MR. HALES.
>>AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>YES.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>MR. FRALEY.
>>AYE. THANK YOU, LENNY.
>>THAT BRINGS US TO STARTING THE HERRING WITH CONTINUED ITEM
NUMBER ONE, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT
TO SECTION 11-27, PARK PLACE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, OF
THE CITIES ZONING ORDINANCE IN OR TO CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT
RESTRICTION THAT PROHIBITS FRONT LOADING ATTACHED GARAGES.
>>BOBBY.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE PARK PLACE RESIDENTIAL OVERDAY
DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE CURRENT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, AND TO PROHIBIT FRONT-LOADING ATTACHED GARAGES
AS REQUESTED BY THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE OVERLAY DISTRICT ITSELF.
IN 1999, THE PARK PLACE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY WAS ADOPTED.
THE INTENT OF THAT DISTRICT WAS TO HELP TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THAT TEXT AMENDMENT, IT DID
HAVE LANGUAGE, ALTHOUGH VERY BRIEF LANGUAGE, ON HOW BUILDINGS
SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE INTENT OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WAS TO PREVENT
FRONT-LOADING GARAGES BY REQUIRING BUILDINGS BE BUILT UP
CLOSER TO THE STREET, HA IS A SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF BETWEEN
12 TO 15 FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD OF THE HOUSE.
1999 TO PRESENT, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME HOMES BUILT
WITH FRONT-LOADING GARAGES. BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF CLARITY
IN THE EXISTING TEXT, THERE HAVE BEEN ERRORS MADE AND BECAUSE OF
THAT, IN AUGUST 2016, THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE ALONG WITH
THE HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES SENT A LETTER
REQUESTING THAT THE OVERLAY BE AMENDED TO CLEARLY CALL OUT THAT
FRONT-LOADED ATTACHED GARAGES ARE PROHIBITED IN THE PARK PLACE
RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT. AGAIN, I WILL AGAIN CLARIFY THAT
THE REQUIRED SETBACK WITHIN THE EXISTING DISTRICT DOES NOT ALLOW
FOR FRONT-LOADED GARAGES BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO
HAVE LEGAL ACCESS AND A DRIVEWAY TO A RESIDENCE AND BECAUSE THERE
IS A BUILT-TO OR A FRONT YARD MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM STANDARD OF
12 TO 15 FEET. IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF THIS
YEAR, PRESENTATIONS WERE PLAYED TO THE COMMUNITY TO CLARIFY THE
REQUEST, TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE.
ON FEBRUARY 6th, THE CIVIC LEAGUE DID VOTE TO NOT ALLOW
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH ANY TYPE OF ATTACHED FRONT-LOADED
GARAGE. ON MARCH 14th, AFTER THE ITEM
WAS CONTINUED FROM LAST MONTH TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND
TO ALLOW FOR PARTIES TO REVIEW IT, THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE
REQUESTED THAT THE AMENDMENT REMOVE ALL OVER DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE EXISTING REGULATION.
STAFF MADE THE — ADJUSTED THE TEXT TO REMOVE ALL THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT DON’T DIRECTLY ASSOCIATE
WITH THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AS FAR AS BUILD-TO LINE AND OTHER
THINGS THAT WE INTERPRET BASED OFF THE EXISTING CODE THROUGH
THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ON MARCH 20th, STAFF HELD A
MEETING WITH TIDEWATER VILLAGE ASSOCIATION TO DISCUSS CHANGES.
MARCH 21st, A MEETING WAS HELD WITH TBA AND THE PARK PLACE
CIVIC LEAGUE LEADERS WITH THE PARK PLACE PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT. THERE WAS SOME FRUITFUL
DISCUSSION. THERE WAS — AT THAT MEETING,
THE CIVIC LEAGUE REPRESENTATIVES DID SAY THAT THEY WERE NOT IN A
POSITION TO REQUEST A FURTHER CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THEIR
COMMUNITY HAD ALREADY VOTED ON QUT TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD
TO PROHIBIT FRONT-LOADED GARAGES EXPRESSLY IN THE CODE.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION FROM THE TIDEWATER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION TO HAVE A LONG-TERM VISION AND
DISCUSSION OF WHAT STRUCTURES COULD BE BUILT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. SO JUST AGAIN TO CLARIFY THE
PROPOSED TEXT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS FRONT-LOADED ATTACHED
GARAGES. IT DOES CLARIFY THE BUILD-TO
LINE THAT’S CURRENTLY IN THE CODE.
THERE’S A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT PER THE
EXISTING CODE, TO HELP TO TRY TO CLARIFY THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT’S BETWEEN 12 TO 15 FEET SO THAT IT’S CLEAR.
DRIVEWAYS, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SETBACK IS CURRENTLY SET
UP, DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT PERMITTED BIT ZONING BECAUSE YOU CANNOT
FIT A LEGAL PARKING SPACE BETWEEN THE EXISTING HOME, WHERE
THE HOME IS RAIDER TO BE LOCATED AND — REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED
AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, SO AS WE’VE ENFORCED, YOU CAN’T
HAVE A DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THERE, SO AGAIN TO CLARIFY SO THESE
ISSUES AREN’T MISSED AGAIN BY ZONING STAFF DURING THE REVIEWS,
IS TO CLARIFY THAT DRIVEWAYS BETWEEN THE FRONT OF THE
RESIDENCE AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OR THE STREET ARE NOT
PERMITTED. AGAIN, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE
REQUEST DOES CENTER AROUND JUSTth EXISTING TEXT AND — JUST
THE EXISTING TEXT AND COVERS THE REQUEST FROM THE PARK PLACE
CIVIC LEAGUE TO EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT FRONT-LOADED ATTACHED
GARAGES. BECAUSE THIS IS CLARIFYING THE
EXISTING TEXT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REQUEST.>>THANK YOU, BOBBY.
ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. TAJAN, COMMISSIONERS?
BOBBY, BEFORE YOU GO, HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN WORKING ON THIS
CONCEPT? HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM?
>>THEIR INITIAL APPLICATION CAME IN AUGUST.
>>OF ’16?>>OF 2016, YES, SIR.
>>I’D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY. I KNOW YOU SAID IT THREE TIMES,
BUT I’LL DO IT ONE MORE TIME TO BE CLEAR.
WE’RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE ORDINANCE THAT’S NOT ALREADY
THERE NOW. WE’RE JUST PUTTING
CLARIFICATIONS IN, IS THAT CORRECT?
>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>NOT ADDING ANY MORE
STIPULATIONS OR ANY –>>THERE IS ONE AND I’LL ADD
THIS AND YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK IN YOUR PACKETS, COMMISSIONERS, OR
IN YOUR DROPBOX. THE EXISTING TEXT JUST EXPRESSLY
SAYS THAT ALL FRONT FACADE AND BUILDINGS SHALL BE BETWEEN 12
AND 15 FEET. WE DID REALIZE THERE WERE SOME
ERRORS IN, AGAIN, HOW THAT PLAN WAS REVIEWED BY PLANNING STAFF
AND ZONING STAFF AT THE TIME TO ALLOW FOR SOME VARIATION OFF OF
THAT. WE DID ALLOW FOR BETWEEN — FOR
UP TO ESSENTIALLY 25% OF THE BUILDING CAN GO PAST THE 12 TO
15 FEET. IT WAS JUST TO HELP A LITTLE BIT
TO CLARIFY SO THAT THERE IS SOME ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSION TO THE
HOMES. IT’S JUST THE FIRST STEP AT THIS
MOMENT, JUST TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO BE ADDRESSED.
>>SO YOU’RE SAYING THAT THE HOUSE MUST BE WITHIN 12 AND 15
FEET OFF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
>>CORRECT.>>BUT YOU’RE ALLOWING 25%, IT
CAN GO DEEPER THAN THAT. IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING?
>>THAT IS CORRECT. RIGHT NOW THE CODE SAYS THE
WHOLE FRONT FACADE IS BETWEEN 12 TO 15 FEET.
SO WE’RE TRYING TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURE, AND AGAIN, THAT WAS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE
ERRORS, MORE ERRORS IN THE FACT THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
ITSELF HAS BEEN MISSED BY ZONING STAFF.
>>THAT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME YOU’RE ACTUALLY GIVING VOTERS MORE
OPTIONS BY PUTTING THAT PIECE IN THERE.
>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>OKAY.
>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS?
THANK YOU, BOBBY. HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE
APPLICATION, MR. CHARLES JOHNSON.
>>GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS CHARLES E. JOHNSON
JR., AND I LIVE AT 3226 OMOHUNDRO AVENUE.
I’M THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE AND I CAME TO
YOU THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND AT THAT TIME I NOTED
TO YOU THAT THE CIVIC LEAGUE HAD VOTED IN REFERENCE TO NOT HAVING
ANY ATTACHED FRONT-LOADED GARAGES IN THE PARK PLACE AREA.
I’M BACK HERE TODAY TO SAY WE ARE SUPPORTING THAT SAME IDEA.
I’D LIKE TO NOTE TO YOU THAT IN REPRESENTING THE PARK PLACE
CIVIC LEAGUE, WE REPRESENT FOUR DISTINCT HISTORICAL AREAS.
WE HAVE KENSINGTON, WE HAVE OLD DOMINION PLACE, WE HAVE VIRGINIA
PLACE, AND WE HAVE PARK PLACE, ALL WHICH WERE CREATED AT THE
TURN OF THE 20th CENTURY. BECAUSE OF THAT, THE
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, THE CONSISTENT STANDARDS OF THAT
AREA, WE WERE HOPING TO KEEP. AS MANY OF YOU MAY KNOW, SINCE
1977, I THINK IT IS, THERE HAVE BEEN NOTABLE CHANGES IN PARK
PLACE IN REFERENCE TO NEW BUILDINGS THAT HAVE GONE IN THE
IN-FILL. THEY DO NOT MEET THE
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND BROUGHT IN SOME PROBLEMS AND
PARK PLACE HAD A DECLINE. IN 1999, AS NOTED, THE PLANS FOR
THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY PLAN WAS SUBMITTED.
I WAS NOT IN PARK PLACE AT THAT TIME.
I’VE BEEN IN PARK PLACE FOR APPROXIMATELY 12 YEARS.
IN THAT TIME FRAME, I SERVED ON THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE AND
IN 2016, I WAS ELECTED AS THE PRESIDENT AND AT THAT TIME, WE
HAD A BOARD RETREAT, IT WAS IN THE SUMMERTIME, AND DURING THAT
RETREAT, WE REVIEWED OUR BYLAWS. WE ALSO REVIEWED SEVERAL PAPERS
THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED THAT WOULD AFFECT PARK PLACE.
ONE OF THOSE PAPERS WAS THE OVERLAY PLAN.
WE LOOKED AT THE OVERLAY PLAN AND WE FELT THAT THE OVERLAY
PLAN DEFINITELY COVERED THE GOAL OF THE PARK PLACE PURPOSE AND
THAT PURPOSE WAS TO CONSERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF OUR
COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THERE WOULD BE FUTURE THAT WOULD
BE CONSISTENT. WE LOOKOUT AT OOZE SECTION WHICH
I THINK — LOOKED AT ANOTHER SECTION WHICH I THINK IS
12-27.2, AND WE REALIZED IT IS NOT CLEAR.
WE REQUESTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT THERE BE SOME
TYPE OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE HAD HEARD FROM THE FORMER
OFFICERS OF THE CIVIC LEAGUE AND ALSO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
THAT THIS SECTION WAS AN INTENT THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY
FRONT-LOADED GARAGES, BUT IT WAS NOT STATED, SO WE WANTED THAT
TYPE OF CLARIFICATION. THAT’S WHAT WE REQUESTED AND THE
WORDS WE APPLIED WOULD BE THAT THERE ARE NO ATTACHED
FRONT-LOADED GARAGES IN PARK PLACE.
AT THAT TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAME
BACK TO US AND SAID WE’LL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT YOU
NEED TO BRING IT BEFORE THE CIVIC LEAGUE AND ALLOW THEM TO
VOTE ON IT. FROM SEPTEMBER THROUGH NOVEMBER,
WE HAD DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON AND WE DID NOT GET AROUND TO
ACTUALLY FOCUSING ON THIS ISSUE, BUT IN DECEMBER, WE SAID WE NEED
TO WRITE THIS BEFORE THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE, LET THEM
DISCUSS IT AND VOTE ON IT, AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS DECIDED IN
JANUARY THAT WE WOULD HAVE A VOTE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE HAD A
SNOW AND THEN FEBRUARY, WE DID HAVE A VOTE AND THE VOTE WAS THE
MAJORITY WAS IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE TEXT AMENDMENT
AND THAT’S WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.
I WOULD SAY TO YOU, BECAUSE I HAVE TO CLOSE, THAT WE AS A
CIVIC LEAGUE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.
WE DID MEET WITH THE TIDEWATER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION TWO DAYS
AGO AND WE HAD DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND SO FORTH, AND
WE WERE WILLING TO WORK ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT WE COULDN’T DO
ANYTHING AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF TIME CONSTRAINTS.
WE COULD NOT CALL A BOARD MEETING OR CIVIC LEAGUE MEETING
IN TWO DAYS TO HAVE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, SO WE’RE GOING
WITH THE ORIGINAL SITUATION OF HAVING NO ATTACHED GARAGES IN
PARK PLACE. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. JOHNSON,
COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU, SIR.
ALSO HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION, TYROSS
PATTERSON. I HOPE I PRONOUNCED THAT
CORRECTLY. TEREZ PART SON, 2901 GRANBY
STREET. I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES.
WE ARE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT IS SOLELY
OPERATING WITHIN PARK PLACE. WE WERE CREATED TO IMPLEMENT THE
VISIONING AND ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, WHICH WE SIMPLY REFER
TO IS A THE VEP. THE VEP IS A BLUEPRINT FOR
COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION. IT WAS CRAFTED BY RESIDENTS AND
A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTING FIRM, CGB.
THAT PROCESS WAS PAID FOR AND RATIFIED BY THE CITY OF NORFOLK.
THE VEP IS REALLY A PARADIGM SHIFT IN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING.
THE TWO-YEAR PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING A STRATEGY REVEALED
THE FLAWS IN TRADITIONAL PLANNING THAT SOLELY RELIED ON
IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD UP THE MARKET.
IT ALSO REVEALED THAT THE WORK OF REVITALIZING A NEIGHBORHOOD
IS MULTIFOLD, THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE BUILDING RESIDENT
CAPACITY TO MANAGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IT WOULD
REQUIRE WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CODES AND POLICE TO ADDRESS
THIS ORDER, THAT IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE INVESTMENT IN EXTERIOR
HOME REPAIRS, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE THE CAPITAL TO ACQUIRE
PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BECOME A DETERRENCE TO PRIVATE
INVESTMENT. BECAUSE OF THE STABILIZING
IMPACT OF THE VEP AND THE CIVIC LEAGUE EFFORTS, THERE HAS BEEN A
BOOM IN PRIVATE INVESTMENT, BOTH IN BUSINESS AND HOME DEVELOPMENT
IN PARK PLACE. WHILE THE INCREASE IN
SINGLE-FAMILY MARKET-RATE HOMES IS CERTAINLY WELCOMED, OVER THE
LAST TEN YEARS, THE APPLICATION OF THE EXISTING OVERLAY TO HELP
MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NOT BEEN
CONSISTENTLY ENFORCED. IT HAS LED TO MANY NEW HOMES
THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE HISTORIC
CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING HOMES. WE CONSIDER THE HISTORIC
CHARACTER OF THE PARK PLACE COMMUNITY A MARKETABLE ASSET AS
IT IS THE REASON MANY CURRENT PARK PLACE RESIDENTS MOVED TO
THE AREA, INCLUDING MYSELF. WE HAVE HAD OVER TEN MEETINGS
WITH PLANNING SINCE AUGUST OF 2016 TO THE PRESENT TO DISCUSS
AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OVERLAY.
