The URL can be used to link to this page

OCTOBER 28, 2003 AGENDACITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMiJNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES Bayside - District 4 HARRYE DIEZ,EL Kempsville -District 2 MARGARET L EURE Centerville -District I REBA S McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W SCHMIDT At -Large RON A VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON At -Large JAMES L WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 JAMES K SPORE. City Manager LESLIE L L11-LEY City Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH. MMC, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 28, 2003 CITY HALL BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E MAII. Ctycncl@vbgov com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS -Conference Room- 2:00 PM A. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROCESS and FINANCING REVIEW Catheryn Whitesell, Director, Department of Management Services B. TAX REFORM Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPOSAL re ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Leslie Lilley, City Attorney Karen Lasley, Zoning Administrator II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS M. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION -Conference Room- 4:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Fred Devan Grace Community Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS October 14, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I. PUBLIC HEARING 1 FY 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET and CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) J. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. FY 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET - Preliminary Priorities Presentation: Catheryn Whitesell, Director, Department of Management Services K. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to AMEND § 27-3 and REPEAL § 38-6 of the City Code re weapon purchase permits. 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to exercise the option between the City and Branwick Corporate Center L.L.C., to repurchase 11.764 acres of real property on the northeast side of Bonney Road, by REFUNDING $1,200,000 from "Community Services Board Complex Land Acquisition". L. PLANNING RECONSIDERATION: Application of FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT, INC. fora Conditional Use Permit re a multi -family Condominium in the B-4 Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District at Dinwiddie Road and DuPont Circle. (approved August 12, 2003 ) (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: DENIAL APPROVAL 2 Application of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Honeygrove Way, south of East Honeygrove Road between Donation Drive and Independence Boulevard. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) Recommendation: APPROVAL 3 Application of CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager Trail. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: DEFERRAL 4. Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance to subdivide the existing one parcel into two (2) with a flag lot for JEFFERY L. BAKER, at 936 East Sparrow Road. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ) Applicant and Staff Request: Planning Commission Recommends: WITHDRAWAL DENIAL 5. Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a residential dwelling without public access for WILLARD P. ORR, at 1557 Indian River Road. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: DENIAL APPROVAL 6. Application of CRAB CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. for a MODIFICATION of Conditions on a Conditional Use Permit for a community boat dock (approved by City Council October 24, 2000) to increase the boat length from twenty-six (26) feet to thirty-five (35) feet at 2096, 2098, 2092, 2094 Tazewell Road and 3557, 3559, 3561, 3563 Piedmont Circle. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Recommendation. APPROVAL 7.' Application of HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA, INC. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District and R-10 Residential District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District at 960, 964 and 966 Old Dam Neck Road ( DISTRICT 7 —PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: 8. Application of NEAR POST, L.L.C. fora Change of Zoning Distract Classification from H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District at 1020 and 1040 Laskin Road and a portion of Parcel A on Oriole Drive. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) Q Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of ALCAR, L.L.C. on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District b. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Recommendation: APPROVAL 10. Applications of MALBON BROS. PETROLEUM, L.L.C. on the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) a. MODIFICATION of Conditions to applications of Eight D Corp. for a Conditional Zoning and Conditional Use Permit (approved by City Council on April 27, 1993) at 1896 General Booth Boulevard b. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District C. Conditional Use Permit re a car wash Recommendation: APPROVAL 11. Application of FRANK BLOCKER for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales and rental at the southeast intersection of Lynnhaven Parkway and Virginia Beach Boulevard. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) Staff Recommends: DENIAL Planning Commission Recommends: APPROVAL M. APPOINTMENTS MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 4274303 Hearing impaired, call TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) Agenda 10/28/03gw\sb www vb-'ov com October 28, 2003 I CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS -Conference Room- 2:00 PM A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CEP) PROCESS and FINANCING REVIEW Catheryn Whitesell, Director, Department of Management Services B. TAX REFORM Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPOSAL re ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Leslie Lilley, City Attorney Karen Lasley, Zoning Administrator II REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION -Conference Room- 4:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyers E Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Fred Devan Grace Community Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS October 14, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA NN r, yo�49'fS OF OUR 0� �2 [VA�ION 'WPBial:Ut46 tn CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act, and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council I. PUBLIC HEARING 1. FY 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET and CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) PUBLIC COMMENT 1. FY 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET - Preliminary Priorities Presentation: Catheryn Whitesell, Director, Department of Management Services THE BEACON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2003 At 6 00 PM, Tuesday, October 28, 2003 , the Virginia Beach City Council will RECONSIDER the appli- cation of FORT -WORTH DEVELOP- MENT, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re multifamily Condo- minium in the B-4 Shore Drive Cor- ndor Overlay District at Dmwifte Road and DuPont Circle (DIS- TRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) {This apphca- Uon passed with a 6-5 vote on August 12, 2003 and RECONSID- ERATION has been authorized ) Interested citizens are invited to attend Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303, Hearing impaired, call TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) Beacon October 12, 2003 and October 19, 2003 10678735 SUNDN, OCTOBER 19, 2003 A* 6 U(' Phi Tuesday. October 28, 2003 the Virginia Beac,l City Council will RECONSIDER the appli- cation of FORT WORT14 DEVELOP- MENT, INC. for a Concittional Use Per�r It re multi -family Condo- minium in the B-4 Shore Drive Car ridor Overlay District at Dinwiddie Road and DuPont Circle (DIS TRICT 4 BAYSIDE) {This applica tion passed with a 6.5 vote or August 12. 2003 and RECONSID- ERATION has been authorized ) Interested citizens are invited to attend Ruth Hedges Smitr NImC City Clerk it you are whys co : disahlPC o, visually rr,paired and need dssislan-e at wis rneeting �)Iedse caii tre CITY CLEWj 0MCE at 427_4303, Hec+rlrlg jmOdirr> cal. 1DD only 7 4305 T;;p ''l��q%��n�c, Device for the Ue Beac or 0; ; obe, :.2 2003 an(t Ortooer 19. 200 ; 1 t )o 8736 K. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to AMEND § 27-3 and REPEAL § 38-6 of the City Code re weapon purchase permits. 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to exercise the option between the City and Branwick Corporate Center L.L.C., to repurchase 11.764 acres of real property on the northeast side of Bonney Road, by REFUNDING $1,200,000 from "Community Services Board Complex Land Acquisition". CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance to Amend Section 27-3 and Repeal Section 38-6 of the City Code Pertaining to City Weapons Purchase Permits MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: Currently Section 38-6 requires citizens to obtain a City Weapons Purchase Permit prior to purchasing a hand gun. Section 27-3 allows the Police Department to collect a fee of $10.00 from the citizen applying for the permit The Police Department processes approximately 2,100 Weapons Purchase Permits a year, resulting in a yearly revenue of $21,000.00 ■ Considerations: The criminal background check run by the Police Department duplicates the one the State Police must run in accordance with State Code Section 18.2-308.2:2 prior to issuing a hand gun purchase permit. With the limitations imposed by State Code Section 15.2-915 local jurisdictions' regulation of hand guns is severely curtailed, leaving the City's Weapons Purchase Permit Program with no substantial purpose other than the collection of the ten dollar fee. Approving this ordinance will end the City's Weapons Purchase Program. The City will no longer issue weapons purchase permits and citizens will only be required to obtain the state mandated weapons purchase permit. ■ Public Information: To be advertised in the same manner as other items on Council's agenda. ■ Recommendations: Amend Section 27-3 and repeal Section 38-6 ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department City Manager: F-\Data\ATY\Ordin\N CODE\27-003&38-6arf wpd 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27-3 AND REPEAL 2 SECTION 38-6 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO 3 WEAPONS PURCHASE PERMITS 4 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 27-3 AND 38-6 5 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 7 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 8 That Section 27-3 of the City Code is hereby amended, to read 9 as follows: 10 Sec. 27-3 . Authority of department to furnish copies of records,, 11 perform certain services, etc., and fees therefor. 12 (a) The department of police is hereby authorized to furnish 13 photostatic copies of accident reports and offense reports, to 14 release forensic photographs after all criminal charges are 15 resolved and when such release is provided by law, to make record 16 checks and reports (local record only), to take fingerprints of 17 individuals on request and to allow offense reports to be viewed by 8 proper persons. 19 (b) For the services mentioned in subsection (a) above, and 20 for the processing of applications for permits required by law, the 21 following fees shall be charged: 22 (1) Photostatic copy of accident report . . . . $ 10.00 23 (2) Photostatic copy of offense report . . . . 10.00 24 (3) Copy of booking (mug -shot) photograph . . . 2.00 25 (4) Record check and report by name (local) . . 15.00 26 (5) Fingerprinting of individuals on request 5.00 27 (6) Pulling offense report to review only 5.00 28 (7) Forensic photographs (5 x 7), each print . . 10.00 29 (8) Process bingo permit application . . . . . . 100.00 30 (9) Process raffle permit application . . . . . 50.00 31 (10) Dance hall permit application . . . . . . . 50.00 32 (11) Turkey shoot permit application . . . . . . 50.00 33 (12) Certificate for public convenience 34 and necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00 35 (13) Precious metals permit . . . . . . . . . . 200.00 36 (14 ) Vendor permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 37 (15) Concealed weapon permit . . . . . . . . . . 35.00 38 . . . . . . . . . . 39 COMMENT 40 This amendment removes the authority for the Police Department to collect a $10.00 Weapons 41 Purchase Permit fee. 42 That Section 38-6 of the City Code is hereby repealed: 43 . 44 Reserved. 45 , 46 , 47 ,Sirft±±M= type 48 , or s 49 50 wr±t±ng by the ch±ef of po±±cei 51 52 to the rerrta± of p±sto±s, 53 ±ILIPUfterSI mannfact=rers or ±±censed dea±ers that are to J•tt1.1.1�.1��f�?��.1�11A1�i•t�t1�=!!l•*t 1.1R•lt�•R��.JA��1�.1�11A1��it�t.�L tA1l�• �.)!{itlR� •R�it1�.J !•� .lam=�A7��1.1 �it.Jtlttlll��1s�}It•R•1��=.Jw��7 �1��•ttt�l.�il��7�ttC ill.*� I.SR•*t�i.><.JA • . - . . . .. ♦ . • . . - r. - �l•1�1A1�i•t�•ttt�1•JA�s��Z��ti�lAl�lt!tltl{�lll��l.1R•*t��.1�iRR�IAZ�i.��l:��1R►Z! • i • ��!•i•��Y�.•.��.11t��7!!'•��l1.JlRt�_!•J•li•�.1.J��T�•�61►=.j��.•��ll��t1A�.�R••�A►1�.JA� • R��•L•JAi•L•R��.��•Jl.!!l�•�t�lA_!!t•t•l•!lA7l�tlttt��lt•wi•��•l•{i��.1-Jlowl•i�)tlAl�i�tl�•ttt�l••il �R►Z1 • iR.lollAl�l�titit�!!l�*��1.1.•�t��R�=.1��.1�11A1�i��.t�Iif�iil��Z=.JA�R.Jt�T�t�t�l►Z=.��l�l��=�JA� •+ll�■ii�•t•A��7�.1•lllt��l��tt•RRtt�7lr �i�•1��►7!•�i�ll•l�R�it�R..=.11l��i�.i�lA1�i• • AItt�1.JA�R�)A�'��.1�}tIAY i�titt{i!!l�*�1.1R•Mtn•�.��tl�i�l-illAllttll�l��l�)•�R.l�ltA��7l��lll�t�1•l.}! • �•llr tip._��ltt�Rli�.i.A��lt.�...i.=.��tttl•�s•�.�!!•.�.��.�.��1�•��1 _t�.��s�r�ilttt. • •0 ••�1.•=•0�•/ll.Jf�►M«Wi-lfIb-- t•lllest--f�-A FIN.)ltL-701�19 ZL%WAI►��>R�I.JtIA 71 ----- -- --_ . Oil 77 • - •�.1��►1-11�.�ill�r N•�i.��.11l��-1.f�7+11�1►7�=��i��ll�l 79 _ _ _ _ _ _ ins elt who±esa±e or --retari-l- 82 , Or 83 C Any pe=svn whu ± D a pawnbroker, and who s 84 -. - 86 £ocie. 89 , 90 the payment or repayirtent of irtoney. 91 M 93 , 94 , 95 96 , 99 100 101 , 4 102 , 103 , 105 106 ±nSt±tat±Unr 107 1 108 109 110 PQ±±Ce ufftcers of tile c±ty. ill ill -i4gI -r-t69&WP � 113 COMMENT 114 Repealing this section puts an end to the City's Weapons Purchase Permit Program. 115 116 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 117 Virginia, on this day of , 2003. L18 119 CA-9013 120 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/27-003&38-6ord.wpd R1 - September 25, 2003 APPROVED AS Ax Z-C,4 Management Services 41 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Ci Attor y' Office 1.1 � �11A 6F�•. Iti�. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Authorizing the Repurchase of 11.764 Acres ± Located on Bonney Road and Authorizing the Refund $1,200,000 from CIP Project 3- 016 Community Services Board Complex Land Acquisition MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: On July, 11, 2001, Branwick Corporate Center, LLC, ("Branwick"), the assignee of Branwick Associates Inc., purchased four parcels of real property consisting of approximately 11.764 acres± of land, from the City. The property is located on the Northwest Side of Bonney Road. Pursuant to the Agreement of Sale between the City and Branwick and the recorded Memorandum of Agreement (collectively the "Agreement"), Branwick was required to commence construction no later than 270 days from the Settlement Date (April 11, 2002). Branwick subsequently requested and was granted three extensions. The most recent extension required Branwick to commence construction by August 11, 2003. Under the Agreement the City has the right to repurchase the Property at the original purchase price of $1,200,000 in the event Branwick fails to commence construction by the deadline. Branwick failed to commence construction within the prescribed deadline and the City is now exercising its right to repurchase the Property as set forth in the Agreement. ■ Considerations: Repurchasing the property for $1,200,000 will allow the City to actively market the Property. ■ Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal agenda process. ■ Recommendations: Approve the refunding of $1,200,000 allowing the City to repurchase the Property at the original purchase price. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Repurchase the property from Branwick Associates for the original purchase price of $1,200,000. Submitting Department/Agency: Economic Development City Manager:Qr��Z- t 'L 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR 2 HIS DESIGNEE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION BETWEEN 3 THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AND BRANWICK 4 CORPORATE CENTER L.L.C. TO REPURCHASE 11.764 5 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY BY REFUNDING $11200, 000 6 FROM CIP #3-106, "COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD 7 COMPLEX LAND ACQUISITION" 8 9 WHEREAS, the City entered into an Agreement with Branwick 10 Corporate Center L.L.C., dated July 11, 2001, for the sale of 11 approximately 11.764 acres of excess City owned real property (the 12 "Parcel") at a purchase price of $1,200,000 for the purpose of 13 encouraging office development in the Central Business District; 14 WHEREAS, the Agreement provides the City of Virginia Beach an 15 option to repurchase the Parcel at the original selling price of 16 $1,200,000 if Branwick Corporate Center L.L.C., fails to comply 17 with the time requirement for commencing construction; and 18 WHEREAS, Branwick Corporate Center L.L.C., has not met the 19 time requirement in the Agreement for commencing construction, 20 despite requesting and receiving three extensions of time. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 22 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, 23 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to 24 exercise the option in the Agreement for repurchasing the Parcel at 25 the original purchase price of $1,200,000. 26 2. The City Manager or his designee, in cooperation with the 27 City Attorney, is further authorized to have prepared and to 28 execute all documents that may be necessary or appropriate in 29 connection with repurchasing the Parcel. 30 3. That $1,200,000 is hereby authorized to be refunded from 31 CIP #3-106, "Community Services Board Complex Land Acquisition," 32 for the purpose of repurchasing the Parcel. 33 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 34 Virginia, on the of , 2003. CA-9033 Ordin/Noncode/Branwickord.wpd R-1 October 17, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 3 - a, . Q4 r( Management Services 2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorney' 0 f f i16 e L. PLANNING l . RECONSIDERATION: Application of FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT, INC. fora Conditional Use Permit re a multi -family Condominium in the B-4 Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District at Dinwiddie Road and DuPont Circle. (approved August 12, 2003)(DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) 2 Application of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Honeygrove Way, south of East Honeygrove Road between Donation Drive and Independence Boulevard. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) 3. Application of CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager Trail. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) 4. Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance to subdivide the existing one parcel into two (2) with a flag lot for JEFFERY L. BAKER, at 936 East Sparrow Road. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ) 5. Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a residential dwelling without public access for WILLA" P. ORR, at 1557 Indian River Road. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) 6. Application of CRAB CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. for a MODIFICATION of Conditions on a Conditional Use Permit for a community boat dock (approved by City Council October 24, 2000) to increase the boat length from twenty-six (26) feet to thirty-five (35) feet at 2096, 2098, 2092, 2094 Tazewell Road and 3557, 3559, 3561, 3563 Piedmont Circle. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) 7 Application of HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA, INC. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District and R-10 Residential District to Conditional R-7 5 Residential District at 960, 964 and 966 Old Dam Neck Road ( DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) 8. Application of NEAR POST, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoninjz Distract Classification from H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District at 1020 and 1040 Laskin Road and a portion of Parcel A on Oriole Drive (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) 9. Applications of ALCAR, L.L.C. on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) a. Change of Zoning Distract Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District b. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space 10. Applications of MALBON BROS. PETROLEUM, L.L.C. on the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane(DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) a. MODIFICATION of Conditions to applications of Eight D Corp. for a Conditional Zoning and Conditional Use Permit (approved by City Council on April 27, 1993) at 1896 General Booth Boulevard b. Change of Zoning Distract Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District c Conditional Use Permit re a car wash 11. Application of FRANK BLOCKER for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales and rental at the southeast intersection of Lynnhaven Parkway and Virginia Beach Boulevard. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) Staff Recommends: DENIAL Planning Commission Recommends: APPROVAL THE BEACON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 1.2, 2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday. October 28, 2003. at 6:00 D.m The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 1 ALCAR L L C Application Change of Zonm, District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-10 Residentia! on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved;, approximately 910 feet arrest of Rockingchair Lane The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this oarcel for residential uses at or below 3 5 dwelling units per acre The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the site as a Conserva- tion Area where land -disturbing activities should be avoided, mitigated, or under certain conditions Drohibitea 2 ALCAR L L C Application Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), al7proxl- mately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane 3 ` Malbon Bros Petroleum, L L C Application Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional K Community Business on the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Cul- ver Lane The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of a portion of this property for retail, service, and office uses and a portion for resi- dential uses above 3.5 dwelling units per acre 4 Malbon Bros Petroleum, L L C Application Conditional Use Permit for a car wash on the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culve• Lane 5 Malbon Bros Petroleum, L L C Application Modification of Condi- tions to applications of Eight D Corp for a Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on Apnl 27, 1993 at 1896 General Booth Boulevard 6 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Application Change of Zoning Dis- trict Classification from AG-2 Agricultural and R-10 Residential to Con- d,tional R-7 5 Residential at 960, 964 and 966 Old Dam Neck Road The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this site for residential uses above 3 5 dwel�ing units per acre 7 Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Willard P Orr, at 1557 Indian River Road DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 8 Frank Blocker for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and rental on the southeast intersection of Lynnhaven Parkway and Vir- ginia Beach Boulevard DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE 9 Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Jeffery L Baker, at 936 East Sparow Road ,- DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE 10 City of Virginia Beach Application Discontinuance closure and aban- donment of a portion of Honeygrove Way beginning at a point 310 40 feet south of East Honeygrove Road DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Near Post, L L C Application Change of Zoning District Classificatioridd from H-1 Hotel B-2 Business, B-1 Business and R-40 Residential to Conditiona! A-36 at 1020 and 1040 Laskin Road and a portion of Par- cel A, Oriole The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this site for retail service office and other compatible uses serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities 12 .avaller Golf & Yacht Ciub Apolicat,or Discontinuance, closure and abandonmen, or the c.:l-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager oral, Interested cit yens are Invl_ed' to atte^� Ruth Hodges Smith, P,1MC SUNDA`i! OCTOBER '��, 01'J'1s NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAPING VirgNa Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Half. Municipal Center. 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. The io e*ng applications wail be heard: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 1 ALCAR, L.L C Application Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-10 Residential on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved) approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchaw Lane The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at or below 3 5 dwelling units per acre The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the site as a Conserva- tion Area where land -disturbing activities should be avoided mitigated or under certain conditions prohibited 2 ALCAR, LL C Application Conditional Use Permit for Often Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway furimproved), approx,- mately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane 3 Malbon Bros Petroleum. L L C App!,cation Change of Zoning Distric, Classification from AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-2 Community Business on the northeast comer of General Booth Boulevard and C.;' ver Lane The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of a portion of this property for retail, service, and office uses and a port,or, for ;es: dential uses above 3 5 dwelling units per acre 4 Malbon Bros Petioleurn L L C Application Condit.onai ljse Pern 1- for a car wash on the northeast comer of General Booth Boulevard anc Culver Lane 5 Malbon Bros Petroleum, L L C. Application Modificat on of Condi- tions to applications of Eight D Corp for a Condit:onal Rezoning ane Conditional Use Permit approved by Citv Council on April 27 1993 al 1896 General Booth Boulevard 6 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc Aoplication Change of Zo-ing Dis- trict Classification from AG-2 Agricultural and R-10 Residential to Con- druonal R-7.5 Residential at 960, 964 ano 966 Old Dam Neck Roar The Comprehensnre Plan recommends use er ih,s site Tor res,den:ia! uses above 3 5 dwelling units per acre 7 Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers I^ regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance. Subdiv,s,on *or Willard P Orr at 1557 Indian River Road DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 8 Frank Blocker for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales aria rental on the southeast intersection of Lyn,nhaver. Parkway anc V,r ginia Beach Boulevard DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE 9 Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to ce�tan e,e- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance Subdivision for Jeffery L Baker at 936 East Sparrow Road DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE '0 City of Virginia Beach Application Discontinuance, closure and aban- donment of a portion of Honeygrove Way, beginning at a point 310 40 feet south of East Noneygrove Road DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN 11 Near Post, L L C Application Charge of Zoning Distnct Classification from H-1 Hotel, B-2 Business, 8-1 Business and R-40 Residentia! to Conditional A-36 at 1020 and 1040 Laskin Road and a por'tior of Par cel A, Oriole The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of th,s site for retail, service, office and other compatible uses searing surrounding neighborhoods and communities 12 Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club Application Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager Trail Interested citizens are invited to a --tend Ruth Hodges Smith MMC C"', C' BEACON OCTOBER 12 and OCTOBER 19 200 -_� 1r,687991 -55- Item V-M.6. PLANNING ITEM # 51543 Attorney Edward Bourdon, Phone 499-8971,advised Stan Tseng has been owner of this property for over 20 years In 1999, the applicant had a site plan approved by the City far a 40-unit condominium on this site Mr Tseng decided to wait and upgrade the project The site plan was distributed to City Council The units are a minimum of 2200 square feet in size with values of $112-MILLIONand above Twelve (12) live oak trees shall be preserved on the property Gary Mah, 2956 Buccaneer Road, Phone 961-9180, resident of Lynnhaven Colony The following registered in OPPOSITION. - Wade Ogg, 3558 Shore Drive #704, Phone 363-8442, represented the Board ofDirectors of the Chesapeake House and distributed concerns and requested Conditions to be added Todd Solomon , 2260 First Landing Lane, Phone 496-5833, represented the Shore Drive Community Coalition, submitted statement from the Coalition, which is hereby made a part of the record Jack Bryan, 4201 Blackbeard Road, Phone 409-6586, represented Bay Lake Pines Civic League Tim Solanis, 3612 Dupont Circle, Phone 464-492Z advised the Ocean Park Civic League voted in OPPOSITION Tracy Estep, 2230 Maple Street, Phone 481-2549, her father previously owned the property, distributed copies of Minutes from February 26, 1979 (W W Rose Change of Zoningfrom B-4 to R-8) Dr Judith Johnson, 3739 Dupont Circle, Phone 363-9798, legislative representative of the Ocean Park Civic League and Women 's Club A MOTION was made by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady McClanan, to DENY the Ordinance upon application of FORT WORTHDEVELOPMENT, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re multi family Condominium Voting 5-6 (MOTION LOST TO A NEGATIVE VOTE) Council Members Voting Aye Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Richard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, and James L Wood Council Members Voting Nay Harry E Diezel, Margaret L Eure, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A Villanueva and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Absent None August 12, 2003 - 56 - Item V-M.6. PLANNING ITEM # 51543 (Continued) Upon motion by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council ADOPTED, with REVISED Conditions, Ordinance upon application of FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re multi family Condominium ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICA TION OF FOR T WORTHDEVELOPMENT, INC- FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE MULTI -FAMILY CONDOMINIUM R080331117 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re multi family Condominium in the B-4 Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District on the north side of Shore Drive between Dinwiddie Road and DuPont Circle (GPIN 1489590079) (DISTRICT 4- BAYSIDE) The following conditions shall be required I The development of the site (including site layout, ingress/egress, fence location and materials, etc) shall substantially conform to the submitted plan entitled, " Conceptual Site Layout & Landscape Plan of Dupont Circle Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, VA, "prepared by MSA, P C , dated 2- 3-03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department 2 The building shall be constructed as depicted on the rendering entitled, "Shore Drive facade at Dupont Circle "prepared by Howard Architectural Presentations, and the elevations entitled, "Dupont Circle Condominiums pages A 2, and A 7, " dated March 5, 2003, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the PlanningDepartment 3 The Landscape Plan to be submitted during final site plan review shall mimic the plan identified above in Condition 1 Any additional planting shall adhere to the Landscape Guidelines established in the adopted Shore Drive Corridor Plan, Appendices Any trees identified to be saved shall be adequately protected with chain link fencing surrounding the entire tree at the drip line until construction is complete In addition, a certified arborist shall be present at the time of clearing and shall periodically inspect the site to ensure the health of the preserved trees 4 Identification signage shall be monument style and shall adhere to all applicable Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines August 12, 2003 - 57 - Item V-M.6. PLANNING ITEM # S1543 (Continued) ADDED REVISIONS AT REQUEST OF RESIDENTS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAYHOUSE ON THE BAY. 1 That a retaining wall be constructed to protect the integrity of the parking garage of The Chesapeake House On The Bay 2 That the developer and owners work with homeowners of The Chesapeake House on the Bay to install a device to restrict traffic flow through the parking lot and driveway of The Chesapeake House This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (0 of the Zoning Ordinance Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twelfth of August, Two Thousand Three Voting 6-5 Council Members Voting Aye Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L Eure, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A Villanueva and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Richard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, and James L Wood Council Members Absent None August 12, 2003 - 55 - Item V-M.1. ADD/ON ITEM # 51687 Upon motion by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council SCHEDULED RECONSIDERATION for October 28, 2003, at 6 pm, FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT, INC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for a Condominium on Shore Drive at Dinwiddie Road/Dupont Circle (Approved by City Council 0811212003) Voting 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye Harry E Diezel, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Richard A Maddox, MayorMeyera E Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Rosemary Wilson and James L Wood Council Members Voting Nay None Council Members Absent Margaret L Eure and Ron A Villanueva September 9, 2003 A ee b � y 4 ' +• 48 F CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Fort Worth Development, Inc. — Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Fort Worth Development, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings in B-4 (SD) on the north side of Shore Drive between Dinwiddie Road and Dupont Circle (GPIN 1489590079). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE The purpose of this request is to construct 27 multi -family dwellings in a condominium form of ownership. 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. On October 21, City staff was provided with some additional information regarding this application. The new information consists of changes to the site and building design. Staff has not had the opportunity to fully evaluate these new plans as this agenda goes to print. If acceptable to the Council, Staff will present its assessment of this information at Tuesday's meeting. ■ Considerations: The applicant is requesting to develop this 1 14-acre site with 27 mid -rise (6- story) multifamily units (24 units per acre). The Zoning Ordinance identifies multifamily dwelling units in the B-4 District as a "conditional use" rather than a "permitted" use thereby requiring the applicant to seek a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed 27-unit condominium development does meet the density allowed under the B-4 zoning (albeit the maximum allowed at 24 units per acre); however, Staff did not recommend approval of the proposal to the Planning Commission based on specific concerns regarding the height of the structure and the resulting massiveness of the six (6) story, 111,596 square foot building. Section 221 (1) of the City of City Zoning Ordinance stipulates that any conditional use "...be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is to be located, both in terms of existing land uses and conditions and in terms of proposed land uses and use permitted by right in the area. Among matters to be considered in this connection are traffic flow and control, access to and circulation within the property; off-street parking and loading, refuse and service areas, utilities; Fort Worth Development Page 2of3 screening and buffering; signs, yards and other open spaces; height, bulk and location of structures, location of proposed open space uses, hours and the manner of operation, and noise, light, dust, odor, fumes and vibrations." While the "use" of the property for multi -family dwellings is acceptable, Staff concludes that the massiveness and height of the structure could negatively impact the surrounding residential properties to the west Section 221 requires, among other things, that the height and the bulk of the proposal be in concert with all surrounding properties There are the two (2) and three (3) story residential units to the west Staff acknowledges the existence of the adjacent 12 story Chesapeake House to the east However, the massiveness of that development does not appear as imposing due to the fact that the footprint of the high rise itself does not encompass the majority of the site as does this project and the Chesapeake House property is larger, thereby reducing its "presence " In addition, the high rise's aboveground 3 story parking deck provides for some form of a transition from the 12 story high rise to this property in question. The more serious concern involves the Master Transportation Plan The Master Transportation Plan identifies this portion of Shore Drive as a 150-foot wide right- of-way The existing right-of-way is deficient in this regard The existing right-of- way in this location, as measured by staff, is approximately 106 to 110 feet Staff estimates that a 20 to 22 foot reservation will be needed on this side of the road at this location to accomplish the required 150-foot wide right-of-way Shore Drive is planned to have extensive landscaping and trails, which when combined with future improvements to the roadway lanes and the replacement of the Lesner Bridge, requires a wide right-of-way. Section 201(b) of the City Zoning Ordinance requires that the yard setback be measured from the ultimate right-of- way, as expressed in this case by the reservation line There is space on the plan to accommodate the reservation, however, the building setback cannot be met when measured from the reservation line It is, therefore, staffs position that regardless of any other issue, the failure of the applicant to adhere to the City's adopted Master Transportation Plan makes it impossible for staff to support this request as currently designed Staff is not supportive of this request for a Conditional Use Permit and recommended to the Planning Commission that the project be denied. There was opposition to the proposal at the Planning Commission hearing ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-3 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1 The development of the site (including site layout, ingress/egress, fence location and materials, etc ) shall substantially conform to the submitted plan entitled, " Conceptual Site Layout & Landscape Plan of Dupont Circle Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, VA," prepared by MSA, P C., dated 2-3-03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file Fort Worth Development Page 3of3 in the Planning Department 2 The building shall be constructed as depicted on the rendering entitled, "Shore Drive fagade at Dupont Circle" prepared by Howard Architectural Presentations, and the elevations entitled, "Dupont Circle Condominiums pages A 2, and A.7," dated March 5, 2003, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 3 The Landscape Plan to be submitted during final site plan review shall mimic the plan identified above in Condition 1 Any additional planting shall adhere to the Landscape Guidelines established in the adopted Shore Drive Corridor Plan, Appendices Any trees identified to be saved shall be adequately protected with chain link fencing surrounding the entire tree at the drip line until construction is complete In addition, a certified arborist shall be present at the time of clearing and shall periodically inspect the site to ensure the health of the preserved trees 4 Identification signage shall be monument style and shall adhere to all applicable Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Mana er. �L.. 9 �� FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 June 11, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G 03-213-CUP-2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 27 multi family dwellings in the B-4 (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) Resort Commercial District. ADDRESS: 2300 Dinwiddie Road Map G-3 Map Not to Scaie Fort WorthI -•i �4• Iwo ORP WIN rl , � `tea :ri �.'•�� ,/, t.r1 .. ' -- Gp:n 1489-59-0079 G P I N : 14895901970000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 — BAYSIDE SITE SIZE: 1.14 acres Planning Commission Agenda'L =s June 11, 2003 �= FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith PURPOSE: To construct 27 multi family dwellings in a condominium form of ownership. APPLICATION This request was deferred at the May 14 Planning Commission HISTORY: meeting Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal is consistent with the Shore Drive Overlay District, Shore Drive Design Guidelines and compatible with surrounding land uses. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existina Land Use and Zonin The vacant site is currently zoned B- 4 (SD) Resort Commercial District with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • City rights -of -way, Chesapeake Bay South: . Shore Drive • Single-family dwellings, restaurant / B-2 Community Business District East: . Condominiums / B-4 Resort Commercial District West: • Restaurant, duplex / B-2 Community Business District, R-5R Residential District Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 2 Zoning History In the vicinity, no similar requests have been submitted for consideration by City Council. Activity in the area includes a community boat dock, a street closure request, and a communication tower. The approved rezoning includes changes to the P-1 Preservation District. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 16 inch water main in Shore Drive fronting the property. The site must connect to City water. Hydraulic calculations may be required. There is a 10 inch sanitary sewer main and an 18 inch force main in Shore Drive fronting the property. Sewer and pump station upgrades will be required. There is no City water or sanitary sewer available in Dupont Circle or Dinwiddie Road. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Shore Drive in the vicinity of this application is considered a four (4) lane urban arterial. It is identified in the adopted Master Transportation Plan (which replaced the 1991 Master Street and Highway Plan in 1997) as a 150-foot wide right-of-way with a multi -use trail. The existing right-of-way in this location, as measured by staff, is approximately 106 to 110 feet. Staff estimates that a 20 to 22 foot reservation will be needed on this side of the road at this location to accomplish the required 150- foot wide right-of-way. Section 201(b) of the City Zoning Ordinance requires that the yard setback be measured from the ultimate right-of-way, as expressed in this case by the reservation line. The applicant, however, notified of this need, has not revised the plans to accommodate the reservation and the building setback and has indicated no intention to do so. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 3 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 5,00 Existing Land Use -- 627 ADT Shore Drive 17,300 ADT' 3 Proposed Land Use — 158 ADT 'Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by general B-4 uses 3 as defined by 27 condominium units Schools School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Thorou h ood 606 684 1 8 2 Great Neck Middle 1141 1330 0.9 1 Cox High 2040 2018 1 1.2 1 1 I "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students) Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Adequate — no further comments. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The area of the proposed development falls within the "Mixed Zone" as identified in the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. This portion of Shore Drive possesses a mix of uses, primarily single-family and duplex units, office and commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan generally supports resort type uses including lodging, retail, Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 4 entertainment, recreational, cultural and other uses in this area. The Bayfront Planning Area's land use policies support well -planned and designed residential developments that promote community aesthetics, economic vitality, quality physical environment, and enhanced quality of life. The Shore Drive Corridor Plan and the Design Guidelines are established to ensure that these initiatives are achieved. In addition, multiple -family dwellings in the B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial District are allowed as Conditional Uses only. Summary of Proposal Proposal • The applicant is requesting to develop this 1.14 acre site with 27 mid -rise (6- story) multifamily units (24 units per acre). The Zoning Ordinance identifies multifamily dwelling units in the B-4 District as a "conditional use" rather than a "permitted" use thereby requiring the applicant to seek a Conditional Use Permit. Site Design • The site plan depicts a single entrance along the eastern property line off of Dupont Circle. • All 60 parking spaces will be under the six (6) story building. • Access to the units is provided via four (4) interior stairwells and two (2) elevators accessed under the building, within the parking area. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 5 �,NU Btj • The structure containing the 27 units is "U" shaped. On the ground floor, within the middle of the building, the site plan depicts two (2) rooms adequately sized for meetings, banquets or recreation/exercise. A kitchen and restrooms are also proposed in this area. • A patio from the meeting and banquet rooms leads to an outdoor pool depicted on the northern limits of development, at the foot of primary coastal sand dune. • A Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) variance is required as the structure is proposed four (4) feet from western property line (Dupont Circle right-of-way) and it therefore within the required eight (8) foot side yard setback. In addition, the depicted six (6) foot fence is shown on the property lines on both Dinwiddie Road and Dupont Circle instead of the required eight (8) feet setback. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • No direct access to Shore Drive is proposed. Only a single ingress/egress along the eastern property line, off of Dupont Circle, is proposed. • An outdoor pool is depicted on the northern limits of development, at the foot of primary coastal sand dune. • The DSC has indicated that sidewalks along Shore Drive and up to the entrance along Dupont Circle will be required. Architectural Design • The front elevation facing Shore Drive depicts a six (6) story building with parking underneath on the first floor. The exterior building materials are a mix of reddish brick along the foundation and "stepping up" to the third floor from the east and west corners, then transitioning to vinyl shakes. The applicant has markedly improved the Shore Drive fagade with the inclusion of porches and columns. An architectural grade, green asphalt shingle will cover the roof and the parking and storage areas (the first and second floors). In an attempt to shield the parking from the street, it was covered with a roof and treated as a portion of the fagade. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 6 • The rear and side elevation mimics the front with the use of porches to capture the views available to the Chesapeake Bay. Applicability to the Pertinent Shore Drive Design Guidelines: General Design Concepts/Residential Guidelines • Facades should be articulated to reduce the scale and one-dimensional appearance. The overall intent is to encourage a more human scale and pedestrian orientation. - Staff Comment: The applicant has modified the original design to achieve this guideline. However; the human scale is lacking and the there is no obvious pedestrian orientation. • Facades greater than 50 feet in length, visible from a public street, should incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least three feet. Staff Comment: The proposed design does utilize projections and recesses to reduce the redundancy and increase the visual interest. • Fronts oriented toward Shore Drive should incorporate one-story porches, arcades, bay windows, entry areas, breezeways, awnings, or other features. Staff Comment: The original design has been modified to include porches facing Shore Dnve. The building does have a `false arcade" that provides cover to the parking spaces facing Shore Drive; however, it is obvious that it is covering a parking area rather than providing a pedestrian entry and cover. The roof of this arcade is somewhat odd and perhaps could be modified so that doesn't extend beyond the first floor. • Fagade colors should be low reflective, subtle, neutral, or earth tone colors. Staff Comment: The earth tones of light and darkish brown are in keeping with this guideline • The placement of dormers and other raised roof areas, with a principal sloping roof, are encouraged Use of half story, etc. Staff Comment: The proposed variations in the roofline do help to enhance the appearance of the building, however, the height being six (6) stories does not provide for a lot of roof exposure other than the somewhat awkward roof covenng the parking. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 7 • Front building facades should be located at the front yard setback. Staff Comment: The building is located at the existing front yard setback of 30 feet; however, as noted earlier, due to Shore Drive being identified on the Master Transportation Plan as a 150 foot wide right-of-way, the location of the structure should be located 30 feet from the reservation. The applicant is unwilling to recognize this requirement. This serious issue nullifies any positive meats of the building's design. • The street elevation of multiple -unit residential buildings should have at least one street oriented entrance and contain the principal windows of the front unit. Staff Comment There is no pedestrian entrance visible from Shore Drive. The covered parking area that leads to the elevators and stairs is hidden from the rights -of -way. Walls • Walls should be clad in wood, cedar shingles, hardboard siding, lightweight concrete siding, or shingles. Limited quantities of brick, stone or EIFS or split faced block is allowable. Horizontal lap vinyl siding is discouraged. Staff Comment: The building materials Include brick, two (2) variations of vinyl shake. The intent of this guideline has been met. • Walls of more than one material should only change material along a horizontal line - the "heavier" material beneath the "lighter' material, trim required at the change. Staff Comment: This recommendation has not been used in the design of the building. • The second floor should be stepped back from the first floor, relative to Shore Drive. Staff Comment: The covered parking does extend out to Shore Drive beyond the upper floors. Roofs • Pitched roofs should be metal standing seam, copper, wood shakes, or high - quality asphalt shingles with a slope between 6:12 and 10-12. Staff Comment: The roofs have a high quality architectural style green shingle. • Fascia and soffit material should be painted wood, vinyl or metal. Open fascia with decorative rafter tails of 10 to 12 inches are encouraged. Staff Comment.' The fascia and soffit are vinyl in a color to match the Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 8 building. However, the fascia is not open and does not incorporate decorative rafter tails. • Variations in roof lines with the use of overhanging eaves, parapets, height variations and entrance features is encouraged. Staff Comment: There is some attempt to meet this guideline. • Roofs specified in the Mixed Zone should be pitched to maintain compatibility with the residential identity of the Ocean Park neighborhood. Staff Comment: While the roof may mimic those of the residential dwellings to the west, due to the height and square footage of the structure, it will appear out of balance. Even though there is a higher building to the east, it is set away from the property line and does not have as massive an appearance from Shore Drive. As this project maximizes the allowable lot coverage, it will appear more massive and out of scale with the development to the west. Building Materials • Porches should be wood, synthetic wood or faces with brick or stone. Porch ceilings should be painted or have detailed vinyl covering. Staff Comment: The proposed porches/patios will have concrete flooring. • Railing systems should be wood, painted steel or vinyl. Staff Comment: The railing systems will be vinyl coated aluminum. • Columns should be wood or synthetic wood. Staff Comment: The columns will be steel wrapped in vinyl and will appear as painted wood. • Porches, arcades, breezeways, etc. should be vertically proportional to the building. Staff Comment: This guideline has generally been met. • Balconies should not extend more than 4 feet from the building. Staff Comment: It appears that this guideline has been met. Windows and Doors • Windows and exterior casing should be high quality wood, vinyl clad wood, vinyl or aluminum. Exterior casing should be 3 '/2 inches to 6 inches wide around all windows and doors facing rights -of -way Window size on the second floor should be same proportion but slightly small than the first floor. Staff Comment: Varying window sizes are proposed. The exterior casing appears to be narrow and not consistent with this guideline. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT I # 15 Page 9 Landscape and Open Space Design • The rear of the property is encumbered by a coastal primary sand dune that provides approximately 7,500 square feet of open, unbuildable area. • A Board of Zoning Appeals variance will be sought for the elimination of the required Category I landscaping between the fence and the property lines where required. If fencing is installed within five (5) feet of any right-of-way, Category I screening is required. On this site, Category I would be required for approximately the nine (9) feet along Dinwiddie Road and approximately the 27 feet along Dupont Circle where the proposed fence is planned within five (5) feet from these rights -of -way. Some landscaping is proposed in these areas in lieu of the tall growing Category I species • The Concept Plan identifies 12 trees to be saved, however, it does not indicate the number of large trees that are proposed for removal. It appears that many of these trees are actually within the right-of-way, however, extreme care must be taken if these are to be preserved. The plan depicts 16 new Live Oaks to be installed on the site and evergreen flowering shrubs serving as foundation landscaping. Evaluation of Request Staff cannot support this request. The applicant is requesting to develop this 1.14 acre site with 27 mid -rise multifamily units at a density of 24 units per acre (the maximum allowed under the City Zoning Ordinance). The applicant had an approved plan (dated 12-19-98) for a 40 unit condominium prior to the adoption of the Shore Drive Overlay District; however, this site plan approval has expired and it is not the desire of the applicant to construct the same project. However, this new proposal is not recommended for approval. There are two main areas of concern: (a) project concept and design and (b) Master Transportation Plan. Project Concept and Design The area of the proposed development falls within the "Mixed Zone" as identified in the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. This portion of Shore Drive possesses a mix of uses, primarily single family and duplex units, office and commercial uses. Multiple family dwellings proposed in the B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial District are permitted as Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 10 Conditional Uses only, thereby requiring review and approval by the City Council. Certain uses are allowed as "Conditional" when a potential exists for that use to have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The applicant has worked to improve the design of the structure, particularly with respect to the fagade facing Shore Drive, as well as alleviate concerns expressed by the neighborhood regarding trash pick-up, vehicular and pedestrian access and tree preservation. The proposed 27-unit condominium development does meet the density allowed under the B-4 zoning (albeit the maximum allowed at 36 units per acre) and the design can be viewed as being somewhat consistent with the specific design guidelines of the Shore Drive Overlay. However, Staff cannot recommend approval of the proposal based on specific concerns regarding the height of the structure and the resulting massiveness of the six (6) story, 111,596 square foot building. Section 221 (1) of the City of City Zoning Ordinance stipulates that any conditional use "...be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is to be located, both in terms of existing land uses and conditions and in terms of proposed land uses and use permitted by right in the area. Among matters to be considered in this connection are traffic flow and control, access to and circulation within the property; off-street parking and loading; refuse and service areas; utilities; screening and buffering; signs, yards and other open spaces; height, bulk and location of structures; location of proposed open space uses; hours and the manner of operation; and noise, light, dust, odor, fumes and vibrations." While the "use" of the property for multi -family dwellings is acceptable, Staff concludes that the massiveness and height of the structure could negatively impact the surrounding residential properties to the west. Section 221 requires, among other things, that the height and the bulk of the proposal be in concert with all surrounding properties. There are the two (2) and three (3) story residential units to the west. Staff acknowledges the existence of the 12 story, Chesapeake House high rise adjacent to the east. However, the massiveness of that development does not appear as imposing due to the fact that the footprint of the high rise itself does not encompass the majority of the site as does this project and the Chesapeake House property is larger, thereby reducing its "presence." In addition, the high rise's above ground 3 story parking deck provides for some form of a transition from the 12 story high rise to this property in question. Moreover, the recent changes to the zoning in the Shore Drive Corridor and the accompanying Shore Drive Design Guidelines are intended to encourage a more human scale and pedestrian orientation for development along Shore Drive, particularly along this segment of the roadway. Staff recommends that the applicant apply this principle and reconsider the concept and design of the project. Master Transportation Plan The more serious concern of City staff involves the Master Transportation Plan. The Master Transportation Plan identifies this portion of Shore Drive as a 150-foot wide Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 11 right-of-way. The existing right-of-way is deficient in this regard. The existing right-of- way in this location, as measured by staff, is approximately 106 to 110 feet. Staff estimates that a 20 to 22 foot reservation will be needed on this side of the road at this location to accomplish the required 150-foot wide right-of-way Shore Drive is planned to have extensive landscaping and trails, which when combined with future improvements to the roadway lanes and the replacement of the Lesner Bridge, requires a wide right-of-way Section 201(b) of the City Zoning Ordinance requires that the yard setback be measured from the ultimate right-of-way, as expressed in this case by the reservation line. There is space on the plan to accommodate the reservation; however, the building setback cannot be met when measured from the reservation line. It is, therefore, staffs position that regardless of any other issue, the failure of the applicant to adhere to the City's adopted Master Transportation Plan makes it impossible for staff to support this request as currently designed. Staff is not supportive of this request for a Conditional Use Permit and recommends that the project be denied. Should the request be approved, the following conditions are encouraged. Conditions 1. The development of the site (including site layout, ingress/egress, fence location and materials, etc.) shall substantially conform to the submitted plan entitled, It Conceptual Site Layout & Landscape Plan of Dupont Circle Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, VA," prepared by MSA, P.C., dated 2-3-03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The building shall be constructed as depicted on the rendering entitled, "Shore Drive facade at Dupont Circle" prepared by Howard Architectural Presentations, and the elevations entitled, "Dupont Circle Condominiums pages A.2, and A.7," dated March 5, 2003, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. 