Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) Meeting Agenda for Thurs. Oct. 15th at 3:30pm. Councilman Jim Wood has been asked to speak on his Short Term Rental Overlay Ordinance

Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) Meeting

Thurs. Oct. 15th at 3:30pm at Ocean Park Volunteer Rescue Squad

Councilman Jim Wood has been asked to speak on his

Short Term Rental (STR) Overlay Ordinance

Residents of Cape Story by the Sea and Ocean Park (locations of proposed overlay districts) may want to attend since this may be the only public discussion opportunity other than upcoming Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.
***UPDATE – Both Councilmen Wood and Jones have confirmed their attendance per BAC Chair email***
From: Phil Davenport, BAC Chair
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:43 AM
Subject: RE: Tomorrow’s BAC meeting
Both CC members, Jones and Wood, are planning to attend today’s BAC meeting. 
Also, because at least one of them needs to leave by 4:30, I will likely move the SRT issue to the first item.
Thank you.

 

Click here for a printable version of the agendaBAC Agenda 10.15.20

“This request was approved by the City Council on August 12. On September 9, the City Council, as provided for by Section 107(f) of the City Zoning Ordinance, voted to reconsider the approval of August 12. The City Council established the date of October 28 for that reconsideration to occur.”

In 2003, a thoughtful City Council, after learning more about how Bayvista’s(FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT INC) original Approval would negatively affect the Shore Drive community because of it’s “mass, density” & “precedent setting” nature – worked on RECONSIDERATION.

City Council August 12 ’03 Approval


View August 12th ’03 City Council Minutes Bayvista Approval
Note: Original Approval was won by 1 vote.

Mayor Obendorf brings up RECONSIDERATION August 26th 2003


City Council August 26 ’03 Reconsideration first discussion PDF

City Council November ’03 Agenda RECONSIDERATION discussion

View November ’03 City Council Agenda for RECONSIDERATION discussion

View November ’03 City Council Minutes of Bayvista Formal Session

“Between now and when the first shovel hits the ground, we’re in ‘let’s stop this thing as it stands’ mode”

Story including video at 13NewsNow Ali Weatherton report.

Mayor Bobby Dyer said his goal is to form a group with community members and the developer to talk about the plans and to keep everyone in the loop.

That’s great news Mayor!

That group being formed now would only makes sense if City Council voted to RECONSIDER.

Horse leaving the barn already & all that.

Bay Vista on Shore Drive in Ocean Park was RECONSIDERED in 2003.

“Mass, density” & “precedent setting” were several items RECONSIDERED by a thoughtful City Council once they learned more.

Councilmember Sabrina Wooten said, “Thank you for your inquiry. Please note that I have not been briefed on this matter in detail. I am not aware that the vote was ruled or determined to be unfair in any way. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.”

We’d love your reply Councilmembers:

Council Members Berlucchi and Wooten should explain their reasons for support. Since the approval of the WC expansion was based solely on Council opinion, all the members provided explanation for their votes except Council members Berlucchi and Wooten.  A decision that changes the future of the Bayfont demands that they explain why they ignored the community’s concerns and voted in favor of the project.

SDCC asks City Council to Reconsider Vote on Westminster Canterbury High Rise High Density Development

“I ask that the council to reconsider the tower vote with at least eight voting members present. Three council members — representing Bayside, Lynnhaven and At-Large — have conflicts of interest, and an additional council member was not able to vote on Sept 22.”

From Pilotonline.com:

I’ve been a resident and single-family homeowner in Cape Story since 1977, where Seagate was the big 13-story condo and Westminster-Canterbury was a big brick building for elderly people to live. The Virginia Beach City Council 5-2 vote approving the 22-story Westminster-Canterbury tower was disappointing: Eight-to-11-stories high seems more appropriate, not 22.

Concern continues about the population explosion on Shore Drive as the Planning Commission continues to approve senior living projects and the council is the last approval needed to go forward.

I ask that the council to reconsider the tower vote with at least eight voting members present. Three council members — representing Bayside, Lynnhaven and At-Large — have conflicts of interest, and an additional council member was not able to vote on Sept 22.

This council can decide if Virginia Beach is to continue to support the strong community engagement of single families or continued high profile growth.

Empsy Munden, Virginia Beach

“It’s appalling how the overwhelming amount of citizens opposed to this precedent-setting monstrosity were ignored. The entire process was appalling. Reconsideration!”

From Pilotonline.com:

Virginia Beach’s lack of civic engagement for a project of this magnitude and impact is appalling. The bayfront residents pride themselves on civil discourse and the ability to work with the city to find compromising solutions. The fact that we were hardly given the chance to discuss our concerns is not acceptable. Many of you, if not all of you, ran election campaigns that championed improved civic engagement for the citizens. We demand that you take the opportunity at your meeting today and reconsider your vote of Sept. 22.

Denying the proposed Westminster-Canterbury On The Bay expansion will allow the necessary city-facilitated civic dialogue to take place to make an informed decision of this magnitude. A smaller, less dense development would be an acceptable compromise that will keep future development of the bayfront in accordance with codes, plans and guidelines. It would also allow Westminster-Canterbury residents to enjoy their new amenities and City Council to enjoy an increase in tax revenue.

Keeping the approval of the high-rise, high density project will lead to a bayfront that resembles the Virginia Beach Town Center and result in the loss of our neighborhood.

It’s appalling how five people have currently chosen to ignore the rule of law they’re charged to enforce. It’s appalling how the overwhelming amount of citizens opposed to this precedent-setting monstrosity were ignored. The entire process was appalling. Reconsideration!

Tim Solanic, Virginia Beach

SDCC asks City Council to Reconsider Vote on Westminster Canterbury High Rise High Density Development

Official email sent to City Council asking for reconsideration of vote to approve Westminster Canterbury high rise high density expansion.  Click here for printable version Request to CC to Reconsider WC Vote

Supporting documents:

Failure to provide HUD affordable housing;

1998 acknowledgement of 165ft senior housing height limit

=========================================================================

Dear Mayor Dyer and Council Members Berlucchi, Wooten, Tower and Henley,

The Shore Drive Community Coalition (SDCC), as voted at our September 28, 2020 meeting, formally requests City Council at your October 6th meeting to reconsider the approval vote of the Westminster Canterbury (WC) application heard on September 22, 2020.

It is our understanding that Council has a 2 week period to reconsider votes made at formal Council hearings.  There are a multitude of reasons the vote for the WC application should be reconsidered, several of them are listed below.  It is our hope that at least two of you will agree to reconsider your erroneous decision.

Reasons why Council needs to reconsider the WC application vote of September 22nd:

  • Council Member Abbott should be allowed to vote. Abbott was unable to attend the vote due to a family emergency, but with only 8 members able to vote as a result of conflict of interests, allowing all qualified voting members a chance to participate is a necessity.  Decisions like the WC application that are based solely on Council’s opinions need to have all voting members participate.
  • Council Members Berlucchi and Wooten should explain their reasons for support. Since the approval of the WC expansion was based solely on Council opinion, all the members provided explanation for their votes except Council members Berlucchi and Wooten.  A decision that changes the future of the Bayfont demands that they explain why they ignored the community’s concerns and voted in favor of the project.
  • WC’s claim that a density of +255% over code is needed to eliminate the approaching silver tsunami is irrelevant. This high density development will not provide enough housing for all the seniors that will be part of the tsunami, nor is it this project’s responsibility to do so.  A larger City approach should be taken.  One that requires all development to stay within the codes, plans and guidelines.  In fact there are over 1000 new units being built or planned within a 5 mile radius of WC.  New Millineium Senior Living – 250 units; Burton Station Senior Housing – 40 units; Overture Senior Apts – 150 apts; The Pearl – 260 apts; Marlin Bay – 230 apts; Marina Shores expansion – 60 apts;  Reducing the number of units for the WC expansion to be equal to the current campus density won’t adversely impact the senior housing market.  If the supply is there, the developers will come.
  • There are zero affordable housing units in this expansion. The Senior Housing Design Guideline allows density increases above code only for HUD defined affordable senior housing.  This type of allowance is common practice and shows up in California State laws as +20% for senior housing and even Alexandria Virginia as a +30% increase.  The City’s Senior Housing Advisory Committee identified the lack of affordable HUD housing in this project and requested WC to supply documentation as to how they are meeting this requirement.  None has been produced.  Allowing increased density because a business plan needs it to maximize profit is not allowed.
  • Maximizing tax collection is not a valid application review parameter. There is no requirement in the City codes, plans or guidelines that says tax revenue is more important than maintaining the character of a neighborhood.  A smaller scale project allows the characteristics of the area to be maintained and also allow an increase in taxes over what is being collected now.
  • Ignoring City codes, plans and guidelines will set precedent for future development in the Bayfront area. For the past 20 years, it has been the general opinion of the community that the development along Shore Drive has been too boxy and dense, but the residents have understood the overlay requirements and made sure projects didn’t violate them.  The WC project you approved ignores the height restriction of 165ft that was adhered to for the 2nd WC building.  The density of the 22 story tower site is 255% over the 24/units per acre code.  The Senior Housing Guidelines require the site to be a minimum of 3 acres, yet it is only 2.56.  The guidelines also require the project to have a mass and scale that doesn’t adversely impact the surrounding community’s character.  Approving a project that ignores all of these requirements will provide the legal precedent for all future developers to ignore codes and ask for approval based on conditional use similar to this one.