THOUGH GREATER ENFORCEMENT BY PLANNING IS CERTAINLY NEEDED, WE
BELIEVE THAT THE OVERLAY AS IT IS PRESENTLY WRITTEN IS FLAWED
AND IS OPEN TO MISARE INTERPRETATION BY BOTH PLANNING
AND BUILDERS ALIKE. AS PRIVATE INVESTORS CONTINUE TO
SHOW INTEREST IN PARK PLACE, I BELIEVE IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE
HAVE A SOLID FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH REALTORS AND CONSULTED WITH BUILDERS
ABOUT THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT.
I LOOKED AT OTHER OVERLAYS IN THE CITY AND ACROSS VIRGINIA,
AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT’S BEING PROPOSED TODAY IS QUITE
MODEST. WE HAVE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE
TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AND SUPPORT THE PPRO TEXT AMENDMENT
THAT’S BEFORE YOU TODAY.>>THANK YOU.
ALSO HERE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION, BUT DOES NOT WISH
TO SPEAK, CHERYL DOES. ARE YOU HERE?
PROBABLY WHY SHE DOESN’T WISH TO SPEAK.
MS. DOES? [ INAUDIBLE COMMENTS ]
>>ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MA’AM. HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS
APPLICATION, PAUL WALLACE.>>WELL, I’M WITH TBA, SO —
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ALBERT VIOLA,
CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE FOR NORFOLK OR
THE TIDEWATER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION.
HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE BUILDERS THAT BUILD ACTIVELY IN
DOWNTOWN NORFOLK AND THE TRANSITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE REACHED OUT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WE HAD WHAT I
THOUGHT WAS A VERY COOPERATIVE MEETING ON MONDAY MORNING.
BOBBY WAS THERE AND JEREMY SHARP AND WE SPOKE TO THEM ABOUT OUR
CONCERNS AND OUR LACK OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS OF
DEVELOPING THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.
FOR SOME REASON, WE WERE KIND OF LEFT BEHIND AND WE’D LIKE TO GET
INVOLVED AND THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT TODAY.
AS BUILDERS, WE BUILD HOUSES THAT PEOPLE BUY AND MOVE INTO.
WE CAN’T BUILD SOMETHING THAT’S NOT MARKETABLE.
THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AS PROPOSED STATES, THE OVERLAY DISTRICT
ESTABLISHES YARD REQUIREMENTS AND LOT SIZES THAT REFLECT THE
EXISTING CONDITIONS IN PARK PLACE.
THIS BOOK WILL SHOW YOU, ILLUSTRATE TO YOU THAT THERE’S
OVER 63% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT COMPLY WITH WHAT IS
BEING PROPOSED. IT’S ALREADY THERE.
WE’RE NOT TRYING TO REINVENT THE WHEEL.
WE JUST WANT TO WORK WITH THE CIVIC LEAGUE AND WITH THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT’S BALANCED FOR
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BALANCED FOR THE BUILDERS, BALANCED FOR THE
BUYERS, AND BALANCED FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY
OF NORFOLK. OUR CONCERN IS — ONE OF OUR
CONCERNS IS THE 75% RULE. WE’RE IN THE QUITE SURE HOW TO
UNDERSTAND THAT OR INTERPRET THAT, AND IN OUR MEETING THE
OTHER DAY ON MONDAY, AND THEN AGAIN OUR MEETING WITH THE CIVIC
LEAGUE ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION AS
TO HOW THIS ACTUALLY APPLIES. I DON’T KNOW IF THAT IS STILL
INVOLVED IN THE ORDINANCE, IS IT STILL PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE,
THE 75% ROOM, BECAUSE I DON’T SEE IT UP ON THE BOARD, BUT YET
IT’S IN THE PROPOSALS I HAVE BEFORE ME TODAY.
IS IT STILL BEING CONSIDERED?>>BOBBY.
>>YES.>>IT’S IN THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE, YES.>>IT’S IN THERE.
IT’S NOT UP THERE, BUT IT’S IN THE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL?
>>YES.>>OKAY.
AS THE PICTURES ILLUSTRATE, 76 R 63% OF THE HOUSES DO NOT COMPLY
WITH THAT 75 RULE. OUR CONCERN IS THAT IT RESTRICTS
OUR ABILITY TO DO ARCHITECTURAL SETBACKS WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE
THREE FEET FOR PLAY WITH –>>IN VIOLA PERHAPS THERE’S A
MISUNDERSTANDING. THE 75% RULE AS YOU’RE REFERRING
TO IT IS AN OPTION. YOU CAN HAVE 100% WITHIN THAT
BUILD-TO LINE OR YOU CAN HAVE ANY NUMBER, ANY AMOUNT LESS THAN
100% DOWN TO 75% WITHIN THAT BUILD-TO, SO IT ACTUALLY
INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY, IT DOES NOT REDUCE
IT.>>IT INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF
FLEXIBILITY?>>YES, SIR, IT’S NOT A
REQUIREMENT, IT’S AN OPTION. THE PICTURES YOU CLAIM THAT ARE
NOT COMPLIANT ACTUALLY ARE BECAUSE MORE THAN 75% ARE WITHIN
THE BUILD-TO RANGE.>>AND THAT’S OUR CONCERN, WE
NEED SOMETHING LESS THAN 75%, IN THE 40 TO 50% RANGE, SOMETHING
THAT GIVES US VARIETY IN OUR ELEVATIONS.
IF YOU DO 100%, YOU GOT A FLAT LINE, RIGHT?
>>CORRECT.>>IF YOU DO 75% ON A 40-FOOT
HOUSE, YOU HAVE A 30-FOOT THAT YOU’RE ONLY —
>>OKAY.>>THAT’S WHAT’S CONFUSING.
WE HAVE BUILDERS SITTING THERE TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT AND WE
CAN’T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT, SO THAT’S ONE OF OUR CONCERNS IS
THE 75% RULE. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE GARAGE,
FRONT-LOADING GARAGE ORDINANCE IS IN EFFECT AND WE RESPECT THAT
RIGHT NOW. WE’D LIKE TO CHANGE IT WHEN THE
NEW ORDINANCE IS DEVELOPED AND WE’D LIKE TO WORK WITH THE CIVIC
LEAGUE AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DO THAT WITH SOME
COMPROMISES, MAYBE SETTING THE GARAGE BACK FURTHER ON THE HOUSE
THAN ON THE PLAIN OF THE HOUSE, PROBABLY EIGHT FEET OR SO BACK,
BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN IF YOU DIDN’T PASS THIS TODAY, WE
CAN’T BUILD A FRONT-LOADING GARAGE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT’S IN EFFECT.
WHY IT WAS NEGLECTED, WE DON’T KNOW.
WE BROUGHT OUR PLANS TO THE CITY AND THEY WERE APPROVED AND WE
BUILT HOUSES WITH FRONT-LOADING GARAGES.
THAT’S A FACT OF LIFE. I’M SORRY THAT HAPPENED, BUT
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, SLIPPED THROUGH THE
CRACKS, BUT WE UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW THAT THAT’S IN EFFECT AND WE
CAN’T BUILD FRONT-LOADING GARAGES.
IN MOVING FORWARD, WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE
CIVIC LEAGUE TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE, YOU
KNOW, TO GET INTO THE DETAILS, THE PROBLEMS WITH THE GARAGES
SET BACK IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, IN THE CORNER OF THE
PROPERTY AS A FRONT LOADER IS VERY AWKWARD FOR SOMEONE THAT’S
BUYING A HOUSE. IT’S UNSAFE, PROMOTES VANDALISM.
LET’S SAY THE HUSBAND IS WORKING LATE AT NIGHT, THE WIFE COMES
HOME FROM WORK. SHE CAN’T PULL INTO HER GARAGE
SAFELY TO ENTER HER HOUSE BECAUSE THE GARAGE IS BACK IN
THE BACK CORNER OF THE LOT. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER AND BUYERS CONSIDER. I RECOGNIZE THAT PUTTING A
GARAGE FLAT TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS NOT ATTRACTIVE AND WE
DON’T WANT TO DO THAT. WE WANT TO COME UP WITH A
COMPROMISE WHERE WE CAN PULL THAT GARAGE BACK.
SO THESE TWO ISSUES ARE STILL UP IN THE AIR WITH US AND WE’RE
TRYING TO WORK IT OUT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE
CIVIC LEAGUE. WE WERE GIVEN VERY SHORT NOTICE
ON THIS, UNFORTUNATELY. WE WEREN’T INVOLVED SINCE LAST
AUGUST, I GUESS, WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION.
WE WEREN’T BROUGHT INTO THE WORKING OF THIS, SO WE JUST GOT
THIS NOTICE ABOUT A MONTH AGO AND WE’VE BEEN SCRAMBLING SINCE
THEN AND WE’VE HAD TWO GREAT MEETINGS WITH THE STAFF AND WITH
CIVIC LEAGUE AND WE’D LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THAT.
WE’D LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
WE’VE GOT A GREAT NUMBER OF BUILDERS IN NORFOLK THAT ARE
BUILDING FINE HOMES AND THEY’RE BRINGING THE VALUES OF THE
HOUSES UP IN THIS AREA. I THINK THIS IS A MISTAKE TO
FORCE THIS DOWN OUR THROAT AT THIS POINT.
>>THANK YOU, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT OR
ARE YOU ASKING A QUESTION?>>THAT’S ALL MY COMMENTS.
>>OKAY, THANK YOU. MR. WALLACE, YOU’D LIKE TO
SPEAK, SIR, NOW IS THE OPPORTUNITY.
>>THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
PAUL WALLACE, WALLACE BROTHERS HOMES, 2525 OCONEE AVENUE IN
VIRGINIA BEACH. I’M GOING TO READ A BRIEF
STATEMENT, BUT BEFORE THAT, I’D LIKE TO CLARIFY A FEW ISSUES
THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN RAISED. AS TO WHEN WORK STARTED, NO TEXT
WAS AVAILABLE INSPIED OF MULTIPLE REQUESTS FROM THE TBA
AND LOCAL BUILDERS UNTIL THE MORNING OF THE LAST PLANNING
COMMISSION, SO WE HAVEN’T SEEN ANYTHING TO WORK ON UNTIL THAT
DAY AND WE’VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY FROM THAT DAY TO THIS
TO ENGAGE THE TBA AND LOCAL BUILDERS, ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND
CIVIC LEAGUE. SECONDLY ON THE BACKGROUND AS
PRESENTED BY MR. TAJAN, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGINAL INTEND
OF THE 12 TO 15-FOOT FRONT YARD HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH
PREVENTING FRONT LOAD GARAGES. I’VE NEVER HEARD THE ISSUE
MENTIONED UNTIL IT WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP BY THE CIVIC LEAGUE,
I BELIEVE IT WAS TO PRESERVE THE STREET ESCAPES IN PARK PLACE
WHICH ARE URBAN AND HAVE THE HOUSES LOCATED CLOSE TO THE
STREET. OTHERWISE, THE R-8 AND R-11
WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE A SETBACK OF I BELIEVE 25 FEET.
IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH PARK PLACE, YOU SEE THIS JAGGED THING THAT
OCCURRED BEFORE THE PPRO. THE 33% NUMBER OF HOMES THAT DO
NOT COMPLY IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOMES BUILT UNDER THE
PPRO SINCE 1999 THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THAT INTERPRETATION,
THAT ALL PLAINS MUST BE IN THIS 12 TO 15-FOOT RANGE.
>>CAN YOU CLARIFY THEN? IS THAT 63% OF THE NEW HOMES?
NOT 63% AS PRESENTED EARLIER OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>>NOT 63% OF ALL HOMES. WE HAVEN’T DONE A SURVEY OF
THAT. IT IS MANY, MANY OF THE EXISTING
HOMES. WE GOT THE 63% NUMBER DONE FROM
THE SURVEY DONE BY PLANNING AND WOULDN’T LAST THING ON THE 75%.
AS YOU SAID, IT DOES — THAT CHANGE, IF THE POLICY WERE
ACCURATE THAT ALL PLAINS MUST BE IN THE 12 TO 15-FOOT RANGE, AND
IT’S NEVER BEEN APPLIED THAT WAY.
IT WAS APPLIED THAT THAT WAS SIMPLY THE FOREMOST FRONT
SURFACE AND IF THE CLAIMS ARE ACCURATE, THEN THE HOMES IN THAT
BOOK DO NOT COMPLY AND I CAN GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM AND EXPLAIN
WHY THEY DON’T. THAT BOOK IS NEW HOPES, OL’
HOMES, DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE VAST PARK PLACE RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY. IT ENCOMPASSES THOUSANDS AND
THOUSANDS OF LOTS BUILT OVER A CENTURY, DIFFERENT STYLES AND
TYPES AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SPECIFICALLY, I’D BE
GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. HAVING CLEARED THAT, I’D LIKE TO
READ MY BRIEF STATEMENT. THE CIVIC LEAGUE REQUESTED A
FRONT LOAD GARAGES BE PROHIBITED IN THE PARK PLACE RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY. THERE WAS MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT
EXACTLY HOW TO DEFINE A FRONT LOAD GARAGE AND WHAT SUCH A
PROHIBITION SHOULD COVER. MANY IN PARK PLACE WANT A
COMPROMISE SIMILAR TO THE ONE PROPOSED TO HUNTERSVILLE,
ALLOWING SENSIBLE AND UNOBTRUSIVE ATTACHED GARAGES
RECESSED FROM THE MAIN FACADE, BUT TO DATE, PLANNING HAS NOT
WORKED ON SUCH A COMPROMISE. I THINK A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE
THE HOUSE AT 122 WEST 27th STREET IN THE BOOK THERE.
IN THE END, PLANNING HAS OFFERED ONLY A COMPLETE BAN OF ANY
ATTACHED GARAGE FACING THE MAIN STREET.
PLANNING SAID THERE IS A NEED TO CLARIFY THE CURRENT PPRO IN
INTERPRETATION AND TO DO, SO THEY HAVE INCLUDED LANGUAGE IN
TODAY’S PROPOSAL STATING THAT 75% OF THE FACADE MUST FALL
WITHIN A 12 TO 15-FOOT SETBACK. IF THIS WAS THE INTENT OF THE
CURRENT PPRO, THEN BY THE CITY’S OWN COUNT, ROUGHLY HALF OF ALL
HOMES BUILT UNDER THIS ORDINANCE SINCE 1999 FAILED TO MEET THAT
LAW AND I DON’T THINK THAT’S AN ERROR.
I THINK THAT LOOKS LIKE POLICY. NO ONE OUTSIDE OF PLANNING HAS
SOUGHT SUCH A CLARIFICATION. THE WHOLE CONVERSATION STARTED
WITH THE COMMUNITY REQUESTING TO LIMIT IMPROPER GARAGES IN PARK
PLACE. I’D LIKE TO POINT OUT THIS IS
THE FACEBOOK PAGE FOR PARK PLACE AND THERE ARE NONE OF THE HOMES
SHOWN HERE, INCLUDING THE PROFILE PICTURE, WOULD BE
PERMITTED UNDER THE OLD INTERPRETATION OF THE PPRO AS
PRESENTED TODAY OR UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, WHEN ONE CIVIC LEAGUE MEMBER ASKED ON THIS PAGE WOULD
ANY OF THESE FIT IN THE NEW PPRO, THE SITES CURATOR
RESPONDED IF YOU’RE ASKING IF THESE HOMES WOULD BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW PPRO AMENDMENT, THE ANSWER IS YES,
ALL FOUR OF THEM, AND THERE ARE MANY MORE EXAMPLES LIKE THEM IN
PARK PLACE. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS SIMPLY IS
NOT TRUE. NONE OF THESE HOMES WOULD BE
PERMIT UNDER THE REVISED PPRO AND IT IS THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT’S ASSERTION THAT ALL OF THEM WERE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT
IN ERROR. THERE IS STILL ENORMOUS
CONFUSION IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS AND HOW
IT WILL BE APPLIED. THE COMMUNITY IS RIGHTLY PROUD
OF THESE HOMES. THE BUILDING OF HOMES LIKE THIS
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN PARK PLACE.
THERE’S STILL A LOT OF CONFUSION SURROUNDING THIS ORDINANCE AS
PRESENTED AND I AM ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO TODAY SO THERE CAN BE
ADEQUATE DISCUSSION AND A NEW WORKABLE PPRO CAN BE DRAFTED.
>>THANK YOU, SIR. ALSO HERE AGAINST THIS
APPLICATION IS JESSE McCABE.>>GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS JESSE McCABE, I LIVE AT 220 WEST 36th STREET IN
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA. I’M THE CURRENT CHAPLAIN OF THE
CIVIC LEAGUE. MY CONCERN IS OF THE FRONT
LOADING GARAGES. EVERY TIME THAT I’VE SEEN A
PRESENTATION ON IT, IT’S BEEN OF A GARAGE THAT SITS IN FRONT OF
THE FRONT PLAIN OF THE HOUSE. THE BEST EXAMPLE IS ON THE 500
BLOCK OF 36th STREET, THAT HOUSE DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD. HOWEVER, OUR VOTE AT THE CIVIC
LEAGUE WAS BASED ON THAT SAME PRESENTATION.
GARAGES THAT SIT IN FRONT OF THE FRONT PLAIN.
IF THAT’S THE CASE, THEN THAT VOTE DOES NOT REPRESENT WHAT IS
BEING TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY. THAT’S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>>THANK YOU, SIR. THE CHAIR ALSO WISHES TO
ACKNOWLEDGE JEFFREY WALLACE, WHO’S AGAINST THIS APPLICATION,
DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. YOU HAVEN’T HAD A CHANGE OF
HEART, HAVE YOU, MR. WALLACE? WE’RE IN THE REBUTTAL PHASE NOW.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION, MR. JOHNSON, IF YOU
HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO REFUTE ANY THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN —
COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ALREADY?
>>AS THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE PRESIDENT, I WAS AT THE
BEING WHERE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND I’VE HEARD THE COMMENT THAT
WE DID NOT MAKE DIRECT REFERENCE TO WHAT IS BEING SAID NOW AND
THAT’S WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO STOP THIS.
THIS VOTE WAS PUT ON THE FLOOR, IT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE VOTING
MEMBERS. MOTION WAS MADE AND WAS PROPERLY
SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS, NO ATTACHED GARAGE IN PARK PLACE.
AND THE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY WAS IN FAVOR OF THAT, AND THAT’S
WHERE IT ENDED. AND AS FAR AS NO ONE SAYING IT
DID NOT OCCUR THAT WAY, WE HAVE THE MINUTES THAT CAN SHOW THAT
FROM THE SECRETARY AND THE OTHER OFFICERS WHO WERE PRESENT WHO
WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON.
FOR THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION, YOU STILL HAVE
ADDITIONAL TIME IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS THAT REFUTE
THOSE COMMENTS AGAINST YOUR APPLICATION.
MS. PATTERSON, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, NOW IS THE
TIME.>>THANK YOU.
JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY SAY, PARK PLACE IS LIKE EVERY OTHER
COMMUNITY WHERE 100% OF RESIDENTS AREN’T GOING TO
SUPPORT SOMETHING. AS WE DISCUSSED TODAY, WE’VE
BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS SINCE AUGUST OF 2016 AND WE’VE
OPENED — WE’VE HAD OPEN FRUPS, WE HAD — FORUMS, WE HAD BOBBY
TAJAN COME BEFORE THE CIVIC LEAGUE AND DO A 45-MINUTE
DETAILED PRESENTATION ON GARAGES, THE VARIATIONS OF IT,
DEFINING A GARAGE. WE POSTED ON FACEBOOK, WE POSTED
ON NEXTDOOR TO MAKE SURE WE GET A SUFFICIENT FEEDBACK AND
INFORMATION TO NEIGHBORS TO MAKE SURE THEY KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON.
AS WE’VE KIND OF SEEN TODAY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM TBA,
THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE MISINTERPRETATION IN TERMS OF
WHAT THE TEXT IS SAYING, BUT THE CONSTANT HERE IS GOING TO BE
PLANNING AND PLANNING’S INTERPRETATION AND END FORMS OF
THE TEXT, AND THAT’S — ENFORCEMENT OF THE TEXT AND
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT AND THAT’S WHAT
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH DILIGENTLY WITH PLANNING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE INTERPRETED, BECAUSE BUILDERS
ARE GOING TO COME AND GO. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SKILLSETS
AND EXPERIENCE. THEY MAY INTERPRET THIS
DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT’S GOING TO BE THE CONSISTENT AND CONSTANT
ENFORCEMENT BY PLANNING THAT’S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
I DO, AGAIN, SUPPORT THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.
AS YOU’VE SEEN, THERE ARE ERRORS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN PARK PLACE
AND I BELIEVE IT’S GOING TO GIVE US A STRONG FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, MS. PATTERSON. PRESUMABLY, THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION FOR REBUTTAL
PURPOSES. WE’LL MOVE ON TO REBUTTAL FOR
THOSE AGAINST THIS APPLICATION. MR. WALLACE, MR. VIOLA, YOU HAVE
FIVE MINUTES.>>I’D JUST LIKE TO SAY, I
STRONGLY SUPPORT REVISION OF THE PARK PLACE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC
NATURE OF THAT COMMUNITY. MY FAMILY GOES BACK THERE 100
YEARS, LIVED, WORKED, WORSHIPPED.
I WANT TO SEE PARK PLACE MAINTAINED, BUT WE ALSO STRONGLY
SUPPORT STRONG ENFORCEMENT OF THAT, AS MS. PATTERSON SAID.
WE JUST FEEL THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS FLAWED.
AS FOR MR. JOHNSON’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE VOTE, WE WERE VOTING
MEMBERS OF THE PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE THAT NIGHT.
WE WERE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION, AND I RAISED THE
POINT OF THE DEFINITION OF THE FRONT-LOAD GARAGE.
THIS HAS BEEN A POINT OF CONTENTION ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
AS IT WAS EXPLAINED TO US ORIGINALLY, THE CIVIC LEAGUE SAW
A FRONT-LOAD GARAGE AS A GARAGE THAT THE FRONT DOOR OF THE
GARAGE IS IN FRONT OF THE MAIN FACADE OF THE HOUSE.
IT LOADS IN THE FRONT. THE CIVIC LEAGUE, IN ALL OF OUR
DISCUSSION, SUPPORTED OUR HOME AT 122 WEST 27th STREET AND IT
HAS AN ATTACHED GARAGE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE’VE NEVER
RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION TO IT OTHER THAN FROM PLANNING IN
THESE DISCUSSIONS. SO THAT POINT WAS BROUGHT UP
BEFORE THAT VOTE, AND I WAS PERSONALLY ASSURED IN THE OPEN
SESSION BY MR. JOHNSON THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF THAT ORDINANCE
AS WRITTEN, THE PROHIBITION OF ATTACHED FRONT-LOAD GARAGES IN
THE CIVIC LEAGUE, THAT IT WOULD BE ENFORCED ONLY WITH REFERENCE
TO GARAGES THAT SAT IN FRONT OF THE MAIN FACADE OF THE HOUSE.
WHEN I SAID I DON’T THINK THAT’S GOING TO BE THE INTENT OF THE
CITY, HE SAID NO, THAT’S MY ASSURANCE AND WE HAVE TO VOTE
TONIGHT OR WE DON’T GET A SAY IN THIS.
SO IT WAS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE POINT THAT THAT ISSUE WAS
SEPARATE FROM THE ENTIRE PPRO REWRITE, WHICH IS BEING
CONDUCTED UNDER THE REWRITE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY AND I SAID WHY
NOT DELAY IT UNTIL THE WHOLE THING IS DONE, BUT THERE IS
DEFINITELY QUESTION ABOUT THE FRONT-LOAD GARAGES AS IN JESSE
McCABE BROUGHT UP HERE. I’D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT
FINALLY JUST HOW MUCH CONFUSION THERE IS ABOUT THE PPRO AS
WRITTEN. THIS IS MR. JOHNSON’S HOUSE.
IT HAS A FLAT FRONT, A BEAUTIFUL HOME.
IT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER THE PPRO REWRITE AS SHOWN.
THE REASON BEING, THE STREET HAS AN ANGLE TO IT AND YOU CAN’T PUT
THAT HOUSE ON THAT ANGLE PARALLEL BETWEEN THOSE TWO
PROPERTY LINES AND STILL HAVE ALL THE FACADE IN THE 12 TO
15-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD.
IT HAS TO RUN AT AN ANGLE. THAT HOUSE WOULD NOT BE
PERMITTED, EVEN THOUGH IT’S A SIMPLE ATTRACTIVE DESIGN.
IN FACT, THIS THIS TRIANGLE, SEVEN OF THESE TEN HOUSES WILL
NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER THIS LANGUAGE AND REALLY JUST NEEDS
TO BE DISCUSSED AND WORK OUT WITH PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BUILD
HOUSES AND PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE THEIR
OPINIONS. WE WOULD STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT,
WE WANT TO SEE NEW LANGUAGE.>>THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. VIOLA, THERE’S SILL SOME REMAINING TIME.
>>I’D JUST LIKE TO SUMMARIZE BY EMPHASIZING, WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN TODAY, IN EFFECT TODAY, WITHOUT A
CHANGE, WE CAN’T BUILD A FRONT-LOADED GARAGE.
WE’D LIKE TO WORK ON THAT WITH THE CIVIC LEAGUE AND THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THAT’S SOMETHING WE’D LIKE TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO. THE OTHER CONCERN IS THE 75%
RULE, THE ONLY THING YOU’RE REALLY VOTING ON TODAY BECAUSE
THE FRONT-LOADING GARAGE IS NOT PERMITTED ANYWAY BY YOUR
ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME, SO WE’RE A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT AND I
GET CONFUSED, I’M A BUILDER, I CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT IT’S LIKE FOR
THE LAYMAN IF HE’S TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM THE CIVIC LEAGUE TELLING US THEY DIDN’T
EVEN UNDERSTAND IT AND THEY DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE
PUT INTO EFFECT, SO ALL WE’RE ASKING FOR IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK WITH YOUR CIVIC LEAGUE AND YOUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR 30
DAYS, JUST 30 DAYS. GET THIS THING RIGHT THE FIRST
TIME. LET US DO IT.
LET US SHOW THEM EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE CAN DO, WHAT WE CAN DO
RIGHT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT’S ALL WE’RE ASKING FOR.
THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU, SIR.
COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS?
GO AHEAD.>>I’D LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY ONE
MORE TIME, WHAT DOES THE CURRENT ORDINANCE STATE ABOUT THE
SETBACK OF THE HOUSE, EXACTLY? IS IT — IT MUST BE WITHIN 12 TO
15 FEET? IS THAT WHAT IT STATES NOW?
>>THAT IS CORRECT. THE CURRENT CODE IN 11-27.2
WHERE IT SAYS FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS, FRONT YARD SHALL
BE A MINIMUM OF 12 FEET AND A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET IN DEPTH.
AGAIN, THAT’S ESSENTIALLY A BUILD-TO LINE.
YOU HAVE A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM WHERE THE BUILDING HAS TO BE
LOCATED.>>AND THE 75% RULE THAT IS
BEING DISCUSSED HERE, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT?
>>THE RULE IS TO ALLOW FOR — UNDERSTANDING THAT BEING WITHIN
THAT THREE-FOOT RANGE WAS PROBABLY NOT
PROBABLY GIVING ENOUGH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
ELEMENTS, SO WE ADDED A PORTION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME
PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO RECESS.
IT’S NOT MOVING AWAY FROM THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT OF 12 TO 15
FEET. WE’RE JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE
SOME FLEXIBILITY.>>OKAY, SO DOES THAT
MAINTAIN — IS IT 12 FEET AND THAT 75% RULE WOULD ALLOW TO BE
FURTHER BACK FROM THAT? WHAT ARE WE SAYING EXACTLY?
>>75% OF THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING HAS TO BE WITHIN
THE 12 TO 15-FOOT RANGE WHILE 25% OF THE BUILDING IS PERMITTED
TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OFFSET FROM THAT.
>>THANK YOU, BOBBY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
COMMISSIONERS?>>IT IS MY PERSONAL PERCEPTION
THAT THERE IS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT THE BUILDERS ARE
SAYING AND WHAT IS REALLY TRYING TO BE DONE HERE TODAY, WHICH IS
TO CLARIFY THE STATUTE AS IS, NOT TO CHANGE, BUT TO SIMPLY
CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE. IT IS NOT PROHIBITING FURTHER
DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT AT THIS TIME TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE AS
THE CIVIC LEAGUE WOULD WANT. THE PROPERTY AT 122 WEST 27th
STREET HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AS AN EXAMPLE.
IT’S THIS ONE. THAT THIS WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
COULD THERE BE SOME DISCUSSION OF — CAN STAFF COMMENT UPON
THAT?>>UNDER OUR RULE, IT WOULD BE
PROHIBITED. THE FRONT-LOAD GARAGE.
>>SO YES, IF IT HAS AN ATTACHED FRONT-LOADED GARAGE, THAT
RESIDENCE WOULD BE PROHIBITED UNDER THE CODE.
>>IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, WHEN THIS
CAME UP FROM PARK PLACE, BOBBY AND I DROVE THE COMMUNITY AND WE
LOOKED AT EVERY HOUSE IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE FOUND THAT IF YOU READ THE ORDINANCE, IT TALKS ABOUT A
MAXIMUM AND A MINIMUM. THE PRESUMPTION UNDER THAT
SHOULD BE THAT THE ENTIRE HOUSE FIT.
THAT THREE-FOOT RANGE AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE QUITE A
FEW HOUSES THAT DID NOT. SEVERAL OF THOSE WERE UNDER
NRHA’S DAYS, OFTEN IT WOULD BE A HOUSE THAT YOU FIND IN THAT BOOK
THAT WOULD BE VERY ATTRACTIVE AND COMPATIBLE WITH PARK PLACE.
IT DID NOT FIT IN THAT THREE-FOOT RANGE.
SO IF WE TAKE THE WORD 75% AND FLIP IT AROUND, 25% OF THE
FRONTAGE OF THAT HOUSE IS BEING RECOGNIZED AS ABLE TO BE CLOSER
OR FURTHER BACK THAN THE THREE-FOOT RANGE.
THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CLARIFY.
SO I BELIEVE THAT IF THEY LOOK WITH THE 25% POTENTIAL, SOME OF
THESE 63% THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT OF THE NEW HOMES PROBABLY
FALL INTO THAT BECAUSE WE WERE RECOGNIZING THAT THOSE HOUSES
HAD BEEN BUILT AND THEY HAD GREATER DIFFERENTIATION THAN THE
THREE-FOOT RANGE THAT WAS SET UP IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT AMENDMENT.
>>LET ME — ANOTHER CLARIFYING STATEMENT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
LENNY, GEORGE, OR ANY MEMBER OF STAFF.
FUNDAMENTALLY, WE’RE SAYING THE CIVIC LEAGUE DOES NOT WANT
FRONT-LOAD GARAGES. THE BUILDING COMMUNITY IS
SAYING, OKAY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO IN NO WAY DOES ADDING THIS WORDING PRECLUDE FURTHER
DIALOGUE ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO FIT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AM I CORRECT IN THAT?>>MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU’RE
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN THAT, AND BOTH MR. SHARP AND I HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED TO THE TBA THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
THEM ON NOT ONLY THE SINGLE-FAMILY TRADITIONAL, BUT
EVERY COMPONENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING
AND HOPE TO HAVE DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR.
SO THIS IS A PERFECT POINT FOR FUTURE CONVERSATION AS IT
RELATES TO THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE.
>>THANK YOU, GEORGE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AT
THIS POINT, COMMISSIONERS? HEARING NONE, MR. NEWCOMB.
>>THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT BE APPROVED. MR. HALES.
>>A COUPLE QUICK COMMENTS. FIRST, I’D LIKE TO COMMEND THE
PARK PLACE CIVIC LEAGUE. IT’S NOT MANY TIMES WE SEE
NEIGHBORHOODS COMING FORWARD TO IMPROVE THE ORDINANCE TO HELP
THE NEIGHBORHOOD GET WHAT THEY WANT, SO THAT’S A GREAT THING.
FROM WHAT WE’VE HEARD, WHAT I’VE HEARD TODAY IS GARAGES ARE
CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED AND THAT HAS NOT CHANGED AT ALL.
THE HOUSES CURRENTLY TODAY HAVE TO BE SET BACK 12 TO IS A FEET.
THIS CHANGE ACTUALLY GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO THE VOTERS TODAY,
IF YOU WERE TO BRING A BILLER PERMIT TODAY THAT’S OUTSIDE OF
THAT, YOU WOULD BE SENT AWAY, SO IF NOTHING ELSE OVER THE NEXT
TWO TO THREE MONTHS, YOU HAVE MORE RELIEF THAN YOU WOULD
OTHERWISE. SO I ENCOURAGE SOME CONTINUED
DIALOGUE. I’M CERTAINLY HOPEFUL THE
COMMUNITY WILL SIS STONE YOUS THEY WANT TO SELL HOUSES AND
BUILD MORE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOPEFULLY THEY
TAKE YOUR AT VICE. FROM TODAY’S STANDPOINT, I SEE
NO HARM IN PASSING AND GETTING THIS THROUGHS A HOPEFULLY WE’LL
SEE YOU BACK EITHER BEFORE THE ZONING REWRITE GETS IMPLEMENTED
FOREYOU AGREE BEFOREHAND, BEFORE THAT.
FOR THAT REASON, I VOTE AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>I WANT TO CONCUR WITH WHAT MR. HALES HAS SAID.
I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS PRECLUDES ANY CONVERSATION TO
DISCUSS THE NECESSITY FOR BUILDING HOMES THAT CAN BE SOLD.
I THINK THAT THE TBA CAN COME BACK TO THE TABLE WITH
ENTHUSIASM ABOUT THEIR POINT OF VIEW TO DISCUSS IT IN CONCERT
WITH THE ASSOCIATION AND I THINK THAT LANGUAGE GIVES NECESSARY
CLARIFICATION AND I HOPE THAT EVERYONE HEARS THE LATITUDE THAT
IS WITHIN THIS THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY STAFF.
SO I VOTE YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>I WANT TO ECHO THE SENTIMENTS IN COMMENDING THE PARK PLACE
CIVIC LEAGUE FOR BEING ADAMANT AND CLARIFYING AN ORDINANCE THAT
WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE BUT JUST NEEDED SOME CLARIFICATION
WITH THE WORDING. I ALSO THINK IT WAS MS. BOND OR
THE YOUNG LADY WHO CAME FORWARD AND SUGGESTED THAT, YOU KNOW,
IT’S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD, BUT COZY —
CODE ENFORCEMENT IS AS MUCH NECESSARY AS CREATING NEW
ORDINANCES AND NEW TEXT AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO CLARIFY
SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS. I WANT TO CHALLENGE THE
TIDEWATER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A GREAT
PRODUCT THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY PROVEN THAT YOU’VE DONE IN THE
PAST AND SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. I’M GLAD THAT WE DID POINT OUT
THAT IT’S NOT FRONT-LOAD GARAGES THAT THE PARK PLACE COMMUNITY IS
AGAINST. IT’S THE ATTACHED FRONT-LOAD
GARAGES, SO THIS IN NO WAY PROHIBITS THE BUILDERS FROM
MOVING FORWARD WITH BUILDING A PRODUCT THAT DOES HAVE A
FRONT-LOAD GARAGE, BUT THE PROHIBITED — BUT IT DOES GO
FURTHER IN CLARIFYING THE PROHIBITION OF ATTACHED GARAGES.
SO WITH THAT, I VOTE AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>AYE.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>I’LL ECHO THE OTHER COMMENTS MADE AND VOTE AYE.
>>MR. FRALEY.>>I VOTE AYE.
THANK YOU.>>NEXT ITEM BEFORE US IS
CONTINUED ITEM NUMBER 2, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS. NUMBER A IS AMEND CHAPTER 4,
RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE
SINGLE-FAMILY TRADITIONAL. B IS A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R-8
SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT AND RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY
OVERLAY RCO DISTRICT TO SINGLE-FAMILY TRADITIONAL.
THIS IS PERTAINING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD DEFINED AS
HUNTERSVILLE.>>THANK YOU, LENNY.
HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION IS CAROLYN LATHAM.
THAT’S YOU, I’M SORRY, MA’AM.>>YES, SIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE.
I’M IN FAVOR OF THIS TRANSITION. WE WORK VERY HARASS —
>>MS. LATHAM, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND NAILING ADDRESS.
>>MY NAME IS CAROLYN DEAN LATHAM, I LIVE 1819 GRACIE
STREET IN OLDE HUNTERSVILLE. I’M FOR THIS TRANSITION, THIS
CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITY. AS THE COMMITTEE TO COME TO OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY DIDN’T COME TO US, WE ASKED THEM TO COME TO
OUR — WE HAVE A LOT OF VACANT LOTS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WE
WANT TO BUILD OUR COMMUNITY UP THROUGH OUR STRATEGIC PLAN AND
WE’RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE CHANGE.
WE LOVE THE PLANNING BOOK, REALLY ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE
PLANNING BOOK. I HAVE A HOUSE AND I’M THINKING
ABOUT GIVING MY HOUSE TO ONE OF MY DAUGHTERS AND WAITING FOR THE
HOUSES TO BE BUILT BECAUSE I WANT TO BUY ONE OF THE HOUSES,
SO — [ LAUGHTER ]
>>I AM ASKING ON BEHALF OF OUR CIVIC LEAGUE AND OUR COMMUNITIES
FOR THE COMMITTEE TO SAY YES AND I THANK BOBBY AND HIS TEAM FOR
ALL THE HARD WORK AND WORKING WITH OUR CIVIC LEAGUE TO MAKE
THIS HAPPEN, AND THEY DID COME OUT, AGAIN, TO OUR CIVIC LEAGUE
TO HELP THOSE WHO WASN’T TOO SURE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANT AND
EVERYBODY WAS ON BOARD AND THE GENTLEMAN THAT DID NOT LIVE IN
OUR COMMUNITY, BUT DID HAVE PROPERTY HERE, HE CAME OUT AS
WELL AND HE UNDERSTOOD, AND IT WAS JUST EXCITING TO SEE THE
PLANS AGAIN AND GET MORE UNDERSTANDING AND I’M JUST
ASKING FOR A YES VOTE. AND I KNOW I’M GOING TO GET IT
BECAUSE I PRAYED ABOUT IT. AND I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
LISTENING.>>YES, MA’AM, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALSO HERE IN FAVOR OF THIS
APPLICATION, BUT DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, MS. CHAPMAN.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION.>>ALL RIGHT.
THE POTION BEFORE YOU IS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT AND THE CHANGE OF ZONING BE APPROVED.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>YES.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>IN MY SHORT TIME TO PLANNING
COMMISSION, I’VE NEVER BEEN AS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT VOTING FOR
SOMETHING. I VOTE AYE.
>>MS. SHELTON.>>YES.
>>DR. NEUMANN.>>AYE.
>>AND MR. FRALEY.>>AYE.
WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT CAN EVOLVE FROM THIS
APPLICATION, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR DILIGENCE AND I ASK YOU TO
KEEPING YOUR FINGER ON THE PULSE AND MAKE SURE WE’RE HEADING IN
THE RYE DIRECTION. I VOTE AYE.
>>WE’RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
THE ITEM BEFORE US IS NUMBER ONE BY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO
AMEND SECTION 11-3 OF THE FLOODPLAIN/COASTAL HAZARD
OVERLAY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER
TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
>>LENNY, THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION.
>>ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT BE APPROVED.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>YES.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>AYE.
>>MS. SHELTON.>>YES.
>>DR. NEUMANN.>>AYE.
>>MR. FRALEY.>>AYE.
>>ALL RIGHT. WE’RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 2.
THIS IS MONUMENT DEVELOPMENT SEVEN, LLC, FOR THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATIONS AT 529 WEST 24th STREET.
A IS TO DESIGNATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS A NORFOLK HISTORIC
LANDMARK, AND B IS TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SEVEN OR UNITS ON THE SITE.
>>THANK YOU. THE CHAIR WANTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS,
MR. ALLAN SULLIVAN. THANK YOU, MR. SULLIVAN.
MR. CHRIS JOHNSON. THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.
THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, LENNY.>>THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE NORFOLK HISTORIC LANDMARK
DESIGNATION AND TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS CONTAIN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>YES.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>AYE.
>>MS. SHELTON.>>YES.
>>DR. NEUMANN.>>AYE.
>>MR. FRALEY.>>AYE.
WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
GOOD LUCK.>>ALL RIGHT.
WE’LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, HANK’S FILLING STATION
FOR THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS. A IS A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-8
SINGLE-FAMILY TO C-2 CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 810 43rd STREET. B AS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO
FREIGHT AN ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT WITH ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AT 4301 COLLEY AVENUE AND 810 43rd STREET, AND C IS A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO OPERATE AN ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE SALE OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION AT 4301
COLLEY AVENUE AND 810 43rd STREET.
>>THANK YOU, LENNY. THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
APPLICATION. THE CHAIR WILL ACKNOWLEDGE RICK
HENN. HOW YOU DOING, RICK?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE ANYTHING FURTHER WITH US?
>>MY NAME IS RICK HENN, TWO N’S.
1400 GRANBY STREET, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA.
THE APPLICANT ASKED ME TO BRING UP THIS QUESTION SO I’M BRINGING
UP THIS QUESTION. ON THE RESTRICTIONS, THERE’S ONE
OF THEM THAT YOU ALL BROUGHT UP VERY SERIOUSLY AND SAYS THAT NO
SMOKING IN THE OUTSIDE AREA, AND THE OUTSIDE AREA IN THIS ONE
HERE IS LIKE 5500 SQUARE FEET AND HE WANTED TO HAVE A
DESIGNATED AREA SO PEOPLE COULD SMOKE A CIGAR OR SOMETHING
BECAUSE THEY’RE PLAYING GAMES AND ALL.
AND HE ASKED IF WE COULD CHANGE THAT PART.
SO I JUST THOUSAND DOLLARS I’D ASK THE QUESTION.
>>WE APPRECIATE THAT SMOKE ACTUALLY STAYS CONTAINED IN A
SMALL AREA THAT YOU DEFINE ON THE GROUND.
IT DOES, DOESN’T IT, JUST STAYS RIGHT THERE?
>>IT’S BEHIND HIS OWN RESTAURANT.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAVE IT THERE AND I TALK TO — I
UNDERSTAND WHY THAT RESTRICTION IS THERE AND — BUT USUALLY AN
OUTDOOR AREA IS NOT AS LARGE AS THAT AND IT’S NOT REALLY A
DINING AREA AS MUCH AS A SIT-DOWN TABLE DINING AREA.
IT’S A SOCIAL AREA MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, KIND OF LIKE
WHERE THE TORCH IS.>>RICK, YOU DO RECOGNIZE AS THE
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE THAT DR. NEUMANN IS SITTING TO MY
IMMEDIATE RIGHT.>>OH, I TALKED TO HIM.
I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER. [ LAUGHTER ]
MY JOB IS TO ASK THE QUESTION.>>I APPRECIATE YOU.
YOU CERTAINLY ARE DOING THE WORK ON BEHALF OF OR CLIENT AND I
UNDERSTAND IT.>>HE KNOWS, HE FOLLOWS THE
RULES. YOU UNDERSTAND, HE FOLLOWS THE
RULES AND WANTS TO MAKE SURE THE RULES ARE RIGHT AND IF THAT’S
THE RULE, HE’LL FOLLOW THE RULE. HE JUST WANTED ME TO ASK THAT
QUESTION.>>DR. DAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF
SECONDHAND SMOKE?>>I THINK EVERYONE ON THIS
COMMISSION CERTAINLY KNOWS AND YOU ON COUNCIL ARE WELL AWARE
THAT, YOU KNOW, A MAJOR MISSION OF MINE IS THE HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING OF OUR CITY AND OF OUR FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THE CITY.
I DON’T WANT ANYONE TO BE SUBJECTED TO SMOKE THAT DOESN’T
CHOOSE TO BE DINING OR ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY, AND THAT’S SORT OF
A MISSION OF MINE. THINK IT’S BASED PRETTY WELL AND
SOLIDLY IN MEDICAL EVIDENCE WHICH I DO KNOW A BIT ABOUT.
OBVIOUSLY, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE’RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION WITH THIS AND ANY OF THESE NEW APPLICATIONS ARE GOING
TO BE UNDER THE SAME EXACT PLAYING FIELD THAT THIS
APPLICATION WILL. I CAN’T SPEAK FOR ONES OUT THERE
NOW, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IF ANY ESTABLISHMENTS DO COME BACK
THROUGH AND NEED, YOU KNOW, NEED TO EITHER RENEW OR MAKE CHANGES
TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THEY’RE GOING TO FALL UNDER THIS
AS WELL. I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS, RICK,
ALWAYS APPRECIATE THE FINE WORK YOU DO.
>>I UNDERSTAND. LIKE I SAID, I —
>>AND FOR PAYING ATTENTION TO A LOT OF MY INITIATIVES.
>>THE THING IS, IT’S CREDIBILITY.
I’M NOT GOING TO SAY I DID SOMETHING I DIDN’T AND I WANTED
TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU AND I UNDERSTAND HOW
YOU FEEL. GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE OTHER
STUFF. [ LAUGHTER ]
>>THANK YOU, RICK. LENNY, THERE IS NOS ON POLLS TO
THIS — OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION.
>>IS MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CHANGE OF ZONING AND
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MR. HALES.
>>AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>I’D JUST LIKE TO SAY TO IN HEN, ALL KIDDING ASIDE, WE HOPE
YOU WILL SEND OUR CONDOLENCES ON THE APPLICANT ON THE LOSS OF HIS
FAMILY MEMBER AND I VOTE AYE.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>AND MR. FRALEY.
>>VOTE AYE. MAKE THAT RECOMMEND DIGS TO
COUNCIL. — RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL,
THANK YOU.>>ITEM NUMBER 4, SPHINX
BUILDERS, LLC, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT, SEVEN OR MORE UNITS, AT 4334 THROUGH 4350 EAST
LITTLE CREEK ROAD AND 7905 THROUGH 7919 TURNER ROAD.
>>ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR
A PRESENTATION, BUT WE HAVE ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO SIGNED
UP FOR QUESTIONS, SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND ANY
QUESTIONS THAT MAY BE ASKED, I’LL DO A PRESENTATION REAL
QUICK. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE
VERY EASTERN END OF EAST LITTLE CREEK ROAD WHERE IT TERMINATES
AT TURNER ROAD. THE PICTURE THAT YOU SEE RIGHT
HERE JUST TO THE LEFT, RIGHT OUT OF VIEW, IS SHORE DRIVE AND
THAT’S THE INTERSECTION OF EAST LITTLE CREEK AND SHORE DRIVE AND
THAT IS THE McDONALD’S RIGHT THERE THAT YOU SEE AND THEN THE
CONDO PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT YOU APPROVED A LITTLE BIT
AGO, A YEAR OR TWO AGO. SO THIS PROJECT IS BY SPHINX
BUILDERS AND IT IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR
MULTIFAMILY. ANYTIME IN THE R-11 AND R-12
DISTRICT SOMEONE ASKS TO BUILD MORE THAN SIX UNITS, IT DOES
REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT.
THAT’S THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
AND THE REQUEST IS TO REDEVELOP THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE 26
TOWNHOUSE-STYLE MULTIFAMILY UNITS, AND THE R-11 ZONING
DISTRICT THAT IT’S IN RIGHT NOW, GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY,
WOULD ALLOW NINE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO BE BUILT BY RIGHT AND
THEN, LIKE I SAID, NO MORE THAN SIX MULTIFAMILY UNITS ON THE
SITE WITHOUT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND THIS SITE, I KNOW WE’VE GONE OVER SEVERAL DIFFERENT
ITERATIONS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HAD IT REVISED
SEVERAL TIMES, SO I’LL JUST CUT TO THE CHASE OF THE DIFFERENT
CHANGES AND THAT A LETTER OF CONCERN WAS RECEIVED BACK IN
NOVEMBER THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT AND THAT WAS FROM THE NAVY, THE
LITTLE CREEK FORT STORY BASE THAT’S RIGHT THERE TO THE SOUTH
OF THE SITE, SO IN THAT LETTER, CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED AT THE
TIME THAT RELATED TO STORMWATER FLOODING IN THE VICINITY OF THE
NAVY-OWNED STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND INCREASED
TRAFFIC VOLUME NEAR GATE ONE, WHICH IS THEIR PRIMARY GATE
ENTRANCE THERE, PARTICULARLY IN REGARDS TO THE POSSIBLE
EXPANSION OF THIS PORTION OF LITTLE CREEK ROAD, EAST LITTLE
CREEK ROAD THAT TERMINATES RIGHT BY TURNER ROAD, WHICH IS ABOUT A
12 TO 14-FOOT-WIDE, SINGLE-LANE, ONE-WAY ROAD AS IT GOES PAST THE
McDONALD’S SITE THERE. HERE’S THE ZONING FOR YOU.
I’LL TALK ABOUT THE SITE PLAN. BUT THE APPLICANT CHOSE THEN IN
NOVEMBER TO WITHDRAW THAT ORIGINAL REQUEST AND REDESIGN
THE SITE, SO I’LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE DESIGN CHANGES.
THE REDESIGN PROPOSAL REMOVES ALL VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EE
GREG ACCESS FROM EAST LITTLE CREEK ROAD, SO DIRECTING ALL
TRAFFIC TO THE TURNER ROAD ENTRANCE AND ROUTES VEHICLES NOT
SIGNALIZED SECTION OF SHORE DRIVE AND DUNNING ROAD.
THIS MODIFICATION REDUCES THE CONGESTION THAT WOULD HAVE
OTHERWISE BEEN INCREASED AT THE DIRECT INTERSECTION OF SHORE
DRIVE AND LITTLE CREEK ROAD IF EAST LITTLE CREEK ROAD HAD BEEN
EXPANDED TO ACCOMMODATE AN ENTRANCE ON THAT SIDE.
THE PROPOSED DENSITY WAS REDUCED BY 16% IN ORDER TO FURTHER
ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC VOLUME CONCERNS AND THE APPLICANT HAS
AGREED TO AN ADDITIONAL STORMWATER CONDITION TO ADDRESS
THE LOCALIZED STORMWATER FLOODING CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY
JEB-LITTLE CREEK-FORT STORY. THAT REDUCES THE STORMWATER OFF
THE SITE BY AN ADDITIONAL 5%. IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL STORMWATER
CONDITIONS, A REVISED LETTER OF CONCERN WAS RECEIVED FROM THE
UNITED STATES NAVY COMMANDING OFFICER OF JEB AND THE REVISED
LETTER INDICATES THE PREVIOUS CONCERNS REGARDING LOCALIZED
FLOODING, THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM AND THEY WANT TO MAKE
SURE THEY RECOGNIZE THAT’S IMPORTANT TO THEM, ALTHOUGH
WE’RE GOING A LITTLE BIT ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THE CONDITION
WE’VE ADDED AND THEN STILL HAS A CONCERN REGARDING ANY INCREASE
IN TRAFFIC VOLUME. AND THAT REVISED LETTER DOES ASK
FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY
MOVING FORWARD AT THAT INTERSECTION OF SHORE DRIVE AND
EAST LITTLE CREEK ROAD. I THINK THAT FROM A GENERAL
OVERARCHING STANDPOINT, SINCE THE NAVY HAS SEEN PIECE BY PIECE
MORE DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN THE AREA, LIKE I SAID, THIS CONDO
DEVELOPMENT YOU SEE AND NEW APARTMENT PROPOSALS ALONG THIS
STRETCH OF SHORE DRIVE BETWEEN LITTLE CREEK AND EAST OCEAN VIEW
AVENUE, AND THEY’VE ALSO SEEN THEIR OWN INCREASE IN DAILY
TRAFFIC AS THEY’VE INCREASED MISSIONS ON THAT BASE AND HAVE
MORE JOBS AND MORE VEHICLES COMING TO AND FROM GATE ONE,
THAT THEY DO WANT US TO LOOK AT A POSSIBLE TRAFFIC STUDY OF THAT
INTERSECTION MOVING FORWARD AND THEY’VE ALREADY STARTED WITH
PUBLIC WORKS AND SEEING WHAT WE CAN DO TO WORK ON THAT AND
PRESENT THAT INFORMATION AS WE GO FORWARD WITH FUTURE PROJECTS
AND PROPOSALS. SO I’LL JUST READ THROUGH A FEW
OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WILL BE PLACED BECAUSE THIS IS A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION REQUEST. WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE
SOME CONDITIONS THAT WE’VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT ON AND
THEY AGREED TO, AND THAT IS THAT NO MORE THAN 26 UNITS SHALL BE
PROVIDED. SITE SHALL BE GENERALLY DESIGNED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND THE SIGHT
SHALL BE DEVELOPED TO REFLECT THE GENERAL MAPPING, MATERIALS,
FENESTRATION AND DESIGN ELEMENTS SHOWN ON THE ELEVATIONS, WHICH
THIS IS THE FRONT LOADED SIDE AND THEN THIS IS WHAT WE CALL
THE REAR LOADED SIDE, BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SIDE THAT FACES
ALL THE EXTERNAL STREETS, SO LITTLE CREEK ROAD, TURNER ROAD,
WILL BE SEEING THIS SIDE THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY GARAGE DOORS,
DRIVEWAYS, BUT ACTUALLY HAS FRONT DOORS THAT HAVE WALK WAYS.
YOU CAN ZOOM IN RIGHT HERE, YOU SEE WALK WAYS COMING FROM THE
FRONT DOOR TO THE SIDEWALK, PRESENTS A VERY PRESENTABLE CURB
APPEAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHOUT AND WE WILL HAVE
SOME — I’LL JUST READ THROUGH THE CONDITION ABOUT THE CURB,
GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IN JUST A SECOND.
THAT IS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE MADE ALONG
THE TURNER ROAD AND PUBLIC — SHALL BE MADE ALONG THE TURNER
ROAD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, INCLUDING GUSH CUTTER
INFRASTRUCTURE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS
REQUIRE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THAT A SIDEWALK
WITH A MINUTE MIDTOWN TUNNEL WIDTH OF FIVE FEET SHALL BE
PROVIDED ALONG EAST LITTLE CREEK AND TURNER ROAD PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY SUFFICIENT TO MEET STANDARDS AND IF ANY FENCE OR
WALL IS INSTALLED AND LOCATED BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT THOSE FENCES AND WALLS SHALL NOT BE
HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET TALL AND SHALL MAINTAIN A TRANSPARENCY OF
50% OR GREATER. THAT REASON FOR THAT CONDITION
IS MAKE SURE THAT AS INDIVIDUAL TENANTS, PROPERTY OWNERS MOVE
INTO THESE UNITS, THAT THEY WON’T THEN DECIDE TO TAKE THAT
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SPACE RIGHT THERE AND TURN IT INTO SORT OF
LIKE A BACKYARD WITH A SIX-FOOT SOLID FENCE AND DOESN’T INTERACT
IN THE SAME WAY WITH THE SIDEWALK THAT IT WAS INTENDED
FOR. THAT’S THE PURPOSE FOR THAT
CONDITION. AND THEN ALSO THAT A MINIMUM OF
THREE OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH
DWELLING UNIT IN ADDITION TO THE SHARED PARKING, WHICH IS LOCATED
IN THE INTERNAL SPACES THAT YOU SEE THERE.
SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR A TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX
IN THIS PART OF THE CITY IS 1.75 PERRIONS, SO WE’RE — PER UNIT,
SO WE’RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THREE SPACES.
IN ADDITION TO THE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON
TURNER ROAD WHICH NOW WILL ALLOW ON-STREET PARKING ON TURNER ROAD
WHERE RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE REALLY JUST PARKING IN THE
GRASS, WHICH IS KIND OF A PROBLEM THERE.
AND THAT I’LL JUST SKIP ON AND IT SAYS THAT THE — WE DO HAVE
THE CONDITION ABOUT THE STORMWATER REDUCTION AND THEN
ONSITE LIGHTING SHALL BE DIRECTED AND SHIELDED SO IT DOES
NOT CAST GLARE INTO ANY ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND ALL
LANDSCAPING INSTALLED ON THE PREMISES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN
A HEALTHY CONDITION AT ALL TIMES.
WITH THAT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED PLAN AS
PRESENTED AND WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE EAST
OCEAN VIEW CIVIC LEAGUE, GIVEN ALL THE REVISED CHANGES THAT
THEY’VE MADE TO THE PLANS. THEY DO NOW SUPPORT THIS PLAN
AND THAT LETTER IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
SO ANY QUESTIONS, I’M HERE TO ANSWER.
>>ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. SIMONS?>>MATT, CAN YOU TELL ME AGAIN,
WHY ARE YOU REQUIRING THREE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT?
>>I THINK THERE’S JUST A GENERAL CONCERN IN THE VICINITY
THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS ALREADY AROUND
THE AREA, SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT GOING
TO CREATE ANY EXCESS DEMAND OR ANY EXCESS DEMAND ON THE —
>>THEY DESIGNED IT INTO THE PLAN.
>>OKAY.>>AND IT IS IN A PLACE WHERE
YOU HAVE A LOT OF OFF-STREET PARKING BECAUSE THE NARROWNESS
OF BOTH TURNER AND LITTLE CREEK, SO IF YOU HAVE GUESTS OR PEOPLE
VISITING YOU, IT’S MORE ACCOMMODATING TO HAVE THEM ON
THE SITE THAN OFF. I MEAN, THIS WASN’T SOMETHING WE
TWISTED THEIR ARM ON. THIS WAS A COMBINATION OF
WORKING BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM.
AND THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT LAND TO DO IT.
>>WE STILL HAVE PARKING DOWNTOWN.
>>WELL, I’M THINKING ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
>>THEY’RE DOING OVER AND BEYOND THE STORMWATER FOR THIS.
THE PARKING IS ACTUALLY INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT, THE ROAD
PATTERN OF WHAT THEY’RE DOING. THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH SO MANY
ITERATIONS, IT’S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD COMPROMISE.
>>THANK YOU.>>AND IF WE MAY CELEBRATE AS HE
LEAVES THE SPEAKER STAND, THIS IS HIS LAST DAY BEING 31 YEARS
OLD. [ LAUGHTER ]
>>BOBBY, CAN YOU ADDRESS MR. MURPHY’S COMMENT ABOUT THE
NECESSITY FOR PERVIOUS PAVERS. WE PROPOSED THAT AS AN
ALTERNATIVE, PUBLIC WORKS STORM WATER DIVISION WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN PROPERLY PERVIOUS PAVERS AND
THEY PREFERRED AN OPTION TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ONSITE CONTAINMENT OF
THE WATER AS A BETTER SOLUTION, SO THAT’S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH
THE ADDITIONAL 5% ABOVE THE MINIMUM STANDARD AND THAT’S
REQUIRED BY PUBLIC WORKS.>>OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS OF EITHER MATT OR BOBBY, COMMISSIONERS?
HEARING NONE, HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE
APPLICATION ARE MICHAEL LANCASTER, RICK HENN, RODNEY
FLUORESCE, THOMAS RETINOW AND A GENTLEMAN, MR. JACK BRYAN.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SIR? IS THAT BRYAN, SIR?
THANK YOU.>>HELLO.
MY NAME IS JACK BRYAN. I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 7918 AND
7920 TURNER ROAD, ALMOST DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE
ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY.>>CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR MAILING
ADDRESS?>>IT’S 4401 BLACK BEARD ROAD,
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. JUST ON THE OTHER END OF THE
BASE OR THE JOINT EXPEDITIONARY BASE FROM THIS BASE.