3. The Landscape Plan to be submitted during final site plan review shall mimic the plan identified above in Condition 1. Any additional planting shall adhere to the Landscape Guidelines established in the adopted Shore Drive Corridor Plan, Appendices. Any trees identified to be saved shall be adequately protected with chain link fencing surrounding the entire tree at the drip line until construction is complete. In addition, a certified arborist shall be present at the time of clearing and shall periodically inspect the site to ensure the health of the preserved trees. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / it 15 Page 12 Q141 "Brh s 4. Identification signage shall be monument style and shall adhere to all applicable Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. 5. The multiple -family dwelling structure shall be limited to three (3) stories in height. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 13 2 JK t L C ..1 �44 Of, ;;8Lk 8�c 4�ER�Li Planning Commission Agenda June 11 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 14 Planning Commission Agenda June 11, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 15 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name- Fort Worth _Development��nc:----------------------- List All Current Property Owners: _ Fort Worth Development Inc._ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) Stan Tsen-0,,,_ President & Secretary ------------- ...................... If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below (Attach lest if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Fork t:JQrt evel ent, Inc. Signature �~ Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Sta_nTseng, President _y Print Name Planning Commission Agenda June ll, 2003 FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT / # 15 Page 17 Item # 14 Fort Worth Development, Inc. Conditional Use Permit North side of Dinwiddie Road and Dupont Circle District 4 Ba side,�,r May 14, 2003 F1 ftrr k+AW144g JY?f 'PLAp4pJ1tk* GOM"j Ss tctJ REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #14, Fort Worth Development, Inc. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you for your patience. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney. I'm here this afternoon representing the applicant Fort Worth Development and Mr. Stan Singh being the principal. First of all, I want to say the same thing that I've said at every meeting that I've attended and there have been a number of them on this application and my representation has absolutely positively nothing to do with the Crab Creek property on the other side of Shore Drive adjacent to Crab Creek. I don't have anything to do with that proposal in anyway and this hasn't anything to do with that in anyway. The applicant has owned this piece of property for almost 20 years. It is a 1.14 acre piece of property on the north side of Shore Drive. It is adjacent to the Chesapeake House, 13-story condominium high-rise containing 120 residential units. And, on the other side of that the 356 on the bay or 356 Shore Drive condominium high rise This piece of property is zoned B-4 as you can see on the map that's up there on the pinpoint. The Chesapeake House is also to the east and 356 on the Bay to the east is zoned B-4 which permits either residential or commercial development To our west is a piece of property zoned B-2, which is occupied by a Mexican restaurant and then there's residential also to our west where we have a number of principal duplex condominiums. We are here today for a Conditional Use Permit solely because of the adoption of the Shore Drive Overlay District which necessitates a Conditional Use Permit for multi -family development even though the zoning is identical to the zoning on the adjacent 120 unit 13-story high rise condominium, also, please note that no Use Permit or other restrictions are imposed by the Overlay District on commercial development on B-4 property at all. Also please note, that the B-4 zoning does not exist to our west and that the Overlay District while it did change some setback requirements has no affect whatsoever on the height requirements under the B-4 zoning. When the Overlay was adopted, its goal as stated in the ordinance was to improve the aesthetics along Shore Drive and to improve the quality of development along the Shore Drive Corridor. And, frankly since the Overlay's adoption we have seen a raising of the bar but there has been nothing that has been brought forth nor approved since the Overlay's adoption that is at the level of quality as this proposal is before you today. This is a proposal for a 27-unit luxury condominium complex. I've provided to you copies of the elevation, copy of the site plan and also a number of pictures of the properties that surround us and other developments along Shore Drive. This 27-unit proposed luxury condominium, each unit will have 2,200 or more square feet of living area all with beautiful views of the Bay and many with views of Lynnhaven Inlet. The proposal as you can see here includes an area in the middle. This area between here where the building towers to this way and this way, this is the swimming pool/recreation area, there's a workout room, community meeting room, all in this courtyard area on the north side of the building. There's a secondary sand dune from the back of the property, it's an egg shaped piece of property. We stayed off that entirely honoring any environmental issues, preserving vegetation that is on that sand dune. The Dinwiddie Road is the street to our west. Dupont Circle, principally unimproved paper street on our east. Dupont Circle is improved now to this point. As you can see right here off of Shore Drive and is used as a secondary ingress/egress point to the Chesapeake House You can see the parking garage on the Chesapeake House which is located here eight feet off of the nght-of-way line of Dupont Circle, but again, realizing that Dupont Circle as it 1s improved stops right here. The building as you see in the elevations and that staff has noted in the write up, it's a very attractively designed building. The architect has done a real nice Job. What we've got on the first floor area is parking. All the parking is underneath the building. Parking is enclosed by a brick wall with brick columns and in between, there are vinyl clad in essence, wrought iron type of fence inserts that is entirely contained. The second floor of the building is where the HVAC mechanical/electrical, all of the workings of the building take place. There are also storage units for each of the 27-units within that second floor area. The residential units are all located on the fourth through sixth floors of the structure. The room here is shown in its design as a means of bringing down the building so to speak from an architectural perspective. We have incorporated to the best of our ability to do so, the architectures ability to do so, the design recommendations on the Shore Drive Design Guidelines, which are voluntary and I think we have clearly done a good Job of doing that and incorporating those and that list is referenced on pages 7, 8 & 9 of your write up. If I could get the site plan back up? Thank you. One of the important aspects of this is that we have used the step up that is talked about on one of the design cntena. The property line as shown on the site plan is this dark line that you see here. It is interesting to note that on the west side of the property the excess right-of-way is not currently improved. It is 40 feet and even more of this section of excess unimproved right-of-way. Overall, on the east side where there is already improvement made to the egress/ingress, which is currently used by the Chesapeake House, the distance here is 25 feet. Our fenced walled parking structure is 30 feet back from our property line. The building itself and it vanes because of the cut out you see in the architectural elevation, the building itself is 16 on average behind the wall. So, the building itself and the wall again is just the parking garage wall I'm talking about is in this area over here 46 feet back from our property line. And, as I noted, from our property line to existing paved section of the four lane Shore Drive is 40 feet here narrowing down in this area to 25 feet but we are well back off of Shore Drive as it is currently improved at four lanes in width. The next -door Chesapeake House, we are in this area our closest point between 105-110 feet off of the Chesapeake House building and again, we got the parking garage that wraps all the way around behind our proposed building. Over to our west, again, are principally duplex condominiums there also well out here north of our building. The building materials are some of highest quality. Everything about this has been an effort to make this as high quality development as we possibly could. The Shore Drive issue is the one that I think has gotten the most attention and certainly you all talked about it this morning. The Master Transportation Plan has been cited as a 150-foot wide, eight -lane principal urban arterial highway. That is what is described in the Master Transportation Plan, an eight -lane principal urban arterial highway. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not going to happen at least I don't believe in any of our lifetimes. There is massive community opposition to any such effort to make the road an eight -lane urban highway. It would wipe out numerous business and residences all along Shore Drive. I will list for you a number of projects, which have been approved since that's been on the Master Transportation Plan, which have not been required to reserve any land via setback or otherwise for an eight -lane 150-foot wide nght-of-way. A.J. Ventures Car Wash south side Shore Drive to the west of this property, the Three Ships Landing Condominium. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, can I interrupt you for a second? We've gone through the 10 minutes. I know that. How much more time do you think you need? Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Ripley, I would expect maybe another ten and I really don't want to offend anybody but my comments about, you know, Planning Commission meets once a month to put all the stuff on the record for City Council and I think when you have applications of this magnitude and this complexity, to suggest that we only have 10 minutes to put the information on the record when the City Council only gives you 10 minutes, I think is not the way the process should work. We have to be able to put everything on the record here in order for City Council to be able to review a record. Ronald Ripley: Keep it as short as you can. Eddie Bourdon: I certainly will but I think there are issues here that I need to put this information on the record at some point. I certainly can't do it at City Council when you only have 10 minutes. They have a lot of other matters to deal with. Ainght. The Three Ships Landing Condominium to our west, the Hale Boatel to our west, the Chesapeake Bay Realty directly across the street, Duck -Inn, their expansion on the opposite side of the bridge, which they've built their expansion with setback variances from the existing nght-of-way. Harborview Condominium, the Long & Foster Real Estate Office, Inlet Shore Condominiums, again, these are only east side of the bridge. The Lynndune Condos was recently approved, Westminster Canterbury's expansion didn't require any kind of reservation, Manner's Mart Condominium, there was a condo approved on the Hardee's restaurant location site to the east of this. These are just some. We have not ever to my knowledge required a reservation or a setback to be measured from a reservation of 100-foot wide urban arterial roadway on Shore Drive since it has been on the Master Transportation Plan. The existing I I0-foot right-of-way can easily accommodate widening of Shore Drive to six lanes. And, in fact, back in 1998, my client at the time that the Overlay was being adopted, before it was adopted, had a site plan approved for this site for a 40-unit condominium, far, far less quality upon which the City required that we add an additional lane on Shore Drive because the entrance was going to be on the west side of Dinwiddie side to the property. And, there was no requirement for a right-of-way reservation or for a setback based upon the ultimate right-of-way width of Shore Drive. And, in fact, the parking with that approved site plan would be 16-feet from our front property line as it exists today, uncovered with a building 30-feet back from our front property line as it exists today approved site plan. My client chose not to develop the property at that time because everybody else was doing the same thing. Getting them in quick before the Overlay went into effect and at that point the civic league indicated they would have been supportive of his efforts not to develop a 40-unit condominium with that approved site plan, adding a lane to Shore Drive, an entrance to the project on the west side of the property versus the east side of the property. Since the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, the Shore Drive folks, committee, have commissioned a study that was done by Parson and Bnckerhoff. I've given you all a copy. It's not a real good quality copy in your package. This is the portion of the study that is applicable and I'll be glad to pass this around. I've also given you a verbatim. It's really a breakdown of the different segments of the road and the type of right-of-way that's expected in that area and that is also in your package and a letter from the Shore Drive Advisory Committee dated January 7, 2001, talking about the issue of Shore Drive. And, it is abundantly clear and in no way ambiguous that the efforts that looking at Shore Drive have indicated that in this area the right-of-way maximum right-of-way width would be a 126-feet in width and if you look at the map and I'm going to pass this one around because it's a lot easier to see. On this map, the green lines, its on an aerial so it's not totally precise but the green lines are the property lines and the red lines are the area where additional right-of- way may be needed to meet that goal. And, almost all of it is on the south side of Shore Drive. There's a very slight amount, probably not five feet that is looked at as being necessary on this piece of property only on a part of the piece of this property. And, I'll pass this around. We have had a number of meetings with the community and had a lot of back and forth. One of the things that we had originally on our plan was a beach access, a raised beach access at the end of Dinwiddie, which we thought the community wanted from the discussions that occurred in 1998. We were told that was not what they would like to see. And, we will be putting in a raised walkway over the sand dune on our property to access the beach for the residents of this community, which is a good thing and everyone agrees is a good thing. We also had on the original plans a fountain and a lot of heavy landscaping in front. We were asked by the community to consider and have in fact done so, both the savings to the extent possible of existing live oaks and we've got about nine of them. We've identified that we would be saving any the planting or the transplanting of live oaks for our landscaping along Shore Drive, which we have also agreed to do and which our plan reflects. We had a lot of positive comments from residents in Ocean Park as well as from residents from the Chesapeake House. The residents of Chesapeake House have voiced a couple of concerns, which I want to put on the record as I've told them that I would. One is the parking garage on their property has got a foundation and simply is just a basic slab foundation on sand. And they're concerned that when we improve a small portion of Dupont Circle to provide access to our parking garage that it might have the potential to undermine their foundation. And, we have agreed to do whatever is required in terns of what's up there now. This area right here and there is a slope in this area to put in a retaining wall on the property line or whatever else might be required in order to ensure them that the parking garage is not in anyway undermined by sand shifting. Secondly, there are some concerns that have been expressed about the potential that residents leaving this facility desiring to go eastbound on Shore Drive might cut through the parking lot in front of the Chesapeake House to obtain access to the stop light at the intersection on the east side of the Chesapeake House and that is certainly a possibility. What we have indicated with their consent and with the approval of their residents we will provide to them a manual or automatic gate so that we will not have our residents going through the parking area to get to the stop light at the light at the east side of the Chesapeake House. Ronald Ripley: Did you say you were going to put a gate up? Eddie Bourdon: Well, it's private property. And, if they desire to do so they can close off their parking. They can gate it and have it accessed with a code. They don't know if that is what they want. It might attract that 27 units that will cut through here to get to the stoplight, we don't believe it to be very significant but we will be good neighbors and do what they would have us to do to see that doesn't happen. Again, it's their concern. We don't want to impact anybody with what we're doing and that is something that we let them know we are willing to do. I don't know if that would be necessary and nor do they. One of the things that are mentioned in the write up is variances and we have, because of the egg shape of the property, the only variances that we'll be requesting along the western side the building meets the setback in its entirety. The only questions in a couple of areas where we tried to maximize parking because parking is an issue in this area. So, there are a couple of areas where our fence, brick wall with a fence does encroach in the setback. There will be landscaping on the outside of the fence and there will be trees that we are going to preserve but there are a couple of setback variances that we'll be looking for. We'll be looking for BZA for along here just for the fence. On the east side, the setback is again is four feet here for the building in this corner and only in this corner here and up here on these corners. Here we far exceed the setback. Here again, across from the parking garage with nothing but open area because of the curvature of the road we're asking not because of not having a curved building, there will be a slight encroachment in this setback here and also in the area here, as well as the fence for the parking in that little gray area there. These are very minor encroachments. I've explained this to the folks of the Chesapeake House and Ocean Park. The building itself, the only encroachment in the setback again is this corner here and the corner of the building here and this little area right here. Other than that, the entire building meets or exceeds the required setback. The staff s opposition I think boils down to the nght-of- way reservation, which they claim is the reason why all of the meeting of the design criteria should be overlooked or ignored. We believe that we are in that instance being treated differently than anyone else has been treated. This is not needed nor to put a bridge over Lynnhaven Inlet. The other issue that is raised is the height of the building. We believe this is absolutely a perfect transition downward from the thirteen story high rise to our east to the Mexican restaurant and the duplex condominiums to our west. We only cover 50 percent of this lot not maximizing lot coverage by any stretch. We are using the part of the property that is developable by staying off the sand dunes. And, most importantly we're not doing the same old, same old. We're doing a high quality development. We're doing a development at a density that the Overlay District mandates, a lesser density, which was the case before the Overlay District, with the exact same zoning as the properties to our east I appreciate your indulgence in the length of the presentation. Ronald Ripley: Questions of Mr. Bourdon? Will Din. William Din: Eddie. Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir William Din: Looking at your Parsons Bnckerhoff site plan that you passed around, there is a red line on that piece of property. What does that red line designate? Eddie Bourdon: That red line on our property would designate the area of at 126-foot right-of-way and again, it's not real precise. But that would be potentially required from this piece of property. And, most of the 126-foot addition is on the other side. William Din: So, if I'm looking at this map, this site plan correctly, what it's saying is that the four -lanes of Shore Drive could be accommodated with the exception of that little red line area. Eddie Bourdon: Six lanes. William Din: Six lanes. Eddie Bourdon: Six lanes. Four lanes are already accommodated. William Din: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: And with our approved site plan pre -overlay, we have three lanes on our side already on there with no additional nght-of-way. William Din: Where would that red line come on this current site plan? Eddie Bourdon: Again, it's not the scale. So, if you simply look at what's there now at 110, an additional would be 16 feet to get to a 126 and you look at the proportion of the red line on the south side versus north side, it appears to us that you're talking about anywhere from down to less than a foot to in this area, possibly as much as four or five feet. That's it. If you look at the proportion on the opposite side and you look at what's required 126-feet, on the opposite side there's almost a significant amount of distance between the red line and the gray line versus what you see on the north side. You see almost no separation here. You see a significant separation there and the total is 16 feet to get from 110 to 126. William Din: Is this alternative "A" the preferred alternative for the six lanes? Eddie Bourdon: Well, it's my understanding that it is. It's my understanding that the community doesn't want to see six lanes either. William Din: Well, I'm just assuming that if we go to six lanes what alternative would be to looking at? Eddie Bourdon. That's my understanding as the alternative. William Din: Are there other alternatives? Eddie Bourdon: It's consistent with what Chairman Ripley was saying in your informal session this morning that because of the curviture of the road and the alignments that were looked at, the majority of the land if it was ever to be taken to widen the road to six lanes would come off the south side and not off the north side. William Din: Okay. So, you also mentioned that all these other projects did not require reservations? Eddie Bourdon: They did not require. William Din: A 150-foot reservation off the centerline. Eddie Bourdon: That's exactly right. They did not require that, they did not require that their setbacks be measured from that alternate nght-of-way with that other 150-feet. William Din: To tell you the truth, I think this is the first time that I've heard this come up in several of these. Mr. Scott, is that accurate? Robert Scott: I'm not ready to agree with that statement. I'll listen to Mr. Bourdon and his arguments. I'll look at his information but I'm not ready to agree with it right now. Eddie Bourdon: I got a number of the one's I referenced not all of them. The write up is from the Planning staff that was presented to you all at the Planning Commission. I did not make copies of all of them but I will be happy to provide them. And, I've represented quite a number of them including the Duck -Inn site where not only was the buildings not with the setback on the reservation but the setback from the current property line was approved. Ronald Ripley: Any other comments? I have a question. Mr. Bourdon, could the building be moved to the north, any at all? Eddie Bourdon: Not without encroaching upon that secondary dune which we had gone to great lengths to avoid. The answer would be if the building had to be shifted to the north the building in all likelihood have to be reduced in terms of its footprint. I don't believe there is anyway that we could or would we want to encroach upon the dune in spite of the fact that as you can see it's isolated because everything is developed to our east and west, wraps all the way around it. But, we have stayed off the sand dune bottom line. And, we knew that would be a sensitive subject and we didn't want to deal with that sensitivity. Ronald Ripley: Alright and my second question has to deal with along the right-of-way, in the Shore Drive Plan and the significant there are bike paths and I don't know if there are any bike paths on this side of the road. I think there would definitely be sidewalks, definitely there would be edging that would be put in to the roadway. That plan doesn't indicate. It just simply indicates that it bleeds out onto the existing pavement. Eddie Bourdon: Any improvements like sidewalks or bike paths or anything that is required in this area, again, it's a very extensive area can be provided. In fact, there's enough room here to put another lane of traffic and still put bike paths and sidewalks. We don't have any problem at all with putting in the required improvements in front of the building in the Shore Drive right-of-way and in the 30-feet of area that is between our wall where our parking is and our property line. Ronald Ripley: And that would comply with the Shore Drive Plan? Eddie Bourdon: Ample room to do anything that's required of the Shore Drive plan if you put another lane of traffic in here, it might be required to do some of those improvements on our property. And frankly, the sidewalk, I believe we could accommodate that as well. The point is if it were needed we certainly wouldn't have no aversions to be having the sidewalk meander across our property. With the area here now it takes 12 feet basically, 12-15 feet to put another lane in. And, we got 40 feet here of right-of-way down to 25 feet here. There's plenty of room to put a right-of-way in it and put other improvements in before you get to our property line. Ronald Ripley: How does the public access this building if you don't drive up it? Where's the entrance? Eddie Bourdon: The entrance will be over on the right side. There's also planned to be an entrance over on the west side. I read in here but where they want an entrance in the front. I'm quite comfortable that if that was something that was of vital importance we could rearrange so there would also be an entrance in the front. But, realizing that it's an entrance to the parking garage for parking area. And, the actual entrance of the building, are the stairs and the elevators underneath the building. I'm not really sure that really accomplishes anything. But, I'm not an architect and I don't think that and that's (inaudible). I don't think it's noted as a major concern but it's certainly something that it was deemed to be important enough we could look at trying to work with staff on how to best provide the pedestrian access. Ronald Ripley: So all the parking is underneath. Eddie Bourdon: All of it is enclosed. Ronald Ripley: So there is no surface parking at all outside? Eddie Bourdon: That's right. It's all under the building all enclosed. Ronald Ripley: All visitors are coming there Everybody would come in. Is it a carded system? Eddie Bourdon: It would be secured system, a carded system or a code system. Ronald Ripley: So if you're a guest coming there and you don't have a code or a card, how do you get in? Eddie Bourdon: You have the resident whom you are coming to visit will have to make arrangements either you know the code or they will have to meet you and let you in. We haven't got into the detail on how precisely that will be done. Will has another question. William Din: Concerning the sand dunes here, I know you set your building back away from this sand dune, is that a voluntary thing or is that a requirement that you don't encroach on those standards? Eddie Bourdon: There are a couple of issues. It's an interesting question. One issue is an old deed to the property going back decades, there is a statement basically a deed restriction that the owner is not to encroach into the dune. That can only be enforced by private enforcement by the people who put that in their deed going back to change the title. It appears to me to be a secondary dune but there are protections in our Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act and modifications to it that there it is conceivable that you can encroach in it. But, it's lust not worth the arguments with the neighborhood. It's not worth the aggravation. We said repeatedly were not intending to go into the dune. William Din: Well, the reason I mentioned it, the parking garage on the east side and the condos on the west side must have cut through these same dunes. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. The one's on the west side before it was protected, it may be now. Those on the east were done before as a matter of fact I'm sure before there was a Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act. I think they would have not been able to build that today or frankly probably within the last 15 years. William Din: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We have opposition or people in support. Who do we have? I'm sorry, Kathy Katsias. Kathy Katsias: Mr. Bourdon, getting back to the parking. I see that you have 54 spaces that are required and you provided 60. Eddie Bourdon: Yes ma'am. Kathy Katsias: Being there are 27 apartments and assuming that each resident has two cars that gives you 54 parking spaces which leaves only six for visitors. Eddie Bourdon: Yes ma'am. Kathy Katsias: Is that enough? Eddie Bourdon: We think it's ample. We don't expect that all of the residents are going to have two cars. We also don't believe that all of the these units will be occupied 365 days of the year given the nature of this type of property and the price range. We're talking about $500,000 and up for units. We believe there will be a number of units that will be occupied by folks for part of the year and not for other parts of the year. Kathy Katsias: Let's say they are. Are six spaces enough for 24 residents? I mean you're limiting the apartment dwellers by how many guests that they can have. Eddie Bourdon: We meet the requirements of the ordinance and again, given the nature of the site and that's really we can meet the requirements without the variances for the wall. The reason for the wall in the parking structure having these slight encroachments is so that we can maximize the number of spaces that we can get on the property and 60 is all that we can get on the property within the confines and we have shown with this plan. We believe it will be sufficient but only time will tell but in other experiences along this area of Chesapeake House and others which aren't as high quality but they are still nice developments. Their lots are not full because again, you don't have people living in there 365 days a year in most cases. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Charlie Salle'. Charlie Salle': I'm trying to get my mind straight about this right-of-way. The alternative Plan "A" that you presented us with, does that show a 120-feet open nght-of- way? Eddie Bourdon: 126 is what I believe it shows Mr. Salle'. Charlie Salle': I can't read what you've written. Eddie Bourdon: I got it based on and the other thing I gave was it was an actual verbatim which is very helpful and if you look at the second page of that verbatim, it goes along with that study. It's actually page 15 but it's the second page of the three -page handout that's included in your blue folder. It talks about East Stratford Road to the Lesner Bridge, second page, bottom talks about the improvements which consisted of a 20-foot landscape median, two lane traffic capacity in each direction Expandable to three, ten - foot multi -purpose trail on the south side and brand new utilities, minimum right-of-way available and needed is a 126-feet. And that is what I was referring too. Ronald Ripley: This particular document was done prior to the large scale. So this is sort of an estimate and that's good work. The aerial is a little more accurate but how wide it is, I can't tell you. Eddie Bourdon: I'm making the presumption that it's consistent to what's here and what is there. I know it's not a 150 feet. Charlie Salle': And that was alternative "A". Are there other alternatives? I didn't look through the whole report? Eddie Bourdon: I don't think. Ronald Ripley: You can't read it. It's such small scale. But it looks to be the same. Eddie Bourdon: It looked to be same to me as well. I couldn't tell any distinction. Charlie Salle': I guess in the report does it have any mention as to the present 150-foot right-of-way requirement is needed? Eddie Bourdon: The letter from Bob Stanton and I also gave you a copy of the Shore Drive Advisory Committee is just a small piece of the discussion. And, I wasn't involved directly but I know from all the people I talked to in the area, there is this idea that reducing that down might have some impact on the ultimate funding or some issue with the bridge expansion but the community has said unequivently they don't want that. I know that's their position up and down Shore Drive. And, the City staff I think is kind of committed that's really that something they think is going to be seen either but as Mr. Scott said this morning they don't want to foreclose that but everyone has recognized that for that to happen businesses and homes all up and down Shore Drive are going to be wiped out. And, to suggest that this small piece of property, one of the last infill pieces should be the only one that's required to adhere is that is confiscatory and frankly, I think it's beyond unreasonable. Charlie Salle'. I can't remember specific projects but I think we adhered to it in the past. Eddie Bourdon: 150? Charlie Salle': Yeah. I'm sure we have made reference to the ultimate right-of-way. Eddie Bourdon: Oh there's reference in all these to it. But then the plans have all been approved without setbacks from it. None. Charlie Salle': My next question is you made some comments. We have some concerns as to where the bridge may ultimately, Lesner Bridge be relocated as in issue as to whether or not that right-of-way may be required here where it may not be required somewhere else because of the necessity with relocating that bridge. What have you drawn from the conclusion of the study? Eddie Bourdon: From the study, what is required on alternative "A" is what will suffice, more than suffice for what they have recommended for this right-of-way to be and my understanding is that it accommodates the additional bridge. Charlie Salle': Are there other alternatives that show that bridge moving further north which would require that right-of-way to move? Eddie Bourdon: None that I have seen. No sir. Ronald Ripley- Okay. Robert Miller- Mr. Charles Cullum. Charles Cullum: Good afternoon. I'm Charles Cullum. I'm a resident of the Chesapeake House on the Bay, which is next door to the proposed project. And, I support it as it is presented to the Committee, as do many of the residents of the Chesapeake House who are not here. The vacant lot next door has been an eyesore, which has been used as a trash dump, parking for local restaurants and actually a dark private place for young people sometimes. As Mr. Bourdon has said, the developer has offered to meet our concerns of the Chesapeake House regarding this project. And, I feel that it is an upscale condominium, which will contribute to the increase in values in Chesapeake House and to the City of Virginia Beach tax basis. And, I urge you approve this request as submitted. Thank you. Ronald Ripley. Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. Robert Miller: Tim Solanic. Tim Solanic: It's Solanic. But just call me early for dinner and that's even better. I appreciate not having to follow Ed. He's amazing. Can I have extra time as well? I'm a representative of Virginia Beach Ocean Park Civic League. I'm the Vice President. Ronald Ripley: Do you need a lot of extra time? Tim Solanic: No where near the time that Ed had because I had hoped that we wouldn't have had that kind of discussion here. We wouldn't have needed it. We're in the process of discussing the whole project as he mentioned that they saved a bunch of trees and stuff. We were still under the assumption, which you can assume in any kind of discussions that we were still talking. Ronald Ripley: Well. Tim Solanic: And we're still talking. We just haven't come together on a lot of issues yet. And, there has been some level of miscommunication and we didn't want to waste your time having him have to talk as long as he did and having me talk as long as I do because it is a good project. It's not just quite what we would love to see. Ronald Ripley: We compromised our time a little bit with him by all means if you need a little extra time, we'll work with you. Tim Solanic: Great. I appreciate that. This is a letter from a David Webster who's a member of Ocean Park Civic League who can't be here. Is this the conceptual site plan? Great. First I wanted to start off thanking you for the extra time. And to make it clear what I said about apologizing for time being spent here, that's not on behalf of Ocean Park Civic League. I apologize for having to be here because I thought we were still, like I said communicating very well together. We had several meetings. We walked the property a couple of times. They marked a few live oaks somewhere between three and thirteen. I heard the number of nine today. On the lot, live oaks, four lanes Shore Drive, four lanes Lesner Bridge there. Ronald Ripley: We know. Tim Solanic: Okay. That's still part of the mix. So that's from my personal perspective. So, you'll hear some things today from other people who could imply that they're from a certain organization or they could be speaking on behalf of themselves as an individual. That was my individual part. This is on behalf of Ocean Park Civic League. On May 8th, Mr. Bourdon and Mr. Curfman made a presentation, which we have seen before and I notice that you're looking at your watch and I'll be as quick as I can. Ronald Ripley: It's a bad habit. Tim Solanic: On May 8th, we made a motion and it was passed unanimously that we request the Board to deny the Conditional Use Permit dated May 8th, 2003 for the multi- family dwellings for the following reasons. Like I said, this is on behalf of Ocean Park Civic League, Chesapeake House has a number of members. Chesapeake House members and other communities or members of Ocean Park Civic League and this was at an official meeting. The first section was the plans do not conform to Carolyn Smith's recommendations. I don't need to say anything about the four-lane/six lane 150 foot whatever. We've come down here in busloads to help support them not having the setback. That was my personal. Number two of this motion that was passed unanimously on May 8th, we object to any variances. On a personal note, that's the variances that will increase the density on Shore Drive, which could cause a tipping point for that six -lane nightmare. Anyway, number three the concerns of the residents of the Chesapeake House have concerning the excavation of this property and the potential for additional vehicular traffic through their parking lot has not been addressed to their satisfaction. And number four, we would prefer the City to reconsider the purchase of this property. That falls into the Open Space Plan from the year 2000. Money is very tight. There was $50 million in there. There was 80 acres pointed out that needed to be purchased from various studies up in the Shore Drive community and $0 have been spent and zero property has been purchased and this was one of the properties that was on the list. Ronald Ripley: But you know, we're dealing with the land use recommendations. Tim Solanic: Right. Ronald Ripley: We have no authority to buy real estate. Tim Solanic: I understand. I'm just getting that on the record. Ronald Ripley: Talk to Council about that. Tim Solanic: I'm getting that on the record like Bourdon mentioned. Ronald Ripley: Elements. Tim Solanic: There are 38 signatures in a brief amount of time representing that particular motion for those four points. You deny the Conditional Use Permit. Like I said I apologize again for having to do this because we wanted to come. This is the only copy, if you would like additional copies of all 38 people. I guess I'm going to jump around a little bit here. This morning Mr. Scott said as you remember that he hopes he never sees Shore Drive go to six lanes. That goes directly to not allowing variances or Conditional Use Permits, which would increase the density. The hardship that is mentioned and I don't know what type of analogy I can make but I'm personally against any kind of condemnation or anything like that, which is obviously is not the case for this property. But, this private property rights and they certainly can build what they want within the guidelines of variances, Conditional Use Permits and the laws. The hardships, I think its in Section 9.3 under Variances that, "personal or self inflicted hardships shall be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance." When the property was purchased it had the sand dunes. The covenant is known about on the sand dunes. It was that shape. The heights, the buildings to the west, which is another major concern for the civic league and the architectural interest and the bulkiness from Section 221 from Carolyn's report was there. So, the hardship of the height, the size of the lot, the sand dune, the shape and everything, I mean that is how the lot was purchased. So, that is pretty much self-inflicted. Under Section A, the strict application of the ordinance will produce undue hardship. Like I said, the dune restriction was on the property when it was purchased. Section B, the authorization of the variance will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. Directly to the west, right here there are several three-story condos. Over here is the 13-story Chesapeake House and if you want a tour of the property, we can certainly do so right now or anytime you want too. The bulkiness and the size of this structure really overwhelm the three-story homes that are to the west. And, that's our biggest issue is basically the height of this project. Another huge issue for us which would be a great bonus is the live oaks that have saved are fantastic because originally they were saving zero and planting none, now they're saving some, where between three and thirteen and today nine. There's a live oak that's approximately this big. No kidding. That sprawls out this far. It's about 300 years old. I'm not an arbonst. I'm not exactly sure of the age. It's somewhere between 200-300 years old. Like I said it's approximately right here. It could be worked out to save that. We would have busloads of people here in support of that kind of project. It's a signature plant. It's the respect of the living organism that's been here to say everything. Tree hugger or whatever you happen to be, the tree hugging capitalist Who reads that silly stuff that's written in the paper and I'm not in the environmental fringe and I'm not anti -development. No one's really anti -development up in Shore Drive, short of the six lanes So, in conclusion, we agree, like I said with the Section 221 of the hardship, is basically self-inflicted and the bulkiness and the height of the structure overwhelms the architecture and design of those homes west of the property. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any questions? I've got a question. It came to me as you were speaking about the height and the bulkiness part of it and what made me think of this and you know there was an application on the other side of the bridge that went through Planning and went through Council and was very contested, and the residents next to that were very upset over losing view and things like that. That was their real concern. In this instance, is anybody losing any views? I'm just trying to think about the site relative to the buildings that are on the ground already. I've walked this myself and walked around the property and I'm trying to think. Tim Solanic: Ed, would you agree that six stones can be about here, I guess? Do you agree with that? The view would basically be out the front door of their porches. There's a beach house right here. This is on Seagull Walk and then there's three units right here. So, there's 1-2-3-4-5. Ronald Ripley: Put the site plan back up if you all would please. Those houses on the other side of the road, that's what struck me. Tim Solanic: Right here. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. Tim Solanic: Well, the view that they lose. This is their front yard. The view they lose is six story structure right in front of their house. Ronald Ripley: They may be impacted but they're across the street right? Tim Solaruc: Have you been on Dinwiddie Road? Ronald Ripley: Oh yeah, I sure have. I was there yesterday walking around the property looking at it. Tim Solanic: So you it's like Dinwiddie Alley. If people would parallel park on both sides, you could not drive down there. Ronald Ripley: You need to speak here because the TV can't pick that up. Tim Solanic: If people were to parallel park on both sides of that street you could not drive down that street. Ronald Ripley: It's narrow. I agree Tim Solanic: Right. Ronald Ripley: Okay, you answered by question. Thank you. Tim Solanic: Then when you're about the variances and stuff, it's true that the setting back the building are getting a fenced variance. You know that's great but they want to shift the building back. Unfortunately, and it goes back to somewhat which we had discussions about that and apparently we weren't that clear but again this goes back to and it's their private property. They can do whatever they want within the law and the variance and Conditional Use Permits and stuff but that particular 300-year old tree and you happen to see it. It might look kind of scruffy right now because it hasn't been pruned or anything. It's sort of sprawling and laying there. That's a large signature issue as well. But the bulkiness of that building in front of the residents of those three-story homes right there is pretty overwhelming. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Tim Solanic: Any other questions? Ronald Ripley: Do you have a question Will? William Din Just one comment. I don't think we're approving any variances here. This is a Conditional Use Permit and the variances you're talking about are not the hardship and things are not part of this application. Tim Solanic: Right. I understand. William Din. I just wanted to make sure. You were making comment that there were no hardships here. We're not trying to prove any hardships. Tim Solanic- Right. Planting a lot of seeds and continuously try to water them. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Tracy Ester. Tracy Estep: Good afternoon. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tracy Estep and I reside in the Cape Story by the Sea neighborhood. I was disappointed to see the Conditional Use Permit signs appear on the Dinwiddie property. know that this property has been slated for the possible purchase under the 2000 Outdoors Plan. The green space along Shore Drive is rapidly disappearing and the Dinwiddie property is home to several large oak trees, one of which Tim was discussing is over 200 years old tree. I have a picture of it if you all would like to view it. This is when the property was kept up and about 20 years ago the tree looked like this before. And, this property is very unique to the City because it's the last dune on the Bay side west of the Lesner Bridge. And, if the property does have to be developed I would just hope that the trees could really be given an issue of saving some. I know they have on the site plan there are trees they are trying to save but most of those trees are very small seedlings that are around there. And, I have lived here my entire life and I have watched the trees disappear and just all the condos. I drive that Shore Drive five times a day. And it's just condo, condo, condo. And, I'm not opposed to the condos but just please the green trees and not the small K-mart trees that developers put back for their landscaping. Just something of substance that looks like live oaks and live oaks are very unique to our area and they really, really are losing them rapidly. And, thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Yes Kathy. Kathy Katsias: I know being on the Shore Drive Council we're trying to preserve a lot of these oak trees. Where actually is that tree? Tracy Estep: This tree is right here and I should use the pointer, it's right here. To me it's the right-of-way is right here. It's this large tree. The nght-of-way is close. It seems like its only ten feet away. If the building wasn't so large, maybe it could fit it in somehow. But, it's right here. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Wade Ogg. Wade Ogg: Good afternoon. I'm Wade Ogg. I'm a resident of the Chesapeake House, the mammoth building to the right, which has a great view of our beautiful bay in our City. I'm here today not representing myself but I am representing the Board of Directors for the Chesapeake House. You have been faxed this letter. I'd like it to go on record please. There are two issues regarding this proposed development that are direct concerns to the Board of Directors of the Chesapeake House on the Bay. The first one is necessitated by excavation and regrading the portion of the eastern boundary of the Dupont Circle, the undeveloped street. Where the development will share a common entry off of Shore Drive. Due to the fact that the parking garage of the Chesapeake House on the Bay is built on pilings that are approximately two feet deep and any displacement of soil, especially at the north end of the post driveway could cause major problems to the Chesapeake House parking garage and lot. This excavation and regrading will require some kind of retaining wall to ensure that no displacement of the Chesapeake House property occurs. The second area of concern and of major concern is the potential and I think they were going light, the way I am speaking now with the word potential because anybody that has tried to get out from that side to go west would have to go down and make a u-turn across, hopefullyjust two lanes of traffic to go back the other way. If I lived in that place and was going east there's no dirt that I would go through (inaudible). To me, personally I'm speaking now and what's more than a potential. For traffic cutting through the front parking lot of the Chesapeake House to access the traffic light at the corner of Shore Drive and Stratford Road. The drive is a private one for use of the Chesapeake House residents only. There would be a need to restrict the traffic, and something that would be acceptable for the residents of Chesapeake House and this was submitted by the Board. And, what we're asking is if this permit is allowed we request that satisfying these concerns be a condition of the permit. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Jack Bryan. Jack Bryan: Good afternoon. I was passed a note here. I'm with Baylake Pines Civic League and I was also passed a note and was able to confirm this that the Board of Directors of Chesapeake House has not endorsed this project. The gentleman who passed me this note has some difficult speaking. Wade Ogg: The statement that I just read is the statement that the Board of Directors have taken towards this whole project. Jack Bryan: And just to clarify the issue that was passed to me. I did want to relay that to my knowledge. This is a fact. And, I don't want to be in opposition to another group. However, let me go forward with my statement. I represent Baylake Pines Civic League. That's one of the first planning communities in the City of Virginia Beach. Bayside Borough, Princess Anne County and I represent 325 single-family residences. On Monday, May 121h, our Board met to reaffirm that we are on record encouraging the City Council and the Open Space Committee with letters to recognize this property as open space. It's a direction directly in contrast to the proposed development. The proposed development does not fit within Baylake Pines vision of our Shore Drive community since we adhere to the respect of side lot and frontage setbacks. The City has recently experienced this at the Baylake Road in the Shore Drive area. In trying to place a traffic light there. Our community had to work with the City to keep trees from being cut down and I see it the same as having a building put up where you're widening of Shore Drive or are widening of Shore Drive eventually when our grandchildren do, is going to have to reacquire this property and possibly tear off the front of the garage roof. In today's meeting this was revealed to me in your report before the Planning Commission that is a primary coastal sand dune. And, at the foot of the pool or the primary coastal sand dune ends and the pool begins. The dune top is 20 feet above sea level. The pool is six or seven feet above sea level. Could you bring up the next slide sir in sequence? That one. I think all of you have a plan like this? And, it shows a 20-foot sand dune, an 18-foot sand dune and it's designated in your report as a primary coastal sand dune. Let me stick to my plan so I don't start babbling on here. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bryan also, your already out of time. We worked with the Ocean Park Civic League with more time so if you can sort of wrap it up. Jack Bryan: I will wrap it up sir. Yes. Ronald Ripley: Please. Jack Bryan: The construction staging area will place materials and equipment in the dune or in the City right-of-way. They have to identify the staging area and methods of construction in their site plan and I would like Mr. Bourdon to provide me, and this group with that information here today. I would also like him to explain how, which is new to me, how they would build a bulkhead through that dune line. It would be required to put a bulkhead between those two properties. Which property line was he refemng too? And, whose property would he be placing that bulkhead an in order to make promises to the Chesapeake House. I'm not sure why that promise was placed here before you and I'm not sure what property he's referring too. I think if your using that as your consideration, it would be inappropriate because he did not designate it in this plan. Ronald Ripley: He can address at the rebuttal. Jack Bryan: Yes sir I'm asking that it be addressed. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Jack Bryan: I came here to address public facilities because our neighborhood also relies on this and I grew up in Ocean Park. I think that the plan has already addressed the fact the pump stations will have to be improved and upgraded. Recently the pump station at Ocean Park on that side of the road was upgraded in order to accommodate the Three Ships Inn property. And, I'm not sure and I would like the City Planner and Mr. Bourdon to address what upgrades are required, whether not a new facility would have to be put in place. Ronald Ripley: They'll determine that at site plan approval. Public Utilities will measure how many flows are there and whether you can even take this capacity. Jack Bryan: But sir, it's addressed in your report to you as an issue to consider. If your using that in your consideration, I would ask that you ask that same question because the facilities will have an effect on what occurs across the site plan. Ronald Ripley: But the reality. Jack Bryan: Continuing on let me finish. Ronald Ripley: Hold on. The reality is what will happen they'll determine that. The engineers will determine if along with the City engineers. If there's not enough flows, you can't even put half the units in there if he doesn't have the flows. And it doesn't upgrade it so it meets the criteria to handle everybody in the area, it's in there and I know, but really land use is really more concerning to us at this point, but go ahead, proceed. Jack Bryan: That may be part of your concern but part of your consideration is the information in this packet. Ronald Ripley- It is Jack Bryan: And it is placing this packet as an item by the City saying that upgrades will be required. That capacity if you're using that as your criteria, which I believe you are. It wouldn't be in there for that purpose otherwise. I'm providing you with more information. Ronald Ripley: Okay, fine. Proceed. Jack Bryan: We at Baylake find suit that the developer's plan is too severe and infringing on the many items within your purview. We encourage the property owners and builder to revisit the plan to meet more desirable and palatable venue. Respectfully we defer your decision. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions9 Robert Miller: Next speaker is William Hook. William Hook: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is William Hook and I've been involved with the Ocean Park Civic League for well over 20 years now. Ronald Ripley Past Mayor up there I think. William Hook. What's that? Ronald Ripley: You're the past Mayor I think. William Hook: Well, yeah. Well my granddaddy was a designer of the engineering that planned Ocean Park so I'm calling myself the Grandfather clause. Ronald Ripley: There you go. Good to see you Mr. Hook. William Hook: Thank you. Mr. Dick Browner came to our community a long time ago and he had a proposal from Mr. Shifflett with the Virginia Beach Convention Center with a plan to build a pretty large hotel there. And, Dick had helped us in the past with our conflict with Ed Lindsley property and so forth, which the City prevailed. And, we felt you know, he was a very good friend of the community and when he came to us with this project we listened to him and we did note that we might owe him some indebtedness but this is not the way we way want to pay him back. And because of the dune covenant then he backed off real quick. And that land has been idle ever since. And, I would say well over 10 years. I'm not sure about my time line. Well, a few years later, developers came to us and they wanted adjoin the Newton property and the Three Ships Inn property. And, they wanted to put six very large high-rise condominiums there. And, our community did a lot of research and people in the community find the developer that would come in and could make a profit with single-family dwellings. So, that's what happened if you notice. People still right below there still close together but given the alternative I think Shore Drive is much better off Urban Land Institute has recommended for Shore Drive more open space, less density. And they even suggested the controversial subject of down zoning that some localities have actually done. Although, I don't know how feasible that would be along Shore Drive The Comprehensive Plan has called for 80-acres of open space and we don't have any. And, this piece of property and I know this is irrelevant but it would be a crown jewel to our nice public beach. The public beach in an area behind this proposed project will be a sun block. So, quite frankly we beseech you to help us keep condo canyon on the east side of Lynnhaven River. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. I think that's all the speakers that have signed up. Mr. Bourdon, would you like to readdress us? Eddie Bourdon: I would like the opportunity. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. First of all, the Shore Drive Overlay District's adoption is in fact and was in fact as it applies to multi -family and only multi -family on B-4 zoned property be a down zoning and that is actually what has happened. And, the improved site plan that my client had on this property chose not to go forward with developing 40 units. He could not do today other than try to assert that the site plan is still legally binding but it is nothing but a down zoning. However, what we've gotten in return is a far, far, far greater quality development proposal than you would have had then and frankly, I think then anything we've seen. So, this is an example of how down zoning has worked and will work. The Three Ships Inn property that Mr. Hook referenced is not nor has it ever been zoned B-4. And, someone would argue and I would be one, that this would be a far more attractive project or product than that. And the Three Ships Inn property is not directly adjacent to a 13-story, 120-unit high-rise that is also zoned B-4. The upgrades that the gentleman from Baylake Pines talked about that may be needed to the pump stations are done at the developer's expense. And, that's all part of the construction plan and engineering of the project, which does not take place at this point. It takes place after the Use Permit is approved The Ocean Park Civic League meeting, the second meeting that we had with Ocean Park, was attended by 41 people, and a number of them who live in the Chesapeake House and there are, including the Chesapeake House, well over 450 residents of Ocean Park who represent less 10 percent of the residents that were at that meeting. And frankly, we've had great communications with Tim and Darryl and Billy Sykes who's not here today. And, we believe and what I think you heard today for the most part we've had a lot of positives from them but something happened at that meeting. I'm not going to go into. You got a letter from Mr. Webster who's a former employee of my client and I'm not going to rebut that today. Hopefully he will come to the City Council meeting. The Baylake Pines Civic League, we've never spoke to and their position apparently is that the City should buy it. I respect that part of their position, similarly the position of anyone who says they ought to buy it. But, the other arguments in my opinion, they don't have any other than we want to make it difficult to develop so that maybe the City can buy it at a cheaper price. Our previous approved plan would have widened Dinwiddie Road and access would have been from Dinwiddie Road. No trees would have been saved. The trees that we are saving are not seedlings. They are good sized trees and we are going to try and transplant trees that are on the site now to the front of the site only live oaks will be used other than the landscaping directly in front of the wall. The argument that was put forth that the Chesapeake House dwarfs the three- story buildings to our west is precisely why we need a building that is an appropriate step down. An appropriate transition in terms of size but it clearly is a step up in terms of quality and that's what this represents, a tremendous step up in terms of quality. A half million dollars or more will be the selling price of each of these units. A CUP, a Conditional Use Permit does not amount to and is not an increase in density. We are asking for a Use Permit for the decreased density that the Overlay imposed. Bottom line, the arguments against are basically, you know, the City should buy it. So, I'm not going to argue with anybody's argument in that regard but unless there's a money pit out there, I don't think the City can afford to buy this piece of property and maybe they can afford to buy some of the Crab Creek property across the way. But, this property is going to be developed and we believe we have provided to this Commission and to the City a very wonderful plan for it's development and a quality plan that exceeds anything that has been placed on the table prior to today. I'll be happy to answer any questions if I failed to answer anything that was brought up by the opposition I don't know what mis- communication reference that Tim made. We've been communicating with him, Billy Sykes and we'll continue to communicate with the civic league and with the Chesapeake House folks who we believe and the mention that was made, and if you've been to the property. This is the parking garage. This 2s Dupont Circle improved to here now. We'll be extending it to here. There is a slope here and the concern of the Chesapeake House is in improving the public right-of-way if we don't do something to shore up this slope and there is a slope there. It's not a severe slope but there's definitely a slope there, but there could be shifting of the sand underneath this corner of the parking garage. There is no sand dune here. It has nothing to do with any sand dune. But, it's all grass and what we suggest is that we might need to come in here on the property line and put in a retaining wall just in this corner where we're going to be improving the right-of-way. The rest of this right-of-way will remain as it is today unimproved. It's grassy. There are sailboats that people have put up in this area for the winter. But, that is the wall that we would be looking at possibly putting any structure to make sure that the sand underneath is foundation doesn't shift into the nght-of-way. It has nothing to do with sand dune and it has nothing to do with anything other than being a good neighbor. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Kathy Katsias. Kathy Katsias: Back again about the preservation of the trees. The 300-year old tree, are you planning to preserve that? Eddie Bourdon: It cannot be. The distance from the edge of the pavement to the property line in this area is approximately 8-10 feet and there is another eight feet to the building. There is roughly 17-18 feet from the edge of pavement to the building. That tree, while it's in this area the root system extends. It's a spread out tree and there's not possible way unfortunately that particular tree can be saved. There are no trees on this side of the property and there are nine trees we've identified in the area along here and there not seedlings but not the 300-year old tree. But we are committed to saving, and again, were going to try and transplant some other trees. With the original approved site plan, Dinwiddie Road would have been widened and that's where our access would have been and there would have been no trees and that's where the trees are. There would have been no trees saved. It wouldn't have been possible to save the first tree. We will be saving the trees that we can on that side and try to transplant others. That's all that we can do We have and I believe that Mr. Solanic, although I know that he would love to see that tree saved would acknowledge that we have worked with them to the best of our ability short of doing a totally different development to save the trees within what were working with. Kathy Katsias: I'm also concerned with the visitor parking. Is there anyway? I mean six spaces is still not a lot for a condominium this size, on street parking or any other solution? Eddie Bourdon: Most certainly the potential exists to improve more of Dupont Circle in this area and add some opportunity for on street parking. It's certainly something that could be done and certainly do a wider paving section here and provide the opportunity for on street parking so there is certainly that opportunity. We also, I believe have the opportunity here for a parking space but I'm not totally certain about that. Ms. Katsias, excuse me, that is a possibility. We really have not explored that at this point and we would not want to add on -street parking on the Dinwiddie side. I don't think it would be problematic in terms of the capability with parking garage and their parking lot. So, there is that opportunity in this area for some off-street parking. The one concern and I don't want to speak for the community. We would be willing to look into doing that and I don't know if the community would be necessarily favorable to that but we would be able to look at that. Ronald Ripley: Any comments? I want to reiterate. This is a question of you Mr. Bourdon And, looking at I see what the staff recommended as additional reservation on the right-of-way, and I don't know the exact distance that's indicated on this P&B study that was done in October 18, 2001 on page A6. I can't tell what the distance is but it looks like a line and how wide that is, I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's prudent on the Commission's part to ignore that if that's a need that was identified and a paid study that the City had done specifically to meet the needs of the stakeholders and all of the studies that have gone on this. I tell you, all the time that I've spent personally on the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, when I look back on it, it's amazing. But, it's not a great deal of consideration in my mind to honor that particular setback or that particular reservation requirement. So, my question is would your client honor that and adjust his plan accordingly? Eddie Bourdon: I believe that we would have to do that and I don't have any. I haven't talked to him but that part of it to the extent that's what the Parsons Brickerhoff study recommends, I think we would certainly work with the staff to do just that. But, our concern is we've been told all along its 150 and that is what we want. That basically renders the property. We'll be going back to court to try to enforce this site plan as being something that was approved before we give up that much of the property. But we would certainly work with the City to try and implement the minimal amount that is shown here and it would involve inevitably some change in the building but it would not be significant in my opinion. Ronald Ripley: I can't sit here and tell you what that distance is because it's not shown on here. All I know is that by serving on that Committee, what I said this morning and I'll repeat it is that it is my understanding that there's sufficient right-of-way within the Shore Drive Corridor to accommodate six -lanes including bypass and lighting and landscaping. With the exception that there would be need to be some take in various different spots and this particular sheet on page A6 indicates that there is some taking required, most of which appears to be on the southern half but once again, this study is a study that was done and things could change going forward and will change. I'm sure So, I'm sure and I respect Mr. Scott and his staff erring on the side of caution to you to require as much right-of-way that they can so that they have the flexibility to move that road the best they could in the future because at some point in the future it may be required. As I said this morning and as we've talked about who knows how long that will be. I think I'll be a very old person and maybe not even here by the time we get around to the point of having to do that but the conflict that I've had in reading this staff report is just that and also the familiarity of the right-of-way. I'm not an engineer and not pretending to be. I'm not pretending to know the amount of distance that's shown for the reservation but it doesn't appear to be a large amount to me. I brought it up this morning and I Just want to put it on the record. It's just my opinion. Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? William Din: Just a little point of clarification for me. When I was asking that question where that red line was, does that just affect the trees or does that affect the building itself? Eddie Bourdon. It won't affect any of the improvements. What it has the potential to affect Will, we're really talking about a section here. And, I'm just going from the need of 16 to get to 126, so that's with the proportions here clearly we're talking about just a matter of a few feet off of this black line. Okay, but what happens when you do that, lets assume just for the sake of discussion that in this corner we need five more feet of right- of-way. Okay Then what that results, in is to meet a 30-foot setback from the new right- of-way, this part of the building needs to move back five feet. It doesn't affect the building other than its setback from the ultimate right-of-way. When staff says 150-foot ultimate right-of-way their saying that the right-of-way line comes here to the front of the building and the whole building got to be shifted back 30-feet and that in our estimation, I won't go back and repeat the comments. It wouldn't affect anything here than we would have to again, shorten the north/south run of the building by whatever amount is coming off here. And, it clearly it has no affect on this side and it has, I believe a minimal affect on the east side but it would have to shift the building most likely. William Din: I understand. Ronald Ripley: Gene, do you have a question? Eugene Crabtree: Yes. Just for clarification Eddie, I did understand you earlier to say that you would put a gate or something in that driveway that goes to Chesapeake House to prevent the people from your property driving through to cut through and use that as a roadway if they so desired. Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. We have communicated with Chesapeake House and because there's not a consensus at this point but we have communicated with them and we've met with them twice in civic meetings that we would work with them to put in whatever means they felt, because it's their private property it was necessary for us to make sure that we didn't have traffic cutting through their parking lot, if it meant a gate on this end. It wouldn't be one on the other end and the other end is the main access to their property, so it wouldn't be from a fire and safety issue of problem because they have a intersection with a full traffic light on the east side of their property. Eugene Crabtree: I just asked you this to clarify what was going on the Chesapeake Houses concerns and that was one of their concerns. I just wanted that clarified. Eddie Bourdon: And, we've communicated that to them and I think they're aware that they want to make sure that it gets totally on the record and we have indicated an absolute willingness to do that and I think we've done that today. Ronald Ripley: And also Gene, additional study was done by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, I believe and it dealt with the traffic issue and the turning in and turning out and that lights a new light isn't it Bob? Isn't that a new traffic light? Robert Scott: Yeah. It was put in there. Ronald Ripley: Because that intersection was a very high traffic accident area. And, that is I hope has solved a lot of those problems. Very low traffic problems on these intersections but then again you got new people moving in so, that's subject to change. But that's very much the issue. Eddie Bourdon: That is the intersection where the stop light is located at the full intersection here and the concern again is people in this vicinity that want to go eastbound rather than wanting to coming out here. And the light does gives you the automatic break when the light's red so you could come out here, I think easily come across and make a u-turn to go that way because of the presence of that light. But the concern is a legitimate concern that people in here want to go eastbound and just cut through the parking lot and come out and go eastbound. And, that's why we said we would address that but the way to do it would be on this end of their private property so it would not inhibit anyway any emergency vehicle access to their property, which would clearly occur here because there is no median break there I think that makes sense. Ronald Ripley: That traffic light will provide a break. You're right. Eddie Bourdon: Obviously everybody in this society that convenience, convenience, convenience, it may not be most convenient but it will provide the break that is so close that it would be very easy for people leaving here to come across because there won't be any traffic coming and do the u-turn. Now the u-turn is never an ideal scenario but certainly that can happen and that's going to be case anyway. The other thing that you mentioned Mr. Chairman, these are the condos back here and you can see where we're building back in this area cannot conceivably have an impact on any of their views. There are two houses here behind the Mexican restaurant where the front of the house faces Dinwiddie that they'll be facing the side of our building. But in terms of the views used up and down the Beach and of the ocean and even the house here, it's view this way across our property is not impacted at all. It's just looking in the direction that really anyone would conceive to be the principal view field stretched directly across that would be impacted. So, were not impacting views other than what we have to do to build it. Ronald Ripley: Charlie, do you have a question? Charlie Salle': I have a question to Mr. Scott. I'm trying to resolve this right-of-way issue but the write up reflects the ordinance that says we have to measure the setbacks from the ultimate right-of-way line. And, I don't have the text of the ordinance here but I presume it says that and I guess the mass Transportation Plan has set that ultimate right- of-way line regardless of Eddie's argument that we may or may not adhere to it in the past. We have, it looks like before, so the ordinance and it says we're required to adhere to it. And, I guess with that is that ultimate right-of-way line is it determined in an exact manner or how are we? Robert Scott: First of all, let's go over what the Master Transportation Plan says, it's plain, simple, basic. It says the right-of-way from Shore Drive is to be 150-feet wide. Period. We feel that at this point not knowing anything else about it, we need to be measuring that equally from the center line, although I do see the wisdom and comments that sooner or later especially if you move farther west from the bridge there is a likelihood that a decision will be made to start moving a bit south from that road. We have not made that decision and there are people that are going to be greatly affected by that decision if it's made, people who own property on the south side. If we're deciding to take more property from them, they need to know about that. So, at this point that is what we're doing, is measuring equally in each direction from the centerline. Now could we go with less nght-of-way? Well, yes but our plan is not to squeeze this road in. That's why we did the Shore Drive Study. That's why we invested in coming up with a plan that hopefully does more than just squeeze a road in but provides an appropriate and hopefully a very beautiful road in the future, which is going to require more area to do it in. I see no reason why we can't work with the property owners along the road knowing that Shore Drive is not virgin territory. It's not bordered by soybean fields, it's bordered by very expensive and for the most part built up properties although those properties are not built up. Nevertheless, there are going to be some effects and I do think we need to be sensitive to that as we go through there. But, what we can't deal with is a commitment to simply have a narrower right-of-way. What we can't live with is an idea of just doing the minimal and seeing what we can squeeze in. That's not what we committed to do when we committed to doing the Shore Drive Corridor Now with that, I think we have a willingness to work with the property owners along there but I think everybody needs to know what we can and can't do in the process of working with them. So, it is an issue. Charlie Salle': I guess that's the concern that I have it appears that we have an ordinance that says you essentially have to have that setback from the ultimate right-of-way, which is so far been determined to include more of the property than the study shows or Eddie thinks is there. And, I don't know how we approve this application, which is essentially unlawful in its development, if you adhere to the setback, which is required by the ordinance. I don't know how to get around that. Eddie Bourdon: Every development that I referenced is exactly. If you interpret the law to read the way your interpreting the law to read, then it has been approved in contravention of that law. Charlie Salle': Well, maybe that's happened but I guess what I'm trying to deal with is what we have before us now and if the ordinance absolutely requires that it be that the buildings be set back from the ultimate right-of-way line, I don't know how we can go on record of saying we're going to ignore it. Eddie Bourdon: There are clearly, and Mr. Salle' clearly and I think you recognize this from the records is that there are taking issues involved with that and I think that explains why it has not been adhered to, that and the clear, clear belief of the people in the community that they don't want that type of a road. I think those are the issues. I have a personal belief that it's being put out here for a different reason but I may be wrong in that belief. So, I'm going to keep it to myself in terms and the idea of the City buying it. If the City wants to buy it, and I don't think they have the desire or the money to buy it but if they want to buy it, they will have to buy it at its developable value and attempting to assert on this piece of property that it is the only one that this is going to apply to and it doesn't apply to anywhere else, gives me a great deal of indigestion. Ronald Ripley: Charlie, I said it this morning and I wouldn't be taking the position that taking if this level of detail hadn't been applied to the Corridor or the level of design detail for preliminary design detail on the right-of-way. And, in my mind and this has happened subsequent to the Master Transportation Plan of 150-feet, which is just laid in on the Corridor. And, I think it had a much wider one at one point. It came down to 150- feet and then I think through negotiating with the neighborhood and the stakeholders, what they want, they don't want a main thoroughfare through. They want it to be a resort neighborhood not a way to get to the north end of the beach quicker. And, I think the 150-feet is just and hopefully there is a compromise and Mr. Scott, hopefully you all can meet and I don't know if you have to spend more time with the applicant on this or if he's willing to do that to discuss that particular point. I don't know if there's any part or not. If it's not, its not and I totally respect that. I'd ask you to compromise any kind of position that you feel that you can. Robert Scott. I think we're saying that we are willing to investigate those things but what we cannot compromise is the principal behind the improvements of Shore Drive. Ronald Ripley: I don't disagree with you there. I'm right there with you. Robert Scott: We do not energize the community so we can squeeze a road in there. We energize the community to do it right. And, with that in mind there are different ways to do that and I think the City staff and I'm speaking for others beside the Planning Department here but I think we will be willing to at least investigate it for an opportunity. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon. I don't know if you were listening but I was asking Mr. Scott if he'd be willing to investigate other opportunities or any other opportunities in handling this potential reservation. And, he's indicating that they would consider that. Would you all be willing to meet with him on that, I mean, would that be something that if you could work through that, I think that would solve a lot of issues. Eddie Bourdon: We will be very happy to work with the staff with the issue being that the right-of-way width per the Parsons Bnckerhoff study. We also will continue to work with the civic league. I was talking to Tim. And, again, we had very positive dialogue for the most part with the civic league. I know that there are people in the civic league that want to see the property be preserved. We'll work with anybody and we have and we demonstrated that. And, Stan did that when he chose not to develop the original plan and the civic league said they would support him on doing a Use Permit for 27 units. So, we'll continue to work with everybody but we've got to work with being treated the way everyone else has been treated and reasonable parameters, not being told we will give a 150-foot ultimate right-of-way on our property. Ronald Ripley: I don't have any reason to think that you hadn't been treated the way anybody else has been treated. I'm sure you've been treated as fairly as possible. Mr. Scott, if it would be worth your time and the applicant's time to meet, you think you all could come together on something that maybe would be acceptable from your point and your point. Robert Scott: I'm willing to guarantee the effort. I can't guarantee the outcome. Eddie Bourdon: We'll guarantee the effort as well. The one issue that has not been addressed and I think is important and frankly it's the crucial element is the height of the building. We certainly, because there's been some discussion at least I see it as condition number five on the recommendation that the building be three -stones in height and as long as and my point is we can look at adjusting the building and moving it back from the ultimate right-of-way width but we're not going to be in the position to make a three- story building and do the quality product that we're looking at doing here and doing an appropriate transition. So, I wouldn't expect you to put us on the spot with that issue but I just want to put that on the record. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Will it be acceptable from the Commission's point of view to give them some more time to defer this and to try and work through this issue? Eugene Crabtree: I will so move that we defer it. Ronald Ripley: So a motion by Gene Crabtree to defer. Seconded by Kathy Katsias. We're not in discussion point of view. Tim Solanic: From what I understand that's why it goes a back hoping to get on the public record and for clarification about some communication that Mr. Bourdon and Fort Worth and Ocean Park Civic League has had just to get it on the record. Ronald Ripley: Can you work with him between now and the next meeting and then if you need to bring it on to the record we will, if that's alright with you. We're going to have to deal with this some more at the next meeting. Tim Solanic: Sure. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Tim Solanic: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: So we have motion to defer. Second, is it Kathy? Any discussion? We're ready to vote. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from this. My firm is working on the project. AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY AYE SALLE" AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 8-0 with one abstention, the motion carries. We're going to take a 10-minute recess. Please back here in 10 minutes. Be back at 4:00 o'clock. Item # 15 Fort Worth Development, Inc. Conditional Use Permit North side of Shore Drive between Dinwiddie Road and Dupont Circle District 4 Ba side I l S� y0 �'�'piceZll`jC:1 'PL+d �%j� r! �f/ "IrbSl CV4 JVr1� REGULAR Robert Miller- The next item is Fort Worth Development, Inc. Eddie Bourdon: For those of you who didn't hang on to or bring your packages from last month, I've got packages, which I'm passing around. Again, there is a little bit of additional information in what I've passed around to what I provided last month. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney. I'm representing Fort Worth Development on this application. I'm going to state like I state every single time that this application and my representation had no relationship whatsoever to the Crab Creek proposal on the other side of Shore Drive. I'm going to be far briefer this month than I was last month. I appreciate your indulgence last month. It is a complicated application. I would ask very strongly if the staff could be sure to have included in the package to City Council the transcript from the May public hearing. As there was a lot of information provided then that I would not be repeating today. The property we're dealing with, just to summarize, is on the north side of Shore Drive located next to the 13-story tall, 120 unit Chesapeake House Condominium and adjacent to the Chesapeake House is the 356 Home on the Bay Condominium which is 10 stones in height. The property that we're dealing with is a B-4 zoned piece of property that's been owned by my client for close to 20 years. To our west is a property that is zoned B- 2 where on it is located a Mexican restaurant. And, I dare say that if someone came in with a tightly proffered plan so much as Mr. Arnold's plan for that Mexican restaurant. He got nd of that. The folks who live adjacent to it in those duplexes to the north who think their quality of life had been improved dramatically. But, still they wouldn't want it to be rezoned in a way that would leave it open to putting a high-rise on it. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit today. We're forced to do that under the Shore Drive Overlay Ordinance, which was adopted in 1999, which down zoned this property by a total of 13-units and instituted this Conditional Use Permit process. In 1999, the applicant had a site plan approved by the City of Virginia Beach for a 40-unit condominium on this site. In your package, I have included an elevation of what that building would have looked like on the top of the left side of your package. My client decided not to do that to wait and try to upgrade the project to a high -end project and what a good decision that was given the market and how the market has development. Also in this package on the left side you'll see a letter from Mr. Jim McElligott, the President of the Ocean Park Civic League dated May 7, 1999 and a letter from myself to Bob Scott dated May 20, 1999 and a recent letter from my client to the Ocean Park Civic League President Mr. Billy Sykes, who unfortunately, Billy has been under the weather and hasn't been able to attend any of the meetings here with the Planning Commission. Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 2 But, I would ask you if you have a chance to peruse and review those letters. The Ocean Park Civic League and the Chesapeake House, we've met with them on a number of occasions and we've changed our landscaping design. We preserved live oaks on the property as you heard us discuss last month. I've also mentioned to you that our landscape plan also consists of the recommendations containing the Parsons Bnckerhoff 2001 Transportation Study, which was adopted by City Council in 2002. And, that same adopted recommendation, although it's not in the Transportation Plan shows Shore Drive as 120 feet in width I want to mention on the record as I did last time, the Chesapeake House we've agreed to assist them. We will construct a wall if need be to protect the foundation of their parking garages that wraps around the backside or north side of our property. We will also provide them with a gate or other means of controlling cross traffic through their parking lot. This is our proposal for a 27-unit condominium, 2200 square feet plus size of the units. The units will sell for half million dollars and above, just what everyone wanted back in 1999, and if you look at the letter from Mr. McElligott and my letter to Mr. Scott. The only issue that I think exists in our eyes is one that we talked about last month. That's the 150 Shore Drive as called for in the Master Transportation Plan. In 1991, there was a 150-foot Shore Drive for an eight -lane highway. When the most recent Comprehensive Plan was adopted the eight lanes came out but it still stays 150-foot Shore Drive, 150-foot Shore Drive really doesn't exist and we don't think it will exist. But I will just point out these facts. The brick base of our fence on this proposal, which encloses our parking area and that is all it does is 30-feet from our front property line along Shore Drive. The building itself, the building with the units in it, which sits back from our fence, is 44-48 feet because of the architectural vanation from our front property line. There is an unimproved section of Shore Drive in front of our property line that averages 35 feet in width plus our fenced in parking area is 65 feet back from the existing pavement. And, our building is 79-83 feet back from the existing pavement. If we were to measure from the center line of Shore Drive and the median that exists in Shore Drive today, to the front of our property, the 75 feet back from that there would be an additional 20 feet of setback before you got to the fence. In other words, the fence is 95 feet back from the centerline measured from the middle of the median. And, our building is an additional 14-18 feet beyond that or 34-3 8 feet back from where our property line would be if 150 foot right-of-way were ever to occur along Shore Drive. I don't think Tim and all my friends here from Ocean Park, any of us want to see that ever happen and were that to happen the cost would be astronomical to acquire all the property along Shore Drive to widen it to 150 feet. And, in fact 356 on the Bay, I don't know if you could even get another 20 feet which would require to make the property on Shore Drive in front of 356 on the Bay 150 feet wide. It is now at 130. To acquire an additional 20 feet on each side would bring the road either into the building or at the building. And, I think that would actually be in the building. To suggest, as I did last month, and I have not been shown otherwise, that this property must have a setback that is based upon a road that is hypothetical and a road that I think no one desires to see or will ever see at a 150 feet in width is a taking. This property has already been the subject of a taking which we lived with and we actually wind up with a whole lot better product and everyone winds up with a whole lot better project because we did not move forward with that project back in 1999 for a 40-unit condominium that would have a first Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 3 floor finished elevation of 38 feet as is shown on that plan which will give you what you see in front of you today. The building that we have designed, we have done everything that has been asked of us from the staff prospective other than make the building shorter which we simply cannot do. We must fit the number of units that are allowed under the Overlay, which is not an increase in density but is in fact a decrease in density over the zoning that was on the property before the Overlay occurred. And, we have designed a building that will be very attractive. One that will have the units that will have the prices that we talked about and one that will not have any problem in being marketed given the conditions that exist on Shore Drive. One question that was asked last month was about parking? We have six visitor parking spaces in our parking, which is all underneath the building, all enclosed What we also will be doing and talking with our marketing people we expect a number of the units will not be occupied on a 365 day a year basis and many will just be a occupied temporary, weekends and during summer months. All of the parking spaces will be fitted with signs so that when people are not in their units and they're gone for weeks and months at a time, they'll just flip the little lever and it will say visitor space so that everyone will have the opportunity to utilize other spaces that are not in use in the parking garage. We also would make any other improvements to Dupont Circle to add parking availability to Dupont Circle but we don't believe our neighbors want to see that and it would be public parking. It would not be parking that could be restricted. But, those are two ways that additional parking can be provided. The original plan that was approved in 1999 as I mentioned last month and I will mention it again, did not involve any setback from a 150-foot nght-of-way. And, the 150 feet in the Master Transportation Plan has never changed. And, in fact that building was 14-18 closer to Shore Drive than this building and our parking was certainly 16 feet closer to Shore Drive than it is with this building. Everything about this building is a tremendous and substantial improvement of what was approved with our site plan in 1999. And, the civic league, at that point, was very supportive. Their position now has obviously somewhat changed. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? I do have a question. In the formal session, Mr. Scott, I understand you have worked through the front yard setback issue or the right-of-way issue. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: That is correct. We recognize that the law says that you have to get a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. I think we are in agreement that this has not been universally followed but I'm certainly not going to argue against what the law says even thought that has not been universally followed. We will go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The only variance required because of the 150-foot ultimate right-of-way where Shore Drive is for the fence and roof over it that protects the parking in front. Not for the building itself. And, it would be a variance that appears to us to be, although its not uniform across because of where the right-of-way, roughly a variance of 10 feet to a 20-foot setback for the brick face front structure of the building into the what would be the setback if the nght-of-way were to be a 150-feet at some point in the future. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Scott, does that sound about right? Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 4 Robert Scott: Yeah. I know that we all have opinions on what's legal and what's happening. Here are two important things. We need to acquire the right-of-way up to 150- feet purchased at fair market value at the time we need it without it being encumbered by structures and so forth. We're convinced that opportunity is there for us. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Robert Scott: Number two. We need to have the setback of the building to be measured from the line of distance to 30-feet, and I agree the building itself does to our collective eye appear to have that feature but it doesn't and he is going to need to get a variance to that aspect. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? Okay, we have some speakers. Dorothy Wood: Mary Compton. Mary Compton: I'm Mary Compton. And I live on Dinwiddie on the west side of the structure. I've lived there for over 20 years. And, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to express how I feel about this. First of all I want to say to you I would love more than anything to see a nice piece of property be developed on this lot that would add to the culture and character of Ocean Park. I do have some issues and I don't want to beat a dead horse to death but the notification of this coming before you today. I'm the closest residence to the property. I probably eat and sleep closer than anybody to this structure that's being built. And, I have seen no signs on the property that this was coming up today. I found out from my neighbor who had gotten a certified letter. And, I've not had any notification. The last time I didn't get notification but I did see the sign out there that made me aware that the hearing was coming up. So, I don't know what the process is to notify people about this or what, but do you normally post signs when the second hearing is coming up? Ronald Ripley: The sign has to be posted how many days? What is it 14 days? Robert Scott: Right now its 15 days. But that's going to be changed to 30. Mary Compton: But there have been no signs on this property that this was going to be on your agenda today Ronald Ripley: There's no sign up on that property? Mary Compton: No. Kathy Katsias: It's been taken down. There was one originally Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 5 Mary Compton: For the hearing a month ago it was. That one was taken down, but no new sign was put up for the hearing today. Ronald Ripley: Anyway. We don't seem to have knowledge of that. And, if we had direct knowledge we would have seen that. Mary Compton: Because I asked all my neighbors if they've seen any signs on the property about today. I travel a lot and I happen to find out from my neighbor who lives further away from the property than me who had gotten a certified letter. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You might want to proceed with any other points. I'm using your time up by talking to you. Mary Compton: Okay, let me finish with the other issues that I have here. I've been an Ocean Park resident for over 20 years. And, I feel like the structure on this lot is just too large for the piece of property and I think it will detract from the character and the culture of our community. It's hard for me to imagine a six -story structure less than 75-feet from my house. And, I'm the only house that looks directly at the west side of the building. It's like you sitting there looking at this back wall here at a six -story structure. I sit down and I try to think about it and that's actually half the size of the Chesapeake House, which 2s on the other side of the lot. Also, near and dear to my heart, as well as the rest of the community is this one last natural sand dune on this property. This is one of the last if not maybe the last sand dune that we have in Ocean Park. It's been said in the past that the City should put a dome over this dune to protect it so our school children could come and see it. Common sense tells me that a structure this large cannot be built on this property without at least destroying part of the sand dune, if not all of it over time. We all know that this sand dune has a covenant on it that was put on it by a previous owner and our civic league is now researching how this covenant is to be monitored and managed because we don't know that right now. This is just too beautiful of a piece of property to be developed with something that doesn't fit in with the character of Ocean Park. For these reasons, I'm against a structure of this size being put on this lot. And, I task you today to take in consideration the impact that this structure will have on our character of Ocean Park which is always been live oaks and sand dunes. And, we already know that we are going to give up one of our oldest live oaks that we have in the community. And, that's my feelings. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Ms. Compton. Mary Compton: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Our next speaker, is it Solanic? Tim Solanic: I will try to be as brief as possible. We covered a lot of this a month ago. I was quite frankly surprised we were coming back within a month after Mr. Bourdon said last month, "we will be very happy to work with the staff and with the issue with that the Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 6 right-of-way with PV study, we also will continue to work with the civic league." And part of the discussion that we had if you recall when you were asking if there were any opposition to the deferral, was based on the condition that we would have communication in the future. The only communication we've had since then, Mr. Bourdon was out of town and everything, was the letter that apparently he gave you, which was faxed to our president who has been sick and he is at a trial right now. He couldn't convince a judge to come down here, two days ago at 5:15 and the letter is inaccurate. There's an inaccurate quote in it. It starts off saying that we're willing to work with the civic league but they did not feel that we were totally straight with the civic league. They never recommunicated with us from the condition that was placed from the last meeting. Ronald Ripley: Well, I'm sure he'll have an opportunity. I don't know how this vote will go here today or what's going to happen but I'm sure there will be an opportunity between now and Council to meet. Tim Solanic: Right. Ronald Ripley: I'm sure and I know that applicant is interested in trying to satisfy you. Tim Solanic: Right. That's what we thought. I just wanted to mention that to get on the record because I wasn't even going to bring up this letter but apparently it's in the packet that was given to you. Ronald Ripley: Well, the overriding concern that I saw was the setback issue. And, that was a very major issue and I wanted Mr. Scott and the applicant to talk about it and they have talked about it. So, that was the primary issue for reason to defer as far as I was concerned The Planning Commissioners may have some other reasons particularly the meeting with the civic league. That should be an ongoing process between now and City Council and I'm sure it will be. Tim Solanic. I'm just trying to understand the law. Ronald Ripley: Sure Tim Solanic: Just starting to read for it and everything. I'm just trying to understand the legal aspects of notification. The legal aspects of the transcripts kept forever and ever quoting what was said before, what's conditional, what's appropriate even to bring up. What's repetitive and all that sort of thing. I'm just trying to do the right thing. Ronald Ripley. This is not a court of law. This is a citizen group trying to bring some citizen input to the process that occurs. Tim Solanic: And, I didn't want to waste all of our time and I just brought up the letter because it's inaccurate. But, I now know it's in your packet. Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 7 Ronald Ripley: Yes sir. Tim Solanic: Over a month ago, and I'm going to be as brief as possible. About a month ago Mr. Bourdon also mentioned that there was no B-4 zoning west of this property. I'm implying, I guess that's a good thing, just a comment there. This area between, also to get on the record, a six -story structure on that property will basically block the swimming pool. It would be in shade 100 percent of the time. I just wanted to get that on the record. I'm not sure how they're going to sell property with a pool that has no sun. You heard Mary Compton mention that building is within 75-feet of a three-story structure. Again, this goes back to the height and that is our only issue. We obviously prefer open space. When the open space subcommittee convinced whoever to write a check to buy it but it's that 300 year old live oak tree on that side Dinwiddie. It's the width of Dinwiddie, which now also is mentioned, which one of the planners had admitted that they missed it at the last meeting, which we did not know about until last meeting. There's a pedestrian doorway on Dinwiddie as well and you mentioned that you're familiar with Dinwiddie. I can find the quote in here if you want to but Mr. Bourdon mentioned that very briefly. With only six parking spots, especially during the summertime where's everyone else gong to park or have the opportunity to park? They could quite possibly park in Dinwiddie. Several years ago before I got involved with Captain and Mr. Hook, they went to Richmond to have that gorgeous property shut down from the ABC Board or whoever it was because of parking on Dinwiddie and buyer protection. So, that's another consideration with the pedestrian door right there, parking and people are going to be getting on this huge structure that's on this proposal. Mr. Bourdon also referred to the dune as a secondary sand dune. He also referred to it as a primary sand dune. Ronald Ripley- You have about a minute. Tim Solanic Meeting with some environmental engineers in our community it is impossible to build a six -story structure without touching that sand dune. Ronald Ripley: I think that's the lumber that you have here that they are trying to avoid touching the sand dune not just the pool. Tim Solanic: The pool is right on the edge of the sand dune but to put a six -story structure there without affecting that sand dune and Mr. Bourdon also mentioned that the previous owners can enforce that deed restriction. We've already got donations to keep a microscope on the sand dune to protect it like Mary Compton said. And, that's the last dune on Shore Drive and that 300-year old oak tree Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Todd Solomon please. Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 8 Todd Solomon: Good afternoon again. My name is Todd Solomon. I'm representing the Shore Drive Community Coalition again. The Shore Drive Community Coalition requests that this item be denied based on the following two items. The first one being the Comprehensive Plan recommendation that this property be purchased as open space which my understanding was touched upon at last month's meeting but wasn't taken very far The second item would be the projects massive structure and density, which had been highlighted a little bit but I'm going along a little further. The Comprehensive Plan, which is created and interpreted obviously by the Planning Commission, recommends that this property be purchased via the Open Space Fund. It's one of three properties on Shore Drive area that were earmarked for open space. One of them has already been purchased for a fire station and the other two are still here. The Shore Drive Community Coalition voted to endorse the acquisition of this property as open space and affirmed this vote in a letter sent to City Council on May 12, prior to your last month's meeting. Planning Staff Ms. Smith did an excellentiob in her review of this project. However, nowhere does it mention that the Comprehensive Plan recommends this property as an open space. As purveyors of the document, shouldn't it be the Planning Commission's duty to address this planned use in the project review somewhere for City Council's review? We fully understand that the final decision will be made by City Council, however, the discrepancy such as this and alternate uses I think should show up somewhere in the review package. The second item, the massive structure of this project and being an engineer I was trying to determine a way to kind of correlate what Ocean Park looks like, what Chesapeake House looks like and what this property looks like and equate it in all in some way shape or form. The best thing I could come up with was a ratio of the square footage of use of a development divided by the square footage of the lot size. And, what I've come up with on Ocean Park's R-5, the average ratio of that is about 5,000 square feet of living space, 5,000 square feet for R-5, so the ratio of one. Chesapeake House roughly 120,000 square feet and one half acres, which ratio's out to about 1.8, the Dinwiddie project here, Dupont Circle with its roughly 112,000 and 1.14 acres ratio's out to about 2.3. So you can see a far as that ratio goes that this property is even using more dense that what the Chesapeake House property shows up to be. And, if you were trying to merge something between the two you'd be more likely to have something around 1.4 ratio, which would require this project to be about 15 units versus the 27 units that is proposed now. So, that is one of the items you talked about last month as far as the density and the massiveness of it. And, I wanted to put it in perspective for you as ratios. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr. Solomon? Thank you Dorothy Wood: Our last speaker is Jack Bryan Jack Bryan: Thank you and introductions a side, Chairperson or Commissioners Just to clarify, I represent 350 residents. To speak to a previous issue and one that seems to come up again about notification. And just as a note and not to complain about it. Our response time for the civic leagues is one month. That's how often we have a meeting. Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 9 Two weeks notice is too short. The only reason why my civic league is on top of this is we act like a business. We have a business once a month and we have an alternating meeting once every month. So, we have a vote every two weeks. Other civic leagues can't do that and they also take breaks. People go on vacation. I just want to bring up a few issues and although they may not be considered here but in regards to the primary dune. We respect the primary dune. And everyone in our neighborhood does. We own property that is actually a beach that is actually privately held. We actually allow the City to use the commons and we respect that. We also have right-of-way issues. And, this neighborhood has right-of-way issues. Could you bring up the -plat showing Dinwiddie and Dupont? And now that I know this is here, I'll use it. I'm sorry sir. There's another one. That one will be fine. This is an easement. The right-of-way. It's not just a road. It's how people get to the beach. And, there issues in other neighborhoods along the Shore Drive Corridor, the Shore Drive Community Coalition, and The Shore Drive Advisory Committee have all brought these issues up, where encroachment close to the setbacks for housing such as this area here. This area here and this area all along here make it difficult for people to and from the beach for egress to make it less inviting. When you begin to encroach in these areas you start to see people push their territorial space, their personal territorial space you start to see domestic issues start to occur. Also in this area, I would start looking as future beach access for residents who are on the other side of Shore Drive and people who are traveling this way to get to the beach and people who are traveling down Shore Drive to get to the beach from whatever location they might be originating from. We don't agree with the encroachment in to the City right-of-way. Also, the massiveness of this and the site plan does not allow for a staging area during construction to avoid the primary dune, which is the designated primary dune or it has been identified as the primary dune by the city. Continuing on, we ask that you deny this. We think that it is too massive. We agree that if it was smaller it would probably be more acceptable. We ask that you respect the side setbacks. We're just not worried about the Shore Drive setback if you're able to resolve that. That's fine. We would like to purchase it as taxpayers though we hope that both of those issues, side setbacks and front setbacks can be observed. I'm going to refer to that as a dune setback. When you get close to a dune you start to dig into it or you get witlun the toe of the dune exactly on the toe of the dune you dig into it, the sand caves in and the dune starts to cave in. When you put a wall against it, scorping occurs. It's called "wind scorping." And these are things that affect it. But, I think that's handled in a different area, a different arena. Ronald Ripley: You've run out of time but if you could wrap up. Jack Bryan: Wrapping up. Our letter, which we sent to you today, is full of these issues. However, I would say "buyer beware " The lawyer stated that in order to get their money back out of this investment for the property they need to build something this size. When I buy my property it's the same thing that I would probably say but I look at it and say, "what's affecting this property" and I look at all the issues involved. It's not ourjob to enable people to get the most money out of their property. It's our job to look at it from all respectable areas I've heard three civic leagues speak out here on the Shore Drive Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 10 Community Coalition. A lot of citizens and its the ones that are most directly impacted. I'm lucky that I'm retired at my early age. And, in that regard, I'm able to attend these meetings and I'm here to respond for 350 individuals. I hope it's recognized. I'm not just one complaining individual. Another item that was passed out to you here, a picture, a rendering, not a true frontal site building picture. I'd like for you to look at this piece of paper. It's called a magic trick and artists use it quite a bit. I think the building looks nice the way it's drawn or drawing or a rendering but if I fold this edge like this and turn it like this it certainly looks smaller. And, now I'm going to show you a picture, which is here which was presented to you. That's the same thing that's occurring here This building is massive. It's our opinion it's massive. I've seen buildings like this. I have 19 years of construction. I have nine years with a bank. So, don't be misled that I'm just a banker who sits behind a desk. This rendering does not represent what this building looks like. I think it's attractive. It could be smaller but I don't think it represents how massive it is and I don't think it shows the building right beside it or the little houses that are over here. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Dorothy Wood: No sir. That's all the speakers that we have signed up. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon would you like to readdress us please? Eddie Bourdon: First off, the sign issue and you are all aware, the signs are posted before the first hearing and they are not reposted. We have no knowledge of anyone. We certainly didn't take the signs down but they are not reposted every time in terms of putting new dates on them. That's not the requirement. The signs were posted and I believe they're still posted but they don't have new dates. This proposal involves a 50- percent lot coverage. That's all the lot coverage that exists. With regard to the beach access, if you look at the letter from the civic league that I put in your packets from 1999, at the access and primary beach access is Dinwiddie. And, we had to agree that we put a walkway over the dune to the beach. But now the civic league doesn't want that. We had that on our original plan. We will be putting a walk -way over this dune for our residents but nothing inhibiting the use of Dinwiddie, which is the beach access that the people in this area use and have used for years, which is one of the reasons why the civic league back in 1999 did not want us to develop the site plan that we had approval for because our access to our 40-unit condominium was off of Dinwiddie. And, that plan, had we developed with that plan would have wiped out every one the live oaks on this property rather than what were doing now and that is saving many and planting far more, with a building that would have been 75-feet in height versus one in this case is over 80- feet in height, very little difference in the height of the building Yet, we don't have to put a turn lane on Shore Drive. We don't involve Dinwiddie in any way with this project as far as the development is concerned and as I said, we will not be impacting the beach access in any way, shape or form either Dinwiddie or Dupont and will be providing our own. Todd Solomon's little interesting game with numbers. What he calculates as density. Chesapeake House has a 120-units. We have 27. Clearly their density is far, far Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 11 greater than ours, and if you break it down by square footage of the land area. What he neglects to point out is that those units are 900 square foot flats. What the civic league wanted to see and frankly and I know what a lot of Chesapeake House wanted to see and that's a far higher quality of residential development. And, that is part of what we're here to make sure that we get and achieve on Shore Drive is not just 900 square foot flats. We can put twenty-seven 900 square foot flats on here and we'll be way down below the ratio. And, in fact that would not get a better development. We can in fact have built the 1999 plan and had a lower ratio than the one that he's talking about for this plan today with 40-units, 40-units versus 27 but under his scenario we have more density today. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me but he wants to play with numbers to try and create some statistical argument. We got a plan here for a project that everyone will be very proud of and it will be step up in quality for anything else that is out there for Shore Drive. And, I see that my time is up. I said I was going to be brief and I'm going to that. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Ronald Ripley: Appreciate you being brief. That wasn't a question. It was a statement. We got some questions down here. I think Will Din and then Gene. William Din: There are several people who have brought up the dune areas down here. And, I don't know if that has ever been addressed. Again, at this meeting I know it was addressed at our previous meeting about whether those dunes are protected or not. I don't believe they are protected. Could you go through that? Eddie Bourdon: They are protected by deed restrictions. Steve, if you could put the composite map up there? That's probably the best one. The dune is in this area here and you can see we got the parking garage back here and we got all these units over here, these duplexes. We're talking about a dune that is way back here. Even as a secondary sand dune, there is a deed restriction that deals with it not being disturbed and our plans do not involve disturbance of that sand dune. We stayed off the sand dune. And, that is actually what was the case with the 1999 40-unit plan as we stayed off the sand dune. In honoring that deed restriction that exists on that sand dune and that will not be changed in anyway by what is before you today. We're off the dune. We will not be using the dune but it is clearly a secondary dune when you look at where it's located back here in relation to the beach and the dunes that are all out here on Chesapeake Bay and the development on either side of us that go well beyond or north of what is in essence a secondary dune. It's a sand hill back on this piece of property. But we're staying off of that sand hill and the staging will occur in the front of the building for the construction of the building. William Din: Have you had any assessment as to how the impact of the pool or anything else will be on that dune? Eddie Bourdon: The pool is not in the dune in anyway shape or form. And if you go back to the notion that Tim has that there won't be any sun on the swimming pool. Clearly there will be a shadow on the swimming pool in the afternoon but last time I Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 12 checked the sun rises in the east and it goes overhead there'll be certainly plenty of sun on the swimming although it will be shaded by the building in the afternoon, the dune is not affected by the swimming pool. And, we will have a walkway over the dune to the beach for the residents of this community and we had offered to do one on Dinwiddie for everyone. The civic league now does not wish to have that. Ronald Ripley: Gene has a question. Eugene Crabtree- Yeah, I think you answered my question in the process of answering Mr. Din's. The staging area for construction you said will be on the Shore Drive side of the building and will not in impact the dunes. Am I correct? Eddie Bourdon: We must, by that deed restriction, avoid any impacts on the dune and that's a private deed restriction that will be enforced by the former owners or their successors in interest as far as that deed restriction is concerned. Ronald Ripley: I believe Kathy Katsias has a question. Kathy Katsias: My concern last month was with the parking situation Eddie and I understand that you had six guest parking spaces which when the residents aren't there, there will be additional parking. Unfortunately, I'm sure most of the residents will be there in the summertime and that's when more parking is going to be required. And, I don't think six is enough to accommodate this building. Eddie Bourdon: The two parking spaces per unit that exists also would yield because we all know that every unit owner is not going to have two vehicles at this location. In fact, again, we expect that there will be a number of units that will be a second home scenario and they're generally not going to have two vehicles located there. They will have one vehicle if they are here for the summer but generally not two. So, we believe and quite confident that there will be more than six parking spaces that will be available for visitors but they will vary in term of their number. Little doubt that on the fourth of July there probably won't be a great deal of visitor parking available in that building. But there is public parking available across Shore Drive from this site with a very large parking lot that goes along with the boat ramp on Crab Creek but there is public parking there. Kathy Katsias: Last month weren't you going to check with the adjacent property owners and see if they could deal with parking? Eddie Bourdon: The parking that could be created in the public right-of-way can be done. There's no two ways about that and there are recommendations at one point that was supported by the Ocean Park Civic League and I don't think they are no longer supported by them when they're looking for sand out there about improving these public nght-of-ways and providing better beach access and providing better opportunities for people to park. We are not adverse to improving Dupont Circle in this direction and providing public parking. It would not be that you could restrict it to people who live Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 13 here. Had we done the 99' plan and had an entrance off of Dinwiddie, Dinwiddie would have been widened and parking would have been more easily attainable on Dinwiddie. We respected the community's desire to stay off of Dinwiddie with this plan as we agreed with the civic league in 1999 that we would do. Again, there are no improvements with this plan for Dinwiddie at all and the only access is again, there's a door on that side of the parking area where, again, that's going to be controlled access with a code. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Ronald Ripley. Is that door a firer requirement too? Eddie Bourdon: I believe it would be a requirement under the fire code Mr. Ripley otherwise, we really don't have to have it other than for fire code or security and I believe it will be a requirement but it's just a door. Ronald Ripley Are there any other questions? Eddie Bourdon: If I could, one other thing. To our west there are 24-units in 12 duplexes on the next block plus a Mexican restaurant and a restaurant that had a checkered history as far as the community. We're talking about 27-units on this piece of property and a half million dollars and up. The density issue we don't buy that. It's a question of whether you want smaller, less valuable units. Ronald Ripley: Any idea of the approximate size of those units? Eddie Bourdon: In the duplexes? Ronald Ripley: In the proposal. Eddie Bourdon: Oh in this. They are 2200 square feet. One will be larger but basically 2200 square feet per unit Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Alright I will open this up for discussion with the Planning Commission. Who would like to go? Will. William Din: I think the applicant has tried to work through this process quite well. We've talked about the sand dune. We've talked about the setback. And, I think those areas are well worked out. I think that the only problem is the massiveness of the building that people are concerned with. There is 13-story building adjacent to that which is setback quite far. That appears to be less massiveness because it is setback. And because of the way that this building is sitting on the piece of property I think it is quite large looking. I think that's mentioned in the report and I think my own concern is probably the massiveness of it I think that's something that I could probably live with. think the high quality of the building and the way it looks and constructed is well built. I Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 14 think the appearance of it looks very good. I don't think the height of that is very restricted because I think it steps it down. I think it does look like a transition from the Chesapeake House down to the duplexes to the west of that. There is a lot of effort to save the sand dune, a lot of effort to put in some live oak trees. The applicant has been trying to work with that. I really think there has been a lot of effort in trying to put up good quality development in this area. I really don't have a whole lot of problem with that so I'll probably be support this. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other comments? Jan. Janice Anderson: I'm kind of going both ways on this. But I just wanted to bring out some stuff for discussion. I think the project is very nice but there are problems that I have with the right-of-way variance. It's clear now that they're going back to the Board of Zoning Appeals to try to get a variance. But, they could have scaled back and gone back behind the setback line but they chose not to do that so they're looking to build into the right-of-way there. So far as the coverage of the lot, this is rather a small lot for this size of building. They are covering every portion of it with building that's buildable because the sand dune is reserved and that's protected so any buildable land that's there, they're covering every chunk of it. So far as the civic leagues are concerned with communication I think that the applicant has been very good at going out to the civic leagues before but the civic league's communication goes both ways. If they know something out there and somebody doesn't contact them they need to go out and contact the applicant. I'm not really worried about the communication. It is B-4. You do have the high nses due to the one size. And this is a step down but I think in the area, just the location how close the road it is kind of heavy. The previous 40-units that they had, it is a good thing the Council has approved these Overlay districts and they've come from Planning but this is the kind of structure you had before and it's nice that these restnctions are there Ronald Ripley: Does anybody else have any comments? Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I agree that the building intends to crowd the property and however, there are other precedence's in the City of buildings which crowd the property to, some of which are on Shore Drive. Some which have been approved in recent years in the center of the City. The building that is currently going on that we are working with now so I don't see as to where the arrangement of the parking underneath the building and the amenities in the second floor and the living units above that the crowding of the property is all that drastic. And, that it makes that much difference and I agree the six stones is a step down from the 13-stones that is adjacent to it on the east side. Therefore, I think I'm going to support the application since the other issues have been ironed out with the staff. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Gene. Dot. Dorothy Wood: I'm like Kathy on the parking. I think that they do need more parking and I'm certainly torn with this application. I like the high end. I like the $400,000 units Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 15 and people will just, excuse Mr. Bourdon, $500,00 units. I do think it is very massive but there are other buildings on Shore Drive like Mr. Crabtree said that have been recently built that are massive and do not fit in to the area also. It's just a real hard decision. I know that the City and all the civic leagues are against it. And, with the parking, I have a problem with that so I'm really torn. I'm interested in hearing what my fellow Commissioners have to say. Ronald Ripley: Well Mr. Scott, with regard to the parking and Mr. Bourdon mentioned about possibility of making some improvements to Dupont Circle, which certainly will be public parking but also would be an opportunity for visitors to use public parking also, would that have any public benefit or is that something that you don't want to do at this point in disturbing that land? Robert Scott: I think there's really some limited opportunity. Let me put it this way. When most people talk about providing parking in the Shore Drive area they're talking about this site for public parking not the streets adjoining the site. There's been talk and I've heard for many years in purchasing properties like this to build public parking lots on it. I don't know if I like that idea too much but I've heard that idea but to use Dupont Circle itself it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of opportunity to use that limited bit of roadway for public parking. And also, it's again time I guess to reemphasis the importance of the dunes there. And you don't want to dig into the dunes just to put parking in. Ronald Ripley: No. I went out and walked this site and walked all over the dunes. Of course, I had to walk on the dunes but I did walk around it to take a look at it and try to get a sense of scale because that was a concern that I was hearing and a concern that staff wrote about. And, on balance I think the, to me, it appears to be a natural stepping down from the Chesapeake House to the lower residential to the west. I've heard mentioned and I think Mr. Solomon mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan refers to this as open space but that's kind of a "catch 22" because this open space plan reached out and put a net over every piece of vacant space in the whole city I think. And, the discussion that the Planning Commission had and I know with our doors people was that this should not taint the property because if the city doesn't buy it, people have by -right uses and this is a by -right use that this person has come in to ask for a rezoning. I think Jan points out a good point. Prior to the Overlay Distnct by right could have been that exhibit that Mr Bourdon handed out. It's the first time I've seen that. It's a pretty ugly building. I'm not saying that's where we would end up, but we certainly could have ended up with something pretty back quite frankly prior to the Overlay. So, it is good that we have the Overlay. And, it is good that we have the public participation on what goes on to these properties because I think we're all trying to improve Shore Drive and a lot of effort has gone into that and I think we're seeing results along that Corridor. Two spaces per apartment is probably... what is the minimum Mr. Scott? Is it less than two? Robert Scott: Yeah. Can you tell me what the ordinance says on that? Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 16 Ronald Ripley: Is it two for the first 50 or something? So it is two? So, two would be the minimum? So, you have six over the minimum basically? That is a concern and I think we've raised it too. I've talked to Mr. Bourdon about trying to actually access this but it looks like the access to the units will be underneath the building into the elevators and how that is treated will be up to the architect. I'm inclined given the high quality of the property and I don't have that much problem with scale. I think it's encumbering a lot of the property but on the other hand this dune is pushing the property forward and I think that's part of the dilemma with this whole thing. And, on the other hand at the same time I think the applicant is trying to create a high quality community. And, half million -dollar condominiums is definitely high quality as far as I'm concerned. So, I will probably be supporting this also. Is there anybody else? Would someone like to make a motion? William Din: I move to approve this application. Ronald Ripley: Does that include the conditions that are in here? William Din: The conditions state that it shall be limited to three stones in height. Ronald Ripley: Does it include that condition? Conditions 1-4? William Din: I don't think the applicant is agreeable to that. Eddie Bourdon: We agree with all the conditions that the staff has recommended except for condition five. Ronald Ripley: So Will, what's your motion? William Din: I'd like to approve the application without condition five. Ronald Ripley: Do I have a second? Got a second by Barry Knight. So, were open for discussion. Is there any discussion from the group? We can't talk anymore. We're in the middle of discussing this motion now Tim Solanic: I would just like to make one comment. Whenever the appropriate time will be just to get it on the record because I wasn't given the opportunity to rebut Mr. Bourdon. Ronald Ripley: You don't have that opportunity. Your only opportunity to rebut is at Council. Tim Solanic: Right. I understand. I'm basically asking for someone to sponsor a comment for the public record after you vote, before you vote. Anytime you feel appropriate. Item # 15 Forth Worth Development, Inc. Page 17 Ronald Ripley: After we vote, you're welcome to come to City Council and put it on record there. Tim Solanic: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? We're ready to vote. AYE 6 NAY 3 ANDERSON NAY CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS NAY KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' STRANGE AYE WOOD NAY ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ABSENT ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 6-3, the motion cames. Okay is that the last item to come before us? I believe it is so this meeting is adjourned. Gpin 1489-59-0079 ZONING HISTORY 1. Change of Zoning (Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District to 0-2 Office District) — Granted 7-5-00 Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District) — Granted 8-11-98 2. Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) — Granted 8-11-98 Conditional Use Permit (beauty shop) — Denied 5-23-83 3. Conditional Use Permit (convalescent home) — Granted 2-25-97 4. Street Closure — Granted 9-14-81 Map E—S Map Not to Scale Street Closure — Portion of Honeygrove Way ZONING HISTORY 1 5/25/99 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for indoor recreation — Granted 2 9/26/95 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for communication tower — Granted 3 2/8/88 — REZONING from B-2 Business to 0-1 Office - Granted 2/8/88 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for nursing home — Granted 4 10/9/72 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for hospital — Granted 10/10/88 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for hospital addn — Granted 4/26/94 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for hospital addn — Granted ^ aes CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Street Closure (Portion of Honeygrove Way) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Honeygrove Way, beginning at a point 310.40 feet south of East Honeygrove Road DISTRICT 4 — BAYS I DE The purpose of this request is to accommodate the redevelopment of the surrounding city -owned site for the Third Precinct of the Police Department and the Bayside Library. ■ Considerations: The subject portion of Honeygrove Way is an unimproved paper street. There are no public water, sewer or storm drainage pipes in the area proposed for closure. The Viewers Committee has determined that the closure of a portion of Honeygrove Way will not result in a public inconvenience. The land area will be incorporated into the redevelopment site for the Third Police Precinct and Bayside Library The main access to the new facilities will be in the area of the existing Honeygrove Way right-of-way. Also, as part of the redevelopment, the existing access on Independence Boulevard will be closed The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because closure of this portion of Honeygrove Way would provide a safer entry to the Third Police Precinct and Bayside Library Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions (The last sentence underlined in #1 below was subsequently added by the City Attorney Office) City of Virginia Beach — Honeygrove Page 2 of 2 1. The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. (Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department ) No purchase price shall be charged in this street closure, however, because the City is both the owner of the underlying fee and the applicant seeking this street closure 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval 3 The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. 4 Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager. l Planning Department CITY OF VIRGINIA- BEACH / # 14 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: E05-21 1 -STC-2003 REQUEST: Street Closure ADDRESS: Portion of Honeygrove Way, beginning at a point 310.4 feet south of East Honeygrove Way. Map Mep Not to 5t'�cole 0-t - o Vir inia Beach `� y '\` \1 \1 •' ` o `ate Q O �'\ �1 i % �� a Ey CT AP RT&fEh'TS i z , B-2 ��\1 \ 0010 SCHOOL R V s 1 ~✓� \ \\ ��\\ \ r oa Street Closure - Portion of Honeygrove Way ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 -- BAYSIDE SITE SIZE: 8,725 square feet Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003V CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 L` Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Barbara J Duke PURPOSE: To accommodate the redevelopment of the surrounding city -owned site for the Third Precinct of the Police Department and the Bayside Library. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject portion of Honeygrove Way is an unimproved paper street. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . Office / B-2 Community Business District South: . Third Police Precinct / R-10 Residential District East: . Bayside Library and single-family homes / R-10 Residential District West: . Bayside Library / R-10 Residential District Zonin-q History The majority of the residential and commercial areas surrounding this site were developed during the 1970s Public Facilities and Services There are no public water, sewer or storm drainage pipes in the area proposed for closure. Private Utilities Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District are currently reviewing this request to determine if any private utilities exist within the area proposed for closure Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan The subject site is within the Independence Boulevard Corridor in the Bayside Planning Area Redevelopment is encouraged along this corridor with emphasis on limiting new access points and enhancing roadside landscape treatments. Evaluation of Request The Viewers Committee has determined that the closure of a portion of Honeygrove Way will not result in a public inconvenience. The land area will be incorporated into the redevelopment site for the Third Police Precinct and Bayside Library. The main access to the new facilities will be in the area of the existing Honeygrove Way right-of-way. Also, as part of the redevelopment, the existing access on Independence Boulevard will be closed. The Viewers Committee recommends approval of the request to close a portion of Honeygrove Way for the City of Virginia Beach subject to the conditions listed below Conditions 1 The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2 The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3 The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided 4 Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 3 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 1 # 14 Page 4 %LE: 1 " = 100' 1 C. vro-nf-Al Cf11 f1CD u pp 9,0 �pNG?Q ?G s2 41 NUMBER BEARING DI,LTANCE L , 24.e $ 60, g /w � Y L 2 N14'1 6'W vasl 1 GRAPHIC SCALE fOR��fRti-� ', � n n0", oR o R"�s R pR ,739 � , �. �� z S. �, 1s •, �, �, a v o' 100' 200' 70�. apt�- NOW OR FORMERLY A V ASSOCIATES 4ktt}ti J D 8 3912 PG. 872 M B 266 PG. 93 ,v N038 i C fir• c) GPIN 1478-55-5470 R� ,5 Y. B 3- �7540 ��0 J- 4 OR To cs BANK T.5 �t ,if PG j� �, _ - ; NOW OR FORMERLY ' 8 3110 8�,72��0. UONEL A & CATHERINE �4? ` P BARKER �.1 6. 2..68 2-3" 14i $' qj.$� %l �- `r Z97 -$�� I a GPI IN 11478-554154 �' ✓ V ... U ! LOT is=3,465,07 / 52 0' O Y RIGHT-0E-WAY HEREBY = 5,476 51 Is CLOSED. AREA = 8,725 SQ FT ui -a4 r4i •- }jr t N, n 'lf1 . i-- PARCEL "A" � � -� s�'- a► � 1 G � � Z �iZ =3.485,004 b C ,y x • -+ r E=12,175,494 99 1 � g f 7�- 3 5' UNDERGROUND VIRGINIA POWER EASEIti1ENT !Sir r (D B 3906 PG 1980) (M. B 267 PG 681 - ' CfTY OF "RGINIA BEACH eA � D B 979 PG 473 M B 70 PG 33 N' Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 6 �y,. Sq S. m'P S � '� "� 7�� n ... -R 'a4•�'4z iyC 't i _�"�,',� +� �� AL- • ktP • •1 rit:: �,..� 1- '�'� e+^.r14 UH , �. .•,,,.yS {� •wy '".k� / `✓ '. %�T.��.. vt vow: 140 ot Af, r'a �''S�, •+rt� , ; c;..., :: ' lY y t� ' , .1i6. s,..:.- ta.,,3r:i' a a. Fu "VL �i�'�s''p... x .je y."�i• 4.�'a'4.. z �...i.� �' X a fT tr �`$`�.. �. � c'a• - ::O s ,:a t x6.' .. Ile cloS wl.. uc � •f ure Sm AL Pil ryJ Pl�nninry t-'�rr�r„��ci�n L� C my11:1li 101 Us :17± Item # 14 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance upon Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Honeygrove Way District 4 Bayside September 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach. It's an Ordinance upon application of the City of Virginia Beach for the closure of Honeygrove Way beginning east of Honeygrove Road. It has four conditions. It's in Bayside. Is there any objection to Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach closing a portion of Honeygrove Way? Hearing none. Gene, would you comment? Eugene Crabtree. The closing of Honeygrove is just going to give more property and land to the police department and the library in order to build their new structures that they're going to build. It also amplifies by using Honeygrove as an entrance to this amplifies the safety reason for closing the entrance on Independence Boulevard, which enhances the use of that property for the city by the library and the police department. Therefore, we felt like it was a good consent item to be placed on the agenda. Dorothy Wood- Again, is there any objection to the City of Virginia Beach closing Honeygrove Way? Hearing none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent agenda item number fourteen with four conditions the City of Virginia Beach closing a portion of Honeygrove Way. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do I have a seconds Seconded by Mr. Will Din Is there any discussion on the motions Okay, we'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes ABSENT Street Closure — Pomon of Honeygrove Way ZONING HISTORY 1. 5/25/99 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for indoor recreation — Granted 2. 9/26/95 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for communication tower — Granted 3 2/8/88 — REZONING from B-2 Business to 0-1 Office - Granted 2/8/88 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for nursing home — Granted 4 10/9/72 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for hospital — Granted 10/10/88 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for hospital addn — Granted 4/26/94 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for hospital addn — Granted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 U 17 18 ORDINANCE NO. IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN AS HONEYGROVE WAY AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF HONEYGROVE WAY, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated, and 19 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, 20 closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before one (1) year from 21 City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 22 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia 24 Beach, Virginia. 25 26 SECTION I 27 28 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject 29 to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this 30 ordinance: 91 32 GPIN 1478-55-4021 33 1 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "RIGHT-OF-WAY HEREBY CLOSED. AREA = 85725 SQ FT " shown as the cross -hatched area on that certain plat entitled. "PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF HONEYGROVE WAY, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 1" = 100', dated June 12, 2003, prepared by Bureau of Surveys, Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, said plat being attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION II The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 50 Council's adoption of this ordinance 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee The purchase price to be paid to the City is normally determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council [Copies of said policy are available in the Planning Department ] No purchase price shall be charged in this street closure, however, because the City is both the owner of the underlying fee and the applicant seeking this street closure 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels The resubdivision plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval 3. The applicant shall venfy that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are 2 61 no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure If private utilities do exist, the 62 applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 63 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the 64 above stated conditions within one year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted 65 above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City 66 Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void. 67 68 69 SECTION III 70 71 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before October 27, 2004, 72 this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 73 2. If all conditions are met on or before October 27, 2004, the date of final 74 closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 75 76 77 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 78 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF 79 VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor." 80 3 M. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this of , 2003. CA-8916 September 17, 2003 F \Data\ATY\Forms\Street C1osure\W0RKING\ca8916 doc 4 APPROVED S TO CONTENT. la g Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorney day 1: THIS PLAT IS A RESULT OF FIELD TIES TO EXISTING MONUMENTS COMBINED WITH THE COMPILATION OF THE DEEDS AND PLATS SHOWN HEREON. 2: MERIDIAN SOURCE IS BASED ON VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATES , SOUTH ZONE NAD,1983 COORDINATE VALUES ARE EXPRESSED IN INTERNATIONAL FEET (ONE FOOT EQUALS 0.3048 METERS). 3: THIS PLAT IS FOR STREET CLOSURE PURPOSES AND DOES CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY. DENOTES RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA HEREBY CLOSED. CURVE DATA TABLE NO. DELTA N TANGENT CHORD CHORD DIRECTION ' ' 14 .5 75.32' S0 '13'09'W . ,q1R0AD8I.U5S0 . Q J33O091521 ' ' 148.50 79.0 ' N01'13'09'E °vti �P° O p�. 42) HEN 8• 82 60' R l LEGEND -o- OWL HOLE om -o- CONC ,NON. am - 4— CORNER Nor SET r DUB' IL •• NO & 4R p&0 To.1139 1• 1 C6 7 p. 40 'A1 15 O' g• 129 PC'• a7'A. too ate,, n c GIN 147�55�13 1• 1 � � �� o C' r' &' �" , Z� ov. cn Z .�ERti� ,• O >N O oG D 6 3642 9 pG•2350 ".' • Z O LOCATION MAP SCALE:1"=2640' GRAPHIC SCALE 0' 100, 200' NOW OR FORMERLY A V ASSOCIATES D B. 3912 PG. 872 M. B. 268 PG. 93 GPIN 1478-55-5470 RM N� 40.000 a• OR FO K F S 15 - oc U5AV49 1N� T 0 _,- ' ' NOW OR FORMERLY �► O 5- 3110 87 1 ' $Gj,72� 0a LIONEL A & CATHERINE M• g• 2� 2�32 91•a4 - N�5� 4� 0 P BARKER GAIN 147a'S I - 'r 297 6cf� �I D. B. 1800 PG. 53 GPIN 1478-55-6154 �00 E V j V p LOT 3 cr cn m • v� V 7 1 o 3 QOo. c7 1Ir 04 a • N • � c :1 z O O a t° U U N = 3,485,077.52 B, p RIGHT-OF-WAY HEREBY = 5,476.51 4 V CLOSED. AREA = 8,725 SQ. FT. l 1 _ o N , if) PARCEL "A" G d ��Z 90 CIA 1, d' Z N = 3,485,004.61� O .4 io o j .SDI E=12,175,494.99 1 0 0 5' UNDERGROUND VIRGINIA POWER EASEMENT B� (D. B. 3906 PG. 1980) (M. B 267 PG. 68) 1 �\ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH �1 ' r 1 D B. 979 PG. 473 SCALE: 1"= 100 \ M. B. 70 PG. 33 FILE: VERTICAL FOLDER H GPIN 1478-55-4021 11 PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF HON EYGROVE WAY EXHIBIT A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA BUREAU OF SURVEYS ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JUNE 12, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA ►Zap e.`.i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Street Closure (Portion of Honeygrove Way) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Honeygrove Way, beginning at a point 310.40 feet south of East Honeygrove Road. DISTRICT 4 — BAYS I D E The purpose of this request is to accommodate the redevelopment of the surrounding city -owned site for the Third Precinct of the Police Department and the Bayside Library. ■ Considerations: The subject portion of Honeygrove Way is an unimproved paper street. There are no public water, sewer or storm drainage pipes in the area proposed for closure. The Viewers Committee has determined that the closure of a portion of Honeygrove Way will not result in a public inconvenience. The land area will be incorporated into the redevelopment site for the Third Police Precinct and Bayside Library. The main access to the new facilities will be in the area of the existing Honeygrove Way right-of-way. Also, as part of the redevelopment, the existing access on Independence Boulevard will be closed. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because closure of this portion of Honeygrove Way would provide a safer entry to the Third Police Precinct and Bayside Library. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions (The last sentence underlined in #1 below was subsequently added by the City Attorney Office): The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. (Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department.) No purchase price shall be charged in this street closure, however, because the City is both the owner of the underlying fee and the applicant seeking this street closure. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Item #14 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance upon Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Honeygrove Way District 4 Bayside September 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach. It's an Ordinance upon application of the City of Virginia Beach for the closure of Honeygrove Way beginning east of Honeygrove Road. It has four conditions. It's in Bayside. Is there any objection to Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach closing a portion of Honeygrove Way? Hearing none. Gene, would you comment? Eugene Crabtree: The closing of Honeygrove is just going to give more property and land to the police department and the library in order to build their new structures that they're going to build. It also amplifies by using Honeygrove as an entrance to this amplifies the safety reason for closing the entrance on Independence Boulevard, which enhances the use of that property for the city by the library and the police department. Therefore, we felt like it was a good consent item to be placed on the agenda Dorothy Wood: Again, is there any objection to the City of Virginia Beach closing Honeygrove Way9 Hearing none. Mr Ripley, I would move to approve this consent agenda item number fourteen with four conditions the City of Virginia Beach closing a portion of Honeygrove Way. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr. Will Din. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, we'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 141 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: E05-21 1 -STC-2003 REQUEST: Street Closure ADDRESS: Portion of Honeygrove Way, beginning at a point 310 4 feet south of East Honeygrove Way. `"GI-t o Var inia Beach to to orb Map No- Scale � � 11� 11 ✓ � 1 ✓ � �� r i `, `1�'\ , � 0,1= ,��\ o DEAGUA rc \ \ oo cr I oc 1 11 1; n �d AP RTVEMTS j I rrr cr 6-2 00 ire scHooL crnt y'`' \B-2 b' o '� �' AOW Acr -12� 1 00 00 <� 1 Street Closure — Pornon of Honeygrove Way ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 -- BAYSIDE SITE SIZE. 8,725 square feet Planning Commission Agenda fE6 r ' Y September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Barbara J Duke PURPOSE: To accommodate the redevelopment of the surrounding city -owned site for the Third Precinct of the Police Department and the Bayside Library. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject portion of Honeygrove Way is an unimproved paper street Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Office / B-2 Community Business District South: • Third Police Precinct / R-10 Residential District East: Bayside Library and single-family homes / R-10 Residential District West: • Bayside Library / R-10 Residential District Zoning History The majority of the residential and commercial areas surrounding this site were developed during the 1970s. Public Facilities and Services There are no public water, sewer or storm drainage pipes in the area proposed for closure Private Utilities Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District are currently reviewing this request to determine if any private utilities exist within the area proposed for closure Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan The subject site is within the Independence Boulevard Corridor in the Bayside Planning Area Redevelopment is encouraged along this corridor with emphasis on limiting new access points and enhancing roadside landscape treatments Evaluation of Request The Viewers Committee has determined that the closure of a portion of Honeygrove Way will not result in a public inconvenience The land area will be incorporated into the redevelopment site for the Third Police Precinct and Bayside Library. The main access to the new facilities will be in the area of the existing Honeygrove Way right-of-way. Also, as part of the redevelopment, the existing access on Independence Boulevard will be closed. The Viewers Committee recommends approval of the request to close a portion of Honeygrove Way for the City of Virginia Beach subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions 1 The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 3 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 4 ALE: 1"= 1w, 1 C. %ICEMr-al cnl nco u R�vti jLOD erwNOS (W111- la r► R . it l�'I t OR !�IL �39 49tP� 1As ID -a- 129 �.... w eM1 y.i ` c, a co 1s /- D. Y d NOW OR FORMERLY A V ASSOCIATES D. B, 392 PC. $72 M. B. 266 PG. 93 GPIN 1478-35-6470 CAL ox � �``"r'cs PC- 00 - �' " NOW OR FOR MMY Z68'' gl _•�7 WPM A. & CATHWE P. BARKER D L 1800 PG. 53 CM 1478-55-6154 LOT 3 M N _ %,14 RIGHT-OF-WAY HEREBY ( N" 3 • .476M A t " CLOSED. AREA a= 8,725 SQ. Fr. us39 y� n ;r t�Zrt r PARCEL "A"sit Es12175,s�94.99 S 5' UNDERCROMD VIRCINN POWER WE MEP0 (D 8 3906 PG. 1980) (M. B. 267 PG. 68) `a too - MY OF V(RGIPAA BEACH t D. B. 979 PCB 473 �` N - \ M. L 70 PC. 33 �• t- .. _.� .Y. %_ Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH / # 14 Page 5 �� a �tCd • _ _ � � �� :., TOIZI . 16 , lit, ova r - r ._-R • 'NL tp V �f Street Closure" A c4 f " r.. i ♦ r .,+.. top Street Closure c IL l - _ Item #14 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance upon Application of the City of Virginia Beach for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Honeygrove Way District 4 Bayside September 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach. It's an Ordinance upon application of the City of Virginia Beach for the closure of Honeygrove Way beginning east of Honeygrove Road It has four conditions. It's in Bayside. Is there any objection to Item #14, the City of Virginia Beach closing a portion of Honeygrove Way? Hearing none. Gene, would you comment? Eugene Crabtree: The closing of Honeygrove is just going to give more property and land to the police department and the library in order to build their new structures that they're going to build. It also amplifies by using Honeygrove as an entrance to this amplifies the safety reason for closing the entrance on Independence Boulevard, which enhances the use of that property for the city by the library and the police department. Therefore, we felt like it was a good consent item to be placed on the agenda. Dorothy Wood: Again, is there any objection to the City of Virginia Beach closing Honeygrove Way? Hearing none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent agenda item number fourteen with four conditions the City of Virginia Beach closing a portion of Honeygrove Way. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr. Will Din. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, we'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE" AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes ABSENT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list If necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. Applicant's Signature C"'C' 14 Property Owner's Signature (if different than ap ica /472L,-,:f� Print Name Ci e�.Yevt c c a�na�� Print Name Street Closure Application Page 13 of 13 Revised 7/1/2003 Map L-6 Mop Not to Sccle o� Cavalier (col - & Yacht Club z4 j R-40 1 _/W ! A NT n 0499 0, c _n J�8 � R . IC IS. - h Street Closure ZONING HISTORY 1. 6-18-63: Rezoning (R-S3 Residence Suburban to L-Cl Limited Commercial) — Approved 7-8-85: Conditional Use Permit (Multiple -family dwellings) — Denied 2. 6-18-63: Rezoning (R-S3 Residence Suburban to C-G1 General Commercial) — Approved 1-3-66: Conditional Use Permit (Gasoline Station) — Approved 11-27-90: Conditional Use Permit (tire installation) - Approved Street Closure ZONING HISTORY 1. 6-18-63: Rezoning (R-S3 Residence Suburban to L-Cl Limited Commercial) — Approved 7-8-85: Conditional Use Permit (Multiple -family dwellings) — Denied 2. 6-18-63: Rezoning (R-S3 Residence Suburban to C-G1 General Commercial) — Approved 1-3-66: Conditional Use Permit (Gasoline Station) — Approved 11-27-90: Conditional Use Permit (tire installation) - Approved Item #26 Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club Application of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager Trail District 5 Lynnhaven October 8, 2003 REGULAR Dave Miller: For the record, I'm Dave Miller a local attorney representing the Cavalier We are requesting the street closure. Cavalier is the petitioner. I think you've been provided with a letter from the other two contiguous property owners. I'd ask that you call for the question Ronald Ripley: Do we have a motion? A motion by Dot Wood and seconded by Kathy Katsias. Let's call for the question AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. Is there anything else to come before the Commission? This meeting is adjourned ;:D can O V DISCLOSURE STATEMENY Applicant's Name. Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club List All Current International Investors, Denise M. Webb and property Ownem. Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) Del Corum, Ron Forresta, John Napolitano, Joe Robbins and Bob Young, John Milieson,mgr. If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Ovmer Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach fist if necessary) Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club, Del Corum, Pon Forresta, John Napolitano, Joe Robbins and Bob Young If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below.. (Attach list if necessary) International Investors: Llyod T. Tarbutton, gen. part. 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION: l certify that the information contained herein is trice and accurate. 11, Sig atu Street Closure Application Page 8 of 15 John S. Milleson Print Name Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 18 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 20W WALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 18 Panp 6 • N lr+.:a 5 � F•i+�a .LYL� qw uJ ice- 3 a Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 18 Page 5 Conditions 1 The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure If private utilities do exist, easements, satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided 4. The applicant shall dedicate a twenty -foot public utility easement for maintenance and repair of the 5-inch water line that is located at the southern edge of the right-of-way, or shall relocate the waterline subject to the approval of the Department of Public Utilities. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 18 Page 4 easement must be dedicated for maintenance and repair of the water line No construction or encroachments will be permitted within the easement (The applicant for the adjacent proposed condominium project has indicated to staff that relocation of the waterline, subject to the approval of the Public Utilities Department, will also be explored) Public Works No comments. Public Safety Police: No Comments. Fire and No Comments Rescue: Private Utilities Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District have no objections to the Street Closure request Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan map depicts this area as Suburban Residential / Low Density, planned at or below 3.5 dwelling units to the acre Evaluation of Request The request to close a portion of Tanager Trail is acceptable. The cul-de-sac portion is unimproved and not utilized by the public The viewers met and determined that the proposed street closure would not present an inconvenience to the public Therefore staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 18 Page 3 PURPOSE: To close a portion of Tanager Trail and incorporate the closed portion into a proposed condominium project. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The paved portion of the street terminates just north of the cul- de-sac, the portion of right-of-way to be closed The paved portion of the street is narrow and serves only the single-family residences along the south side of the right- of-way. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • The Cavalier Golf Course / R-40 Residential South: • The Seashire Motor Inn / H-1 Hotel East: • The Cavalier Golf Course / R-40 Residential and • The Seashire Motor Inn / H-1 Hotel West: • An office building and a single family dwelling / 0- 2 Office and R-15 Residential Zoning History The street was platted in February 1955 and is a part of the Birdneck Point subdivision. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a five (5) inch water line located within the proposed Street Closure area of the cul-de-sac A twenty -foot public utility Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 18 Page 2 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 181 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: L06-215-STC-2003 REQUEST: Street Closure ADDRESS: The eastern terminus of Tanager Trail (the cul-de-sac) Me� Map c lC Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club R-40 �a 4 � a. J p R-40 -� B 1 .�} a. s INT QY v � r o`, Or237 �o \� C� o Street Closure ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 - LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE' 0.167 acres (7,307 square feet) STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie „J� •. _r yLi Planning Commission Agenda o, September 10, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 18 { °' Page 1 Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club Page 2 of 2 2 The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements, satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. 4. The applicant shall dedicate a twenty -foot public utility easement for maintenance and repair of the 5-inch water line that is located at the southern edge of the right-of-way, or shall relocate the waterline subject to the approval of the Department of Public Utilities. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: er: K- Planning Department 7!6 b�''L CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club — Street Closure (Portion of Tanager Trail) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: Application of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager Trail. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN The purpose of this request is to close a portion of Tanager Trail and incorporate the closed portion into a proposed condominium project. ■ Considerations: The paved portion of the street terminates just north of the cul-de-sac, the portion of right-of-way to be closed. The paved portion of the street is narrow and serves only the single-family residences along the south side of the right-of-way. The street was platted in February 1955 and is a part of the Birdneck Point subdivision. The request to close a portion of Tanager Trail is acceptable. The cul-de-sac portion is unimproved and not utilized by the public. The viewers met and determined that the proposed street closure would not present an inconvenience to the public. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11. 19 20 ORDINANCE NO. IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN AS TANAGER TRAIL AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "EXHIBIT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE PLAT EASTERN TERMINUS OF TANAGER TRAIL BIRDNECK POINT, CLUB SECTION, M.B 27, P. 35, M B.38, P.3, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" WHEREAS, Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 21 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, 22 closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before one (1) year from 23 City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 24 25 26 27 28 29 -911' 31 32 33 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: SECTION I That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 34 GPIN • 2418-51-9145, 2418-61-6238 and 2418-25-3175 35 1 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "AREA OF STREET CLOSURE, (7,307 sq. ft /0.167 acres) as shown as the cross -hatched area on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE PLAT EASTERN TERMINUS OF TANAGER TRAIL, BIRDNECK POINT CLUB SECTION, M.B. 27, P. 35, M B. 38, P. 3, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", Scale: 1" = 40', dated May 5, 2003, prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, LTD, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. (ZPrTTnNT TT The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning Department 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Prelinrunary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 2 64 4 The applicant shall dedicate a twenty -foot public utility easement for 65 maintenance and repair of the 5-inch water line that is located at the southern edge of the right- 66 of -way, or shall relocate the water line subject to the approval of the Department of Public 67 utilities. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 5 Closure of the nght-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within one year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void SECTION III 1 If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before October 27, 2004, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 2 If all conditions are met on or before October 27, 2004, the date of final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 3 In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are approved by the City Attorney's Office. SECTION IV A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB as "Grantee " 3 87 ::3 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of 12003. CA-8915 October 9, 2003 F \Data\ATY\Forms\StrLet C1osure\W0RKING\ca8915 ord doc 4 APPROV D S r CONTENT- hw�F Its - 1 ng Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. City Attorney 1 1 , A1� �'S � UI', �.•' � `,t Imo`^ � J , Sir -V 9�OIU OICi alma m_f + I r w1 t y. sl _ -AZ- W .0 - ��a- �1 C • • • i •7-1 V `� 1 S 1 r _ Z £v° Zz z=o�� T�!oZQa r, 7► 5 r C', Z a Ci �n 1 V C` I > I w j tirn z cr l _ 1 4 J Cl) D D r m oMz Do 10 zmDmG�� ±Im= CA ►o � r °tvD�D� cram A r C I IA A&- „yka v CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club — Street Closure (Portion of Tanager Trail) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: Application of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager Trail. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN The purpose of this request is to close a portion of Tanager Trail and incorporate the closed portion into a proposed condominium project. This request was deferred at the August Planning Commission hearing to provide time to address several outstanding issues. The request was deferred at the September hearing due to an advertising error on a related agenda item. ■ Considerations: The paved portion of the street terminates just north of the cul-de-sac, the portion of right-of-way to be closed. The paved portion of the street is narrow and serves only the single-family residences along the south side of the right-of-way. The street was platted in February 1955 and is a part of the Birdneck Point subdivision. The request to close a portion of Tanager Trail is acceptable. The cul-de-sac portion is unimproved and not utilized by the public. The viewers met and determined that the proposed street closure would not present an inconvenience to the public. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements, satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. 4. The applicant shall dedicate a twenty -foot public utility easement for maintenance and repair of the 5-inch water line that is located at the southern edge of the right-of-way, or shall relocate the waterline subject to the approval of the Department of Public Utilities. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: �4.-� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Department of Planning �,; _� mow; �► Current Planning Division '' `G�,r'• '� Zoning Enforcement (757) 427-8074 Fax (757) 427-4696 Planning Evaluation (757) 427-4621 Fax (757) 426-5667 MEMORANDUM October 9, 2003 TO: Wally Smith City Attorney's Office FROM: Barbara Duke 6V000, Current Planning SUBJECT: Street Closure for Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club (Portion of Tanager Trail) The above referenced street closure application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at it's October 8, 2003 Public Hearing. This item has been expedited by the Planning Director and is scheduled for the October 28, 2003 City Council Hearing. Attached are the meeting minutes, agenda request form and staff report. If you have any questions or need any more information, please call me at 427-4901 Thanks for your help. Item #26 Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club Application of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Tanager Trail District 5 Lynnhaven October 8, 2003 REGULAR Dave Miller. For the record, I'm Dave Miller a local attorney representing the Cavalier We are requesting the street closure. Cavalier is the petitioner. I think you've been provided with a letter from the other two contiguous property owners. I'd ask that you call for the question Ronald Ripley Do we have a motion? A motion by Dot Wood and seconded by Kathy Katsias. Let's call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ronald Ripley By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries Is there anything else to come before the Commission? This meeting is adjourned. CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 26] October 8, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: L06-215-STC-2003 REQUEST: Street Closure ADDRESS: The eastern terminus of Tanager Trail (the cul-de-sac) 11-0 � stele b� Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club R-40 C ., Street Closure ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 - LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 0.167 acres (7,307 square feet) STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie N1A 8 Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 e CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 26 Page 1 PURPOSE: To close a portion of Tanager Trail and incorporate the closed portion into a proposed condominium project. APPLICATION This request was deferred at the August Planning Commission hearing HISTORY: to provide time to address several outstanding issues. The request was deferred at the September hearing due to an advertising error on a related agenda item. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The paved portion of the street terminates just north of the cul- de-sac, the portion of right-of-way to be closed. The paved portion of the street is narrow and serves only the single-family residences along the south side of the right- of-way. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . The Cavalier Golf Course / R-40 Residential South: . The Seashire Motor Inn / H-1 Hotel East: • The Cavalier Golf Course / R-40 Residential and • The Seashire Motor Inn / H-1 Hotel West: • An office building and a single family dwelling / 0- 2 Office and R-15 Residential Zoning History The street was platted in February 1955 and is a part of the Birdneck Point subdivision. Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 26 Page 2 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a five (5) inch water line located within the proposed Street Closure area of the cul-de-sac. A twenty -foot public utility easement must be dedicated for maintenance and repair of the water line. No construction or encroachments will be permitted within the easement. (The applicant for the adjacent proposed condominium project has indicated to staff that relocation of the waterline, subject to the approval of the Public Utilities Department, will also be explored). Public Works No comments. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No Comments. No Comments Private Utilities Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District have no objections to the Street Closure request. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan map depicts this area as Suburban Residential / Low Density, planned at or below 3.5 dwelling units to the acre. Evaluation of Request The request to close a portion of Tanager Trail is acceptable. The cul-de-sac portion is unimproved and not utilized by the public. The viewers met and determined that the Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 26 Page 3 proposed street closure would not present an inconvenience to the public. Therefore staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. The City Attorneys Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. if private utilities do exist, easements, satisfactory to the utility company shall be provided. 4. The applicant shall dedicate a twenty -foot public utility easement for maintenance and repair of the 5-inch water line that is located at the southern edge of the right-of-way, or shall relocate the waterline subject to the approval of the Department of Public Utilities. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable Cit y Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB I # 26 Page 4 J v i.`i id 1 W ^ i �me = sf =8 II 4 , c� = z Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 26"��,; Page 5 *MMIM50rh .��lk�� 11 tr AC $� ► .Y� ♦ . 6 1 T � i ♦ yyx ) yt I'O��AI" • Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 - z> CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB 19 26 Page 6 i ✓< s ..4` t • �• H ,••�, l.. ;,Jil iT��^ `111 ' KI Owl '�., .�^ �- ,fit ', •� �'" .. W. • ,. :"T ' �. WO Al S, *4%r +.` •i >•� • �`r.y.,^r�y '`.,.jet `'r"+ 10 rk�r ', � .: ••.: J r �..: r ''-� " n `4 'ram~�•.M^a $y �,; '��• �'.• ;wy XYt; Awl. '\�, i"�\j }� � Imo. 'Y '�' ,_�.�! •y./. °I^ y Planning t;ommission Agena October 8, 20C WALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 2 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTiL � Applicaffs Name Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club List All Current International Investors, Don1se M. Webb and Property Owners Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list ail officers of the Corporation below - (Attach last if necessary) Del Corum, Ron Forresta, John Napolitano, Joe P.obbins and Bob Young , John Milleson,mgr. If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary) U Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership firm, or other unincorporated organization. if the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club, Del Corum, Ron Forresta, John apolitano, Joe Robbins and Bob Young If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list rf necessary) International Investors: Llyod T. Tarbutton, gen. part. Check mere if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partne-ship, firm or other unincorporatec organization CERTIFICATION 1 certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Sig atur Street Closure Application Page 8of15 mod,fed 10 16 20C2 John S. %lilleson Print Name B�cAf Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 26 Page 8 Page 1 of 1 Stephen White - October 28, 2003 docket From- "Terry Baker' <tbaker@breitdrescher com> To- <caksmith@vbgov com> Date 10/22/2003 11 04 AM Subject October 28, 2003 docket Ms Smith, please accept this note as a request to withdraw our application for subdivision variance request which I understand is on the docket for October 28, 2003 Our property address is 936 East Sparrow Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23464 If any further information is needed, feel free to call me at work as Jeff is out of town today 670-3833 Sincerely, Teresa G and Jeffery L Baker file://C \Documents%20and%20Settings\swhite\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW)00007 HTM 10/22/2003 Subdivision Variance ZONING HISTORY 1. 9-28-99 -- Subdivision Variance — Granted 2. 4-27-99 -- Conditional Use Permit (community boat dock) — Granted 3. 1-13-98 -- Subdivision Variance — Granted 4. 8-22-95 -- Subdivision Variance — Denied 5. 1-28-92 -- Subdivision Variance — Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Jeffery L. Baker — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Jeffery L Baker Property is located at 936 East Sparrow Road (GPIN 1447913309) DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE The purpose of this request is to subdivide the existing parcel into two (2) lots, of which, only one (1) would have the required lot width of 80 feet. The proposed flag lot is depicted with approximately 24 feet at the front yard setback (the location where the lot width is measured) ■ Considerations: The property is currently zoned R-10 Residential District There is an existing two (2)-story brick single-family dwelling on the site A Subdivision Variance was granted on this site on September 28, 1999 The 2 77-acre site was subdivided into two (2) parcels (lot A-2 with 1.449 acres and lot A-1 with 1 321 acres). Lot A- 2 is a substandard flag lot with 15 feet of lot width. A portion of the property was dedicated to the City to enable direct frontage on a City street for both parcels. It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the 1 321 acre parcel created as part of the 1999 Subdivision Variance into two (2) separate sites lot A-1 with 21,783 square feet and 24 feet of lot width (at the front yard setback) and lot A-1-A with 35,781 square feet and 86 feet of lot width Staff recommended denial. There was opposition to this proposal ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention to deny this request The applicant has contacted the staff and indicated a desire to withdraw this application. A copy of an email from the applicant is attached. Jeffrey Baker Page 2 of 2 ■ Attachments: Email requesting Withdrawal of Application Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the applicant be allowed to withdraw per his request Planning Commission recommends denial Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Ir L I Wr12. JEFFERY L. BAKE.ER:/:#: 10 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: A07-210-SVR-2003 REQUEST: ADDRESS: GPIN: September 10, 2003 Subdivision Variