 3 Yr. Term 6/1109 - 5/31/12 WETLANDS BOARD Appointed 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Stephen B. BaIlard Unexpired thru 9/30113 N/O/P ADJOURNMENT 6:24pm PUBLIC COMMENTS 4 Speakers Non-Agenda Items 1 VB Aviation 6:24-6:36 PM Museum 3 Animal Control PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FY 2010 BUDGET WORKSHOPS April 14 April 16 April 21 April 28 MayS May 12 Workshop Public Hearing Workshop Workshop and Public Hearing Reconciliation Workshop Public Hearing for Adoption Council Conference Room Green Run High School - 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber - 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber - 6 p.m.