MY FAMILY HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY BEFORE THE BASE WAS
THERE. BACK THEN, WE DIDN’T SEE A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AREA. IT WAS PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY AND
WE CLOSE THAT END OF THE BASE TO LIVE ON AT THE TIME.
THIS WAS MY GRANDFATHER’S PROPERTY AND HE HAS — HE HAD
STRONG TIES TO THE MILITARY COMMUNITY.
WE’VE OWNED PROPERTY IN NORFOLK AND IN VIRGINIA BEACH, NOT AS
MEGA MILLIONAIRES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, JUST COMMON PEOPLE
TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO BE. IN THIS REGARD, YOU’RE LOOKING
AT — IT’S PRISTINE PROPERTY. IT WAS A FARM FIELD BEFORE
MS. AMERY OWNED IT AND A GENTLEMAN NAMED COOK OWNED THIS
PROPERTY. THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE IS A
CONCERN. I’M PUTTING THAT FORWARD NOW
BECAUSE IT’S THE COUNCIL TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
THAT AREA HAS HAD FLOODING IN THE PAST.
DUNNING, THE STREET DUNNING HAS BEEN FLOODED TOWARDS WHERE THE
MILITARY BASE IS. MY BACK LOT USED TO — WHERE THE
FENCE JOINS TO THE AMPHIB TASE WAS ONCE A — BASE WAS ONCE A
DITCH THAT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS 20 FOOT WIDE OR 30 FOOT WIDE, LARGE
ENOUGH SO THAT TANKS AND SUCH COULDN’T CROSS IT AND DEEP
ENOUGH AND MUCKY ENOUGH. IT WAS FILLED IN BY THE NAVY
WITH A DRAIN PIPE PUT IN THERE. OUR CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU CAN
SEE FROM — I’M SORRY, I’M NOT A — I DON’T SPEAK ALL THE TIME
LIKE THIS, BUT THIS MAP. IF YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THAT.
OUR BASE CONCERN IS THAT THE DRAINAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF
ENOUGH THAT IT JUST DOESN’T MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENTS.
IT’S THAT I DON’T SEE SHEET WATER COMING ACROSS ON TO MY
PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY HASN’T BEEN
DEVELOPED. IT HAS ONE HOUSE ON IT, A BACK
FLAG LOT. I LIKE IT THAT WAY.
I LIKE HAVING PROPERTY NEAR A MARINA COMPLEX.
THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I LIKE LIVING IN VIRGINIA BEACH
AND NORFOLK. THE — WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE
TO RELY ON THE NAVY IN REGARDS TO THAT DITCH AND NOW THAT IT’S
A PIPE, WE HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO RELY ON THEM TO KEEP IT THE WAY
WITH ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR WHAT IT DOES.
AND THE STREET, SINCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS RECEIVED
PAVING, HAS CONTINUED TO RISE IN ELEVATION.
SO IF YOU GO IN THERE AND LOOK AT HOUSES AND MY HOUSE IS ONE,
MY GARAGE LEVEL IS BELOW STREET LEVEL NOW, SO WHEN — IF WATER
FLOWS OFF OF THAT PROPERTY TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, I’M ONE
OF THOSE. I’M ACROSS THE STREET, IT’S
GOING TO FLOW INTO THE STREET. I WON’T HAVE CURB AND GUTTER ON
MY SIDE OF THE STREET AND THAT WATER IS GOING TO GO INTO MY
PROPERTY AND IT’S GOING TO COME IN SHEETS.
IT’S GOING TO BE AN ENTIRE ROOFTOP, AN ENTIRE PARKING LOT,
AND IT’S — YOU KNOW, WHAT DO THEY CALL THOSE?
50-YEAR STORM, 100-YEAR STORM, IT’S GOING TO BE A LOT.
WE’VE HAD ENOUGH OF THOSE LATELY.
I DON’T KNOW IF THEY’RE JUST SEVERE, THEY COME AS SQUALLS.
WHAT I WANT TO SEE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO ADDRESS THOSE
ISSUES. I DON’T WANT TO SEE THESE PEOPLE
WHO PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, WANT TO DEVELOP IT, TO BE
STOPPED. I DON’T THINK THAT LITTLE CORNER
IS GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THEY HAVE ADDRESSED THEIR POINT
OF CONTACT DRAINAGE WITHIN THEIR REQUIREMENTS, SO I’M KIND OF
JUST SAYING, YEAH, I DON’T WANT TO BE AFFECTED BY THEIR
DEVELOPMENT TO A POINT WHERE I’M FLOODED, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADDRESS DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA FOR ALL
THOSE CONCERNS. WE’VE BEEN ONE OF THE LAST
GROUPS PUT IN THERE. NOW, WHY?
WE WERE IN BAYSIDE BOROUGH, PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY, AND THIS
SMALL LITTLE POCKET WAS TRADED 15 YEARS AGO WITH THE CITY OF
NORFOLK AND THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FOR THOSE ISSUES WITH THE
DIAMOND SPRINGS ROAD PROPERTY THAT’S BEHIND THE AIRPORT.
WE BECAME THE TENANTS OF IT. IN THE PAST, YOU’VE ALWAYS BEEN
THAT. WE’VE HAD PEOPLE GOING TO
SCHOOL, EVEN MY COUSINS WENT TO SCHOOL WHEN THEY STAYED ON
TURNER ROAD, IN NORFOLK. BUT WE ALWAYS HAD TO ASK
VIRGINIA BEACH FOR — THAT WAS WHERE OUR TITLES WERE HISSED, SO
IT’S — LISTED, SO IT’S A LITTLE TRADE GOING ON HERE.
WE, THE CITY OF NORFOLK ARE THE TENANTS AND IN CHARGE OF THIS.
WE’VE GOT — WE’RE RIGHT BY LITTLE CREEK.
I MEAN LITTLE CREEK, NOT THE AMPHIB BASE, I’M TALKING ABOUT
THE CREEK. THERE’S DRAINAGE CONCERNS AND
NOW THE LAWS ARE TELLING US WE CAN’T JUST DUMP IT RIGHT INTO
THE WATER. WE’RE LOSING POINT OF CONTACT.
I KNOW YOU’VE ADDRESSED THESE ISSUES AT EAST BEACH AND YOU’LL
BE ADDRESSING THESE AT EVERY DEVELOPMENT.
IT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT ON A LARGER SCALE THAN JUST THIS ONE
GUY’S DRAINAGE GOING INTO JOINT EXPEDITION BASE AND THE DRAINAGE
FOR HIS NEEDS TO BE ENOUGH, WHAT ABOUT THE WHOLE STREET?
I THINK YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER AT
ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS THAN I AM.
THANK YOU.>>BEFORE YOU LEAVE, WHAT WAS
YOUR ADDRESS AGAIN SIR?>>4401 BLACK BEARD ROAD.
>>AND THE PROPERTY YOU’RE CONCERNED WITH?
>>7920 AND 7918 TURNER ROAD. IT’S ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE
ENTRANCE, YOU’LL SEE THE PROPERTY WHERE 7917 IS WHERE THE
ENTRANCE IS DUMPING OUT. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, SIR. BOBBY, YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
>>HIS CONCERNS ARE WELL FOUNDED.
THERE IS LOCALIZED FLOODING HERE AS BEEN ALLUDED TO BY JEB LITTLE
CREEK. AGAIN, FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL
DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, IT IS REQUIRED TO MEET ALL STATE AND
LOCAL STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, SO ALL OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER
ON THE SITE IS REQUIRED TO BE STORED AND TREATED.
TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THEY DO HAVE IT SHOWN RIGHT NOW
GOING INTO DRY OR WET PONDS TO STORE THOSE STORMWATER AND
THEY’LL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AS REQUIRED BY THE
CONDITION IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THERE IS PROBABLY A LARGER DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO BE HELD
WITH PUBLIC WORKS. DUNNING ROAD HAS DIFFERENCE AND
IS JUST — IT HAS NO — HAS DITCHES AND IT HAS NO CURB AND
GUTTER AND THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF
THE PIPE HE MENTIONED THAT WAS USED FOR STORMWATER FLOW.
SO I BELIEVE PUBLIC WORKS STORMWATER IS AWARE OF IT.
WHEN THIFS BROUGHT TO — THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION
FROM THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT DESIGN AND
CONNECTING TO THE PIPE. I KNOW IT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN
THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.>>BOBBY, CAN WE ASK THAT YOU
CHAMPION THIS PARTICULAR AVENUE SO MAKE SURE THERE’S ADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION FOR THIS GENTLEMAN’S CONCERNS WITH PUBLIC
WORKS?>>YES, SIR.
>>AND KEEP US APPRISED SO THAT WE AT LEAST KNOW THAT THERE’S
SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATION GOING FORWARD WITH THAT.
>>YES, SIR.>>THANK YOU.
>>ALL RIGHT.>>LENNY.
>>THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE SPECIAL
EXCEPTION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE
STAFF REPORT. MR. HALES.
>>AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>YES.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>MR. FRALEY.
>>AYE. WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION
TO COUNCIL. GOOD LUCK.
ITEM FIVE.>>ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS BETTINA’S
BLISSFUL HOME DAYCARE FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO OPERATE A
DAYCARE HOME WITH UP TO 12 CHILDREN AT 7400 SPARTAN AVENUE.
>>AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, LENNY.
>>THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE SPECIAL
EXCEPTION BE APPROVED. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CONTAINED
IN THE STAFF REPORT. MR. HALES.
>>AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>YES.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>MR. FRALEY.
>>AYE. WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMEND DIGS
TO COUNCIL. GOOD LUCK.
ITEM SIX.>>ITEM SIX, ADAMS OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT AN OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING SIGN, BILLBOARD AT 1200 THROUGH 1280 NORTH MILITARY
HIGHWAY.>>GOOD AFTERNOON.
THIS IS A REQUEST BY ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH MILITARY HIGHWAY
JUST SOUTH OF PRINCESS ANNE WHERE THAT RUNS INTO NORTHAMPTON
BOULEVARD. ACROSS THE STREET IS THE HOME
DEPOT AND IT’S ACTUALLY AT THE TIP OF THE SITE OF A WELLS
FARGO. THERE IS AN EXISTING BILLBOARD
ON THE SITE NOW. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION. THEY WANT TO UPGRADE THE
EXISTING BILLBOARD AND TURN IT INTO AN L.E.D. STYLE BILLBOARD.
THE SITE IS ZONED C-2, WHICH IS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.
IT ALLOWS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND
AGAIN, THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING BILLBOARD WITH AN UPDATED
BILLBOARD. THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING
BILLBOARD. THE BILLBOARD THAT IS BEING
PROPOSED WILL BE 22 FEET BACK. THE REQUIREMENT IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE IS 20 FEET BACK, SO CURRENTLY THIS IS NONCONFORMING
AS TO SETBACK. IT’S ONLY 14 FEET BACK, SO THE
NEW BILLBOARD WOULD BE CONFORMING.
THE CURRENT BILLBOARD IS ALMOST 600 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND THIS
PROPOSED BILLBOARD IS 219 SQUARE FEET LESS, SO IT’S A MUCH
SMALLER BILLBOARD THAN THE ONE PROPOSED.
IT STILL WILL BE A TWO-FACED BILLBOARD.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.
AGAIN, IT’S AN EXISTING BILLBOARD.
WE GET A SMALLER BILLBOARD THAT CONNORMS TO SETBACKS.
IT’S AN UPDATED BILLBOARD AND THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE
THE BILLBOARD SHALL BE NO TALLER THAN 27 FEET IN HEIGHT AND HAVE
NO MORE THAN 378 SQUARE FEET PER SIGN FACE.
THE SIDES SHALL BE SET BACK NO LESS THAN 22 FEET FROM NORTH
MILITARY HIGHWAY. LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BASE OF
THE SIGN SHALL BE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE SQUARE FEET OF ONE SIGN
FACE. THE BILLBOARD SHALLING SELF
DIMMING AND THE BRIGHTNESS SHALL NOT EXCEED .5 FOOT CANDLES FROM
A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET. THE DWELL TIME SHALL NOT BE LESS
THAN FOUR SECONDS PER MESSAGE AND FINALLY, THERE SHALL BE NO
ANIMATION. WITH THOSE CONDITIONS, STAFF IS
RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.
>>THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
>>I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. THAT’S THE EXISTING BILLBOARD?
>>CORRECT.>>CAN YOU POINT OUT EXACTLY HOW
MUCH FURTHER BACK FROM THE ROAD?>>I DON’T KNOW IF THAT HELPS.
>>NO.>>SO IF THAT — YOU KNOW, THAT
ONE IS 14 NOW AND YOU’RE GOING TO GET AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN FEET
OR SO BACK. ACTUALLY EIGHT FEET, I’M SORRY.
>>OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF SUSAN? KATHY?
>>NO, I’M SORRY, I WAS INTERESTED IN THE ANGLE TOO.
>>A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE HERE, THE CHAIR FAILED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE ON THAT LAST APPLICATION RELATED TO ITEM
FIVE, MS. BETTINA BERGAN, I GUESS SHE MUST HAVE BEEN HERE.
SHE WAS SITTING HERE AND LEFT, I GUESS.
WE WANT HER IN THE RECORD. WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION,
ITEM 6, STEVE ROMINE.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN
FRALEY AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS STEVE ROMINE, LOCAL ATTORNEY FOR ADAMS
OUTDOOR WITH AN OFFICE AT 999 WATERSIDE DRIVE NORFOLK.
I HAVE WITH ME TOE THE REAL ESTATE MANAGER FOR ADAMS OUTDOOR
AS WELL. I’LL BE BRIEF.
WE’RE REQUESTING THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION IN ORDER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING STATIC BILLBOARD AT
1200 NORTH MILITARY HIGHWAY WITH A DIGITAL L.E.D. BILLBOARD WITH
TWO FACES. SUSAN COVERED MOST OF THE
DETAIL, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT WE ARE
MOVING FROM NONCONFORMING TO CONFORMING.
IT’S CURRENTLY 14 FEET OFF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WE’RE GOING TO
22 FEET, 20 FEET IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED.
WE CAN GO UP AS TALL AS 35 FEET, BUT WE’RE RESTRICTING OUR HEIGHT
OF THIS BILLBOARD TO 27 FEET. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY A
NONPROFIT, NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, SO THE INCOME AND LEASE PAYMENTS
WILL CONTINUE TO FLOW TO THEM. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP
PLAN AND IT’S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
IT ACTUALLY RICE UNDER THE TOTAL — REDUCES THE TOTAL
BILLBOARD FACES BY 216 SQUARE FEET.
THE CONDITIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE AND I WOULD STAND BY FOR
QUESTIONS.>>STEVE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I
HAD, WE HAD TWO OF THESE ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS THROUGHOUT
THE CITY NOW. AND AT THE TIME, WE WERE
DEBATING ON THOSE TWO. ONE OF MY CONCERNS WAS THAT WE
WOULDN’T HAVE A PROLIFERATION OF THESE TYPE OF BILLBOARDS AROUND
THE CITY. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, HOW
MANY MORE OF THESE YOU GOT IN THE HOPPER?