The City’s lack of civic engagement for a project of this magnitude and impact is appalling.  The Bayfront residents pride themselves on civil discourse and the ability to work with the City to find compromising solutions.  The fact that we were never given the chance to discuss our concerns is not acceptable.  All of you ran election campaigns that championed improved civic engagement for the citizens.  We demand that you take the opportunity at your October 6th meeting and reconsider your vote of September 22nd.  Denying the proposed WC development will allow the necessary City facilitated civic dialogue to take place needed to make an informed decision of this importance.  A smaller less dense development would be an acceptable compromise that will keep future development of the Bayfront in accordance with codes, plans and guidelines and also allow WC residents to enjoy their new amenities and City Council to enjoy an increase in tax revenue. Keeping the approval of the high rise high density project will lead to a Bayfront that resembles Town Center and result in the loss of our neighborhood character which is the main reason we all love this area.

 

Sincerely,

Todd Solomon

Shore Drive Community Coalition President

 

 

Oct. 6th City Council Hearing – City Marina Lease of 24 Parking Spots to Chick’s

PUBLIC HEARING
USE OF CITY PROPERTY

The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed leasing of City-owned property on October 6, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall (Building #1) at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The purpose of this hearing will be to obtain public comment on the use of the following City-owned property:

24 Parking Spaces at the Lynnhaven Municipal Marina located at 3211 Lynnhaven Drive (GPIN: 1489-98-2246) to Chicks Marina Properties, LLC (a/k/a Chick’s Oyster Bar)
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office at 385-4303; Hearing impaired call 711.

Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the City’s Department of Parks & Recreation, 2154 Landstown Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 (757) 385-1100.
_______________________________
Amanda Barnes, MMC
City Clerk
Beacon: September 27, 2020

 

 

September 22nd Update – Per the notice above, a new Public Hearing for the potential lease of parking spaces at Lynnhaven Municipal Marina has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th, at 6:00 pm.  The Terms of the potential lease have changed slightly – the parking lease consideration remains at 24 parking spaces at the north end of the Marina, however per the image above, the 11 parking spaces located closest to the slips could not be utilized by Chick’s until after 4:00 pm daily.  Other potential Lease Terms remain the same – additional info in previous emails below.

 Please let me know if anyone has additional questions.

Thanks,

Rick Rowe

Park Events, Programs, and

Special Use Facilities Coordinator

 

SUMMARY OF TERMS

CITY: City of Virginia Beach (the “City”)
USER: Chick’s Marina Properties, L.L.C. (a/k/a Chick’s Oyster Bar)
PROPERTY: 24 Parking Spaces Located at the Lynnhaven Municipal Marina (in the locations as shown on Exhibit A)
TERM: April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021, with the option to renew for (4) additional six-month terms
The Use Agreement will only be effective for the months of April through September of each year, with the User having the option to expand the use on a month-to-month basis, on written request and mutual consent.
USE FEE: $50.00 per space, per month
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF USER:
• Parking spaces to be used for vehicle parking for User’s employees (only)
and for no other purpose
• Use of the spaces to be non-exclusive and subject to availability
• 13 spaces may be used anytime through the day and 11 spaces may be used daily after 4:00 p.m. only.
• Provide a certificate of insurance, naming the City as additional insured, with combined single limit coverage in the amount of $1,000,000.
• Indemnify and hold the City harmless from of all claims related to the Property.
• Comply with all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations.
• Keep the Property free of all trash and debris.
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY:
• City will be responsible for normal and routine maintenance of the paved area of the Property.
TERMINATION:
• City may terminate upon giving seven (7) days’ written notice to User in the event of default of the terms of the agreement or if the property is needed for any public purpose.
• User may terminate for any reason upon giving seven (7) days’ written notice to the City

 

 

Here is an additional letter that was sent to all the boat slip owners.

Dear Marina Slipholder,

As a current Slipholder at Lynnhaven Municipal Marina, I wanted to make you aware of a consideration to potentially lease Chick’s Oyster Bar 24 car parking spaces at the north end of the Marina.  After we recently completed the replacement of the collapsed bulkhead area behind the west mooring area at the Marina, Chick’s formally requested to lease parking spaces for their employees on an annual basis.  If approved, the City would be paid a monthly fee per space for the 24 parking spaces as part of the lease.  Additionally, the use and lease would be subject to terms and conditions, and would be renewed on an annual basis for a period not to exceed five total years, should all terms and conditions continue to be met.

Attached for your information is the Exhibit Area at the north end of the Marina where the leased parking spaces are located, along with the Notice of Public Hearing scheduled for July 14th.  The tentative plan would be for City Council to vote on the parking space lease on July 21st and if approved, execute the lease with Chick’s in August 2020.

We are also notifying the adjacent Condo and Civic Associations.  Please let me or Mike Parkman know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Rick Rowe

Parks Coordinator, City of Virginia Beach

Sent of Rick’s behalf

Mary Overstreet

Park Events, Programs, and Special Use

Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation

 

Park Events, Programs, and Special Use | 2154 Landstown Road | Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456

Phone 757-385-8235 | Fax 757-416-6747 | moverstr@vbgov.com | VBgov.com/parks