>>MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO MEET ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY BOTH BY THE COMPANY AND BY THE LOCALITY
REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO BUILD NEW BILLBOARDS OR REPLACE
BILLBOARDS, SO I THINK THERE ARE A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF
SITUATIONS WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY CONVERT AND ALSO, MARKET DEMAND
FROM OUR CUSTOMERS DRIVE THE CONVERSION BECAUSE IT’S VERY
EXPENSIVE TO GO FROM A STATIC BILLBOARD TO AN ELECTRONIC
BILLBOARD. MR. FRALEY, I CAN’T TELL YOU
SPECIFICALLY HOW MANY MORGUE BUT I THINK JUST — HOW MANY MORE,
BUT JUST A HANDFUL AT MOST AND THEY WON’T BE COMING THAT
QUICKLY. ADAMS IS ONE OF A COUPLE
BILLBOARD PROVIDERS IN THE AREA AND THEY ARE CONVERTING AND/OR
INSTALLING L.E.D. TECHNOLOGY IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AS WELL.
THE OTHER THING I SHOULD POINT OUT IS IT’S A TREMENDOUS
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AS WELL.
THE AMBER ALERTS, THE 911 SITUATION WITH WEATHER.
WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMUNITY SERVICE WITH THE SPCA
AND OTHERS, SO IT’S A REAL BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND
ALSO IT’S CUTTING EDGE KIND OF STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY THAT
THE COMMUNITIES ARE END BRACING. SO — EMBRACING.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DON’T HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN, BUT
I KNOW IT’S NOT A WHOLE LOT.>>THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?>>I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.
WHEN YOU SAY CUTTING EDGE, WILL THIS ONE BE A SOLAR POWERED
COMPONENT?>>NO.
NO, THIS ONE WILL NOT BE SOLAR. SO NOT AS CUTTING EDGE AS SOLAR.
[ LAUGHTER ] BUT YOU CAN PROGRAM THEM
REMOTELY AND CHANGE THE FACES, AND SO WITH OUR PARTNERSHIPS
WITH THE FBI AND OTHERS, THEY CAN ACTUALLY — WE HAVE AN
AGREEMENT THAT WHEN THERE’S A NEED, THEY CAN ACTUALLY
AUTOMATICALLY TAKE OVER THE BILLBOARD SITE WITH THESE
EMERGENCY MESSAGES. SO THAT’S WHAT I WAS REALLY
INDICATING. IT’S NOT THE FLIPPING KIND OF
TECHNOLOGY. IT IS L.E.D.
>>OKAY. I’VE SEEN SOME OF THE BILLBOARDS
WHERE THEY’RE BEGINNING TO INSTALL THESE SOLAR PANEL THINGS
AND WHILE THEY MAY NOT LOOK AS —
>>YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT? I’M LET BRIAN COME UP AND GIVE
HIS TWO MINUTES ON THAT BECAUSE HE’S THE EXPERT ON IT.
>>BRIAN, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS.
I WAS GOING TO CALL HIS NAME NEXT ANYWAY.
>>THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRIAN ROZIER, THE
REAL ESTATE MANAGER FOR ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING.
WE HAVE AN OFFICE AT 5547 EAST VIRGINIA BEACH BOULEVARD IN
NORFOLK AND THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTIONS. THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE SOLAR
TECHNOLOGY?>>YES.
>>RIGHT NOW, WE DON’T HAVE SOLAR TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN POWER
AN ELECTRONIC BILL BOARD THAT I KNOW OF.
AND WITH THE L.E.D. TECHNOLOGY, WHAT WE’VE ACTUALLY SEEN ON OUR
INTERSTATE UNITS, AS THE GENERATIONS OF L.E.D. FACES HAVE
PROGRESSED, THAT THEY USE LESS AND LESS POWER.
SO SOME OF THESE L.E.D. DIGITAL BILLBOARDS THAT ARE LIT FOR 24
HOURS A DAY ACTUALLY USE LESS ENERGY THAN STATIC BILLBOARDS,
MEANING THE TRADITIONAL HIGHWAY SIGNS WITH THE LIGHTS, THE
HALOGEN LIGHTS THAT REFLECT LIGHT OFF OF THE VINYL SURFACES.
>>YEAH, I’VE SEEN SOME OF THE — I GUESS MORE ADVANCED
BILLBOARDS THAT DO HAVE THE SOLAR POWER AND I WAS JUST
WONDERING IF THIS ONE HAD THAT FEATURE.
THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD, JUST IN SUSAN’S PRESENTATION,
SOMETHING JUST JUMPED OUT AT ME. THE BILLBOARD IS NOW FURTHER
AWAY FROM THE ROAD, IT’S A LITTLE BIT SMALLER.
HAVE YOU ALL DONE ANY STUDIES ON WHAT TYPE OF POTENTIAL TRAFFIC
ACCIDENTS OCCUR FROM A DRIVER’S ATTENTION TO THOSE BILLBOARDS?
>>THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE LATEST ONE BY THE FHAA HAS BEEN
INCONCLUSIVE AS FAR AS DRIVER DISTRACTION.
THERE’S NO EVIDENCE THAT I’VE SEEN THAT ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS
HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO GREATER DRIVER DISTRACTION.
>>PART OF THE REASON WHY THAT’S A CONDITION THERE ON DWELL TIME
AND NO ANIMATION, BECAUSE THOSE ARE SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT
ARE IMPORTANT TO THE DISTRACTIBILITY.
>>NO, I’M ALL FOR IT. I SEE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT IT
IS OBVIOUSLY TO THE STATIC BILLBOARD AND OBVIOUSLY GIVES
THE — YOU GUYS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET MORE, PROMOTE MORE
CLIENTS. JUST THE FACT IT’S THAT FURTHER
AWAY FROM THE ROAD AND MUCH SMALLER THAN WHAT’S THERE JUST
KIND OF MADE ME THINK IT MIGHT BE —
>>IT’S NOT TREMENDOUSLY SMALLER AND TWO FEET FURTHER IN TERMS OF
SET BACK. IT’S VERY READABLE, BUT MEETS
ALL THE SAFETY STANDARDS THAT ARE IMPOSED BOTH BY THE INDUSTRY
AND BY YOUR LOCAL ORDINANCE.>>THANK YOU.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>MAY I ASK WHAT THAT STANDARD
IMPLIES? DOES IT IMPLY AN IMAGE THAT CAN
CHANGE, BUT DOES NOT CHANGE RAPIDLY.
>>YES. MR. HUTCHINS — HOUCHINS.
APOLL GUYS. HE MENTIONED A DWELL TIME OF
FOUR SECONDS AND THAT COMES FROM STATE ORDINANCE, STATE
REGULATION ONOUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS.
RIGHT NOW OUR SYSTEM IS SET UP SO IT DOESN’T DWELL FOR LESS
THAN EIGHT SECONDS FOR EACH ADVERTISEMENT.
THE IDEA IS THAT IT DOESN’T CHANGE TOO RAPIDLY AND IT ALSO
DIFFERENTS THE ADVERTISER TOO.>>SO THERE’S NO RUNNING TEXT,
INCHES SIMPLY THE IMAGE COMES ON, THE INFORMATION WITH THE
IMAGE, EIGHT SECONDS, CHANGES, ANOTHER IMAGE WITH TEXT.
>>CORRECT. IT’S A COMPLETELY STATIC IMAGE.
THANK YOU.>>ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU. WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND
APPROVAL.>>THANKS, STEVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONERS?
LENNY, THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION.
>>MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BE APPROVED
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>YES.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>AYE.
>>MS. SHELTON.>>YES.
>>DR. NEUMANN.>>AYE.
>>AND MR. FRALEY.>>AYE.
WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
GOOD LUCK.>>ITEM NUMBER 7, T-MOBILE FOR A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION TOWER ON THE ROOF
AT 608 EAST LITTLE CREEK ROAD.>>MS. POLLOCK.
>>OKAY. THIS IS A REQUEST BY T-MOBILE
FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON EAST LITTLE CREEK ROAD.
YOU GOT TIDEWATER DRIVE JUST TO THE EAST, SO THIS IS JUST TO THE
WEST OF TIDEWATER DRIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST LITTLE CREEK
ROAD. THERE’S A FACILITY CALLED
AARON’S AT THE SITE AND ALSO A LAUNDROMAT.
AGAIN, THE SITE IS ZONED C-2. THAT ALLOWS COMMUNICATION TOWERS
BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION, SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION. RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A VACATING
SIGN STRUCTURE ON THIS ROOF. IT HASN’T BEEN USED FOR A SIGN
FOR QUITE SOME TIME, SO WHAT THE POLITIC IS PROPOSING TO IS TO —
POLITIC IS PROPOSING IS TO UTILIZE THE SIGN STRUCTURE THAT
IS APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET TALL IF AND PUT ANTENNA ON THE SIGN
STRUCTURE. WE STILL DEEM THAT AS A
COMMUNICATION TOWER AND WE DID REQUIRE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THIS IS THE FACILITY THAT IS THE STRUCTURE, AND AGAIN THE
BUILDING IS ABOUT 20. — 22 FEET TALL AND THE TOWER
EXTENDS 20 FEET UP AND YOU CAN SEE THE — I CALL IT AN ARRAY OF
ANTENNA ON THE SIGN STRUCTURE. AS WITH EVERY SPECIAL EXCEPTION,
AND YOU’VE SEEN SOME OF THE OTHER ONES, WE REQUIRE THAT THE
SITE COMES INTO FURTHER COMPLIANCE THAN IT IS NOW, AND
THAT DOESN’T MEAN TOTAL COMPLIANCE, BUT EVERY
APPLICATION WE PUSH FOR SOME SORT OF FURTHER COMPLIANCE, WITH
BE IT PUBLIC WORKS OR ZONING OR STORM WATER.
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE APPLICANT CAN MEET ABOUT TRANSPORTATION
AND THEY REQUESTED THAT A DRIVEWAY THAT IS LOCATED ON THE
CORNER OF VAN PATTEN AND EAST LITTLE CREEK — I SHOULD SAY
TOWARDS THAT INTERSECTION, BE CLOSED AND YOU CAN SEE THE
LANDSCAPE THAT WAS ADDED. THAT WAS ADDED IN PART WHERE
THAT DRIVEWAY WAS. SO TWO IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE THE
CLOSURE OF THAT DRIVEWAY AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING, BOTH FOR
AESTHETICS, BUT ALSO THERE’S NOT A GREEN FACE ON THE SITE NOW —
GREEN SPACE ON THE SIGHT NOW, SO THAT GETS US A LITTLE BIT OF
STORMWATER. SO WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS,
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.
WE ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE OF THESE REQUESTS FOR THE LOWER
LEVEL TOWERS. NOT GETTING A WHOLE LOT OF
REQUESTS NOW FOR FULL-SIZED COMMUNICATION TOWERS.
WE’RE LOOKING FOR IN-FILL TOWERS NOW.
WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS A GOOD USE OF A — AND AN IMPROVEMENT TO
THE EXISTING SIGN STRUCTURE THAT HASN’T BEEN USED, BUT WAS STILL
THERE. WE FEEL WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE SITE, THAT STAFF COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS
APPLICATION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>>ANY QUESTIONS FOR SUSAN, COMMISSIONERS?
THANK YOU, SUSAN. HERE TO SPEAK FOR THIS
APPLICATION IS THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE, MR. C.E.
FOREHAND.>>C.E. FOREHAND, 219 SIR OLIVER
ROAD, NORFOLK. A COUPLE OF UNEXPECTED THINGS
HAPPENED DURING THIS PROJECT AND OBVIOUSLY T-MOBILE NEEDS TO
INCREASE THEIR COVERAGE OVER HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, WHEN I ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THIS, I FIGURE IT WOULD
BE A ROOFTOP INSTALLATION, WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
LIKE MOST ROOFS ARE, BUT I GUESS THE PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THOSE
SIGNS, THAT WE HAVE TO FILE FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
T-MOBILE DOESN’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE CONDITIONS AND
THEY WILL PAY FOR THEM. THE CLOSING OF THE DRIVEWAY AND
THE LANDSCAPING. HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY OWNER
DURING THIS PROCESS RELINQUISHED THEIR SUPPORT OF THESE
CONDITIONS, SO THEY’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW US TO CLOSE THE
DRIVEWAY OR DO THE LANDSCAPING. I THINK BECAUSE PRIMARILY THEIR
CONCERN WAS TRAFFIC FLOW IN AND OUT OF THE CENTER, AND, YOU
KNOW, IT’S HARD ENOUGH TO ATTRACT RETAIL CUSTOMERS AND
THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS GOING TO DETRACT FROM THE CUSTOMERS
BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE FACILITY AND THEN THE
LANDSCAPING WOULD HINDER JUST VISIBILITY AS FAR AS DRIVERS
COMING IN AND OUT THE SITE. IT’S A BUSY STREET.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT BUILD THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AT THIS POINT
IN TIME BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO.
AND SO BASICALLY, I’M HERE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE
COMMISSION MAY HAVE.>>YOU DO WANT TO PROCEED WITH
YOUR APPLICATION AS PRESENTED?>>YES, SIR.
>>WHAT IS YOUR EXPECTATION OF THIS BEING REVISED?
>>RIGHT NOW, I CAN’T REVISE IT UNLESS THE PROPERTY OWNER
CHANGES THEIR MIND, BASICALLY. SO I — YOU KNOW, T-MOBILE
AGREES TO — THEY’LL PAY FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE UPGRADE.
IT’S A MATTER OF THE PROPERTY COMING BACK AND SAYING WE’RE NOT
GOING TO AGREE TO THIS. I THINK IT’S — WE ALSO HAVE A
PROPERTY LINE ISSUE THAT WE HAD TO RESOLVE, SO WHEN I WENT BACK
TO THEM FOR THAT, THEY SAID WE’RE NOT DOING ANY OF IT.
WE HAD TO MAKE THIS ONE PROPERTY TAKE THAT PROPERTY LINE OUT, AND
THEY –>>NO, THAT IS A STRAW DOG.
ON ALL OCCASIONS, THAT’S JUST TO CLEAR UP SOMETHING THAT THEY
OUGHT TO DO ON THEIR OWN BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS PROPERTY LINES
RUNNING THROUGH THE BUILDING AND WE SAID PLEASE TAKE THEM OUT.
THAT DOESN’T REALLY CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY OR
MAKE LIFE ANY BETTER FOR ANYBODY EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICANT’S
PROPERTY, OR THE OWNERS, BUT THIS OTHER PART IS IMPORTANT AND
I DON’T WANT TO BE STANDING AT COUNCIL WITH US HAVING TO
EXPLAIN THAT WE NOW OPPOSE IT BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE FAILED TO
ACHIEVE ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS.>>RIGHT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THOUGH,
MY HANDS ARE TIED AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE
IMPROVEMENTS. WE’RE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE
IMPROVEMENTS, BUT I’M NOT BEING ALLOWED —
>>MR. FOREHAND, JUST LISTENING TO YOUR COMMENTS, YOU HAVE
UNDERTAKEN A DIALOGUE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS INDICATING TO
THEM YOU WILL DO THE IMPROVEMENTS WITH REGARD TO
LANDSCAPING?>>YES, SIR, ABSOLUTELY.
>>I GUESS WHAT YOU’RE ASKING IS FOR US TO GIVE YOU THE GO-AHEAD
TO PROCEED WITH YOUR TOWER WITHOUT THE ANCILLARY REQUESTS
THAT WE HAD WITH REGARD TO IMPROVING THE SITE.
>>JUST SOME CLARIFICATION THERE.
IT’S NOT A TOWER. WE’RE ATTACHING ANTENNAS TO AN
EXISTING STRUCTURE, SO I DO HAVE — YOU KNOW, I DO — I DO
HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT LANGUAGE.
IT IS A ROOFTOP INSTALLATION, SO WE’RE TAPPING ANTENNAS TO AN
EXISTING STRUCTURE.>>YOU’RE AT THE DANCE RIGHT
NOW. YOU CAME TO THE DANCE, ALL
RIGHT? ARGUING ABOUT BEING HERE ISN’T
REALLY HELPFUL.>>THAT’S FINE, BUT YES, SIR, I
WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS AND HAVE A VOTE BASICALLY.
>>IN CHAIR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION?
HAVE YOU ALREADY EXECUTED A LEASE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>>YES, SIR.>>OKAY.
IS THE LEASE CONTINGENT ON GETTING THIS APPROVAL?
>>IT IS.>>AND IS THE PROPERTY OWNER
PREPARED TO LOSE THE LEASE TO SAVE THE EXISTING PARKING LOT
CONDITIONS?>>THEY ARE.
>>TOUGH.>>YEAH.
>>YOU HAVE SOME TIME TO POTENTIALLY WORK IT OUT BEFORE
COUNCIL.>>I UNDERSTAND.
AND I’M PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE DENIAL IF THAT’S WHAT THE CASE
MAY BE.>>WELL IF WE VOTE TO APPROVE,
IT’S NOT NECESSARILY DENIAL, IT’S JUST THAT CONDITIONS REMAIN
AND SO THAT PROVIDES SOME INCENTIVE FOR THE LANDLORD TO —
>>GET ON WITH IT.>>AGREE TO THE CHANGES.
>>ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US?
>>NO, SIR.>>MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION.
>>GO RIGHT AHEAD.>>YOU TALK ABOUT CLEANING UP
THE PROPERTY LINES AND THEY SAID WE’RE NOT DOING ANY OF IT, HAD
THEY AGREED TO DO THE LANDSCAPING AND THE STREET AND
THE DRIVE CLOSURE PRIOR TO THAT?>>THEY HAD — WELL, PUT IT THIS
WAY. I SENSE THE DRAWINGS TO THEM
AND — SENT THE DRAWINGS TO THEM AND THEY HAD NOT DISAPPROVED IT.
THEY HAD GIVEN ME AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, SO I PERCEIVE
IT AS A LITTLE BIT GRAY AREA, BUT THEY DIDN’T STAY STOP THIS
APPLICATION. WHEN I CALLED THEM TO GET AN
ANSWER FOR THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS, THAT’S
WHEN THEY SAID PULL EVERYTHING.>>MIGHT YOU CONSIDER AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THIS SO YOU CAN HAVE A FULL DIALOGUE ON
THIS ISSUE?>>I’VE HAD FULL ENOUGH, SO I
WANT TO — [ LAUGHTER ]
>>WELL, YOU JUST SAID IT WAS KIND OF A GRAY AREA, WHICH
SUGGESTED TO ME THAT MAYBE EVERYTHING WASN’T PROPERLY
CLARIFIED.>>THEY GAVE ME THE DROP DEAD
WHEN I PRESENTED THIS AND I HAD TO — YOU KNOW, I KIND OF HAD TO
RUN THEM DOWN IN ORDER TO GET THAT ANSWER FROM THEM.
SO THERE WAS NO, YOU KNOW — WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE
FORWARD. WE’RE UNDER CONTRACT TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICATION WITH ALL THE CHANGES, YOU KNOW,
WHEN I FINALLY GOT — WITH THIS ONE, THE FINAL CHANGE, THAT’S
WHEN THEY SAID NO, FOREGET IT, WE’RE NOT DOING NAVY IT.
I HAD ALREADY — ANY OF IT. I HAD ALREADY PRESENTED THE
CHANGES TO THEM BEFORE AND WE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE APPLICATION, SO ANYWAY, BUT AGAIN, I STILL WANT TO
PROCEED AS IS.>>WE’LL CONSIDER IT AS
PRESENTED.>>YEAH, AND I DON’T WANT THERE
TO BE A MISUNDERSTANDING. I THINK MR. MURPHY WAS THINKING
THAT IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS,
THEN THAT MIGHT STILL LEAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER DO THE
TOWER WITH THE CONDITIONS OR NOT DO THE TOWER, BUT I ASKED THE
QUESTIONS I ASKED ABOUT THE CONTRACT BECAUSE I DON’T EXACTLY
KNOT WORDING OF THE CONTRACT, BUT IF AN APPROVAL IS GIVEN TO
SOMETHING THAT T-MOBILE CAN’T UNILATERALLY FOLLOW THROUGH
WITH, LIKE COMPLETING THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PARKING LOT,
THEY MAY HAVE AN APPROVAL THAT COUNTS FOR PURPOSES OF THEIR
LEASE. THEY MAY BE STUCK WITH A LEASE
BECAUSE THEY GOT AN APPROVAL, BUT THEY CAN’T COMPLETE THE
CONDITIONS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL AND
POSSESSION OF THE DRIVEWAY. SO WITHOUT KNOWING HOW THE LEASE
IS WORDED, IT MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT IF T-MOBILE KNOWS THEY
CAN’T DO THIS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER WON’T ALLOW THEM,
THEY MIGHT NOT WANT AN APPROVAL BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE THE ONLY
WAY TO GET OUT OF THE LEASE.>>SO YOU’RE RECOMMENDING THEY
REVIEW THIS WITH THEIR COUNSEL BEFORE WE GET TO CITY COUNCIL?
>>WITHOUT — OR WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE LEASE SAYS, I CAN’T
COME TO A CONCLUSION EITHER WAY AS TO WHETHER AN APPROVAL IS
GOING TO CHANGE THEIR LEGAL STATUS OF WHETHER THEY CAN WALK
AWAY FROM THIS SITE OR NOT.>>I’M COMFORTABLE WITH THE
TERMINATION LANGUAGE IN OUR LEASE.
I NEGOTIATED THE LEASE.>>AND WHAT DOES THAT LANGUAGE
SAY?>>I CAN’T — WE HAVE A LOT OF
TERMINATION RIGHTS OR APPROVALS FROM VARIOUS — BECAUSE WE’RE
HERE FOR AN APPROVAL, BUT WE ALSO HAVE STATE APPROVALS, WE
HAVE FEDERAL APPROVALS, AND SO WE’RE BASICALLY COVERED, YOU
KNOW, FOR OBTAINING ALL OF OUR APPROVALS, ALL OF OUR
GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS. SO I’M OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH
THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.>>FAIR ENOUGH.
>>FAIR ENOUGH, YOUNG MAN. THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. FOREHAND, COMMENTS AT THIS POINT?
>>JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS
AND GIVE A RECOMMENDATION AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF TO CITY
COUNCIL, THEN THE CONDITIONS THAT WE’RE ASKING FOR ARE AS
STAND. IS THAT WHAT WE’RE SAYING?
>>YES.>>OKAY, THANK YOU.
>>MR. NEWCOMB.>>THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>NO.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>AYE.
>>MS. SHELTON.>>YES.
>>DR. NEUMANN.>>AYE.
>>MR. FRALEY.>>AYE.
WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
THANK YOU.>>ALL RIGHT.
NEXT APPLICATION IS WITH THE ROSEMYR CORPORATION FOR A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT MIXED USE AT 758 WEST 22nd
STREET.>>AND WE’LL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION.
HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IS MR. ROBYN THOMAS.
HOW ARE YOU, ROBIN?>>GOOD, THANK YOU.
>>THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
SPECIAL EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE
STAFF REPORT. MR. HALES.
>>AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>YES.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>MR. FRALEY.
>>AYE.>>ALL RIGHT.
NEXT ITEM, SOUNDS LIKE THE LAST ITEM.
THE ROSEMYR CORPORATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT
MIXED USE AT 430 WEST 21st STREET.
>>AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION AND THE CHAIR ACKNOWLEDGES
MS. ROBYN THOMAS IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>>THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL
EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE
STAFF REPORT. MR. HALES.
>>AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>YES.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>MR. FRALEY.
>>AYE. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
ITEM 10.>>ITEM 10, COLD PRESS II FOR A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO FREIGHT AN EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISH
KNOWLEDGE AT 1902 COLLEY AVENUE.>>NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
APPLICATION, LENNY.>>THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>YES.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>AYE.
>>MS. SHELTON.>>YES.
>>DR. NEUMANN.>>AYE.
>>MR. FRALEY.>>AYE.
WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
THANK YOU.>>NEXT ITEM IS SANCTUARY FOR A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO FREIGHT AN EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENT AT 109 ADDISON STREET.
>>THANK YOU, LENNY. HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
APPLICATION IS THE APPLICANT, TRE HANNAH.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE ANYTHING WITH US, MR. HANNAH?
[ INAUDIBLE COMMENTS ]>>IT’S TRE HANNAH, 9444 WELLS
PARKWAY IN NORFOLK. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BRING UP JUST A SMALL LITTLE THING AND I’M NOT
TRYING TO OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS ABOUT ANYTHING.
IT’S THE APPLICATION HAS WORDING AND THEN THE — WHAT I’M SIGNING
OFF ON, THE CONDITIONS, THERE’S A LITTLE INCONSISTENCY WITH
REGARDS TO ENTERTAINMENT. IT SAYS THAT ON THE APPLICATION,
INDOOR OR OUTDOORS ENTERTAINMENT BE PROVIDED?
ENTERTAINMENT CONSISTS OF ANYTHING MORE THAN ONE AMPLIFIED
MUSICIAN. I’M GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE
OUTDOORS DOOR DECK AND I’D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
A ACOUSTIC PLAYER OR BASE PLAYER OR A GUY THAT HIT AND DRUM AND A
BOX OR SOMETHING, BUT NOT A FULL BAND —
>>IN THE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR US, YOU WERE NRANED
THAT THAT’S A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.
>>YES, SIR, AND THAT IS –>>AND YOU DIDN’T APPLY FOR THAT
DIFFERENT APPLICATION, DID YOU?>>WELL, YES, SIR —
>>NO, SIR. I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO, SIR,
YOU DID NOT.>>CORRECT, NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
>>BUT YOU’RE SHIFTING GEARS NOW.
WE’LL BE GLAD TO PROCESS A NEW APPLICATION FOR YOU.
>>NO, SIR, I DON’T WANT TO DELAY THIS PROCESS AT ALL.
I AM JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I’M COMPLIANT.
SO ONE AMPLIFIED MUSICIAN IS ESSENTIALLY ENTERTAINMENT IS
WHAT I’M SAYING.>>ONE UNAMPLIFIED MUSICIAN IS
DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
>>SO IT IS NOT CONSIDERED ENTERTAINMENTING BUT THERE SHALL
BE NO ENTERTAINMENT.>>NO, YOU GET THAT RIGHT.
>>OKAY. I JUST WANTED SOME CLARITY ON
THAT. THAT’S ALL.
>>DID YOU GET THE CLARITY?>>YEAH.
>>I’M NOT SURE I GOT CLARITY.>>IT’S OKAY TO HAVE ONE GUITAR
PLAYER, I GUESS, KIND OF THING.>>ONE AMPLIFIED AND ONE
NON-AMPLIFIED?>>ONE UNAMPLIFIED IS NOT
CONSIDERED ENTERTAINMENT, SO WHEN WE’RE SAYING YOU CAN’T HAVE
ENTERTAINMENT, IT MEANS YOU CAN’T HAVE ANYTHING MORE THAN
ONE UNAMPLIFIED.>>ENTERTAINMENT IS SPECIFICALLY
DEFINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE
CAPITALIZED IN THE TEXT, IT IS A DEFINE TERM AND IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ONE UNAMPLIFIED MUSICIAN.
>>A CAPPELLA.>>EATING AND DRINKING.
>>YOU GET THE ANSWER YOU’RE LOOKING FOR?
>>YES, SIR, ABSOLUTELY.>>YOU CAN HAVE THE GUY PLAYING
THE BOX, BUT YOU CAN’T PUT A MIC ON IT.
>>PREFERABLY A CAPPELLA.>>THAT’S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>>THANK YOU, SIR.>>THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO
THIS APPLICATION. MR. NEWCOMB.
>>MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BE
APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE
STAFF REPORT. MR. HALES.
>>AYE.>>MS. AUSTIN.
>>YES.>>MR. HOUCHINS.
>>AYE.>>MR. MURPHY.
>>AYE.>>MS. SHELTON.
>>YES.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>AND MR. FRALEY.
>>GOOD LUCK. AMPLIFIED OR UNAMPLIFIED.
I VOTE YES.>>NUMBER 12 IS PALM GARDENS II
LLC FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO FREIGHT AN ENTERTAINMENT
ESTABLISHMENT WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT 5957 EAST VIRGINIA
BEACH BOULEVARD SUITE 10.>>THANK YOU, LENNY.
THE CHAIR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
APPLICATION. HERE IN FAVOR BUT DO NOT WISH TO
SPEAK, MR. RAY PALMER.>>YES, SIR.
>>OSWAD — HELP ME WITH THE LAST PART.
[ INAUDIBLE COMMENTS ]>>THANK YOU, SIR.
AND MR. ROBERT HUCKS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
NO OPPOSITION, LENNY.>>THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND
THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>YES.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>THANK YOU FOR SPENDING THE
AFTERNOON WITH US AND I VOTE AYE.
[ LAUGHTER ]>>MS. SHELTON.
>>YES.>>DR. NEUMANN.
>>AYE.>>MR. FRALEY.
>>AYE. WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION
TO COUNCIL. GOOD LUCK.
>>ALL RIGHT. NUMBER 13, NORFOLK TERMINAL LP
FOR A CLOSURE OF PORTIONS OF SPRINGFIELD AVENUE LYING EAST OF
FORD DRIVE AND A PORTION OF POPPLETON AVENUE LYING EAST OF
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PORTION OF SPRINGFIELD AVENUE.
>>THANK YOU. THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
APPLICATION.>>ALL RIGHT.
THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE STREETS BE
CLOSED SUBJECT TO THE RETENTION OF ANY NECESSARY EASEMENTS.
MR. HALES.>>AYE.
>>MS. AUSTIN.>>YES.
>>MR. HOUCHINS.>>AYE.
>>MR. MURPHY.>>AYE.
>>MS. SHELTON.>>YES.
>>DR. NEUMANN.>>AYE.
>>MR. FRALEY.>>AYE.
GOOD LUCK, WE’LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AS
WELL. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC
HEARING AGENDA. ANYTHING YOU WISH TO SHARE WITH
US?>>NO, SIR.
>>MR. HOMEWOOD?>>NO, SIR.
>>COMMISSIONERS, ANY COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, WE STAND
ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY CAPTION ASSOCIATES, LLC
www.captionassociates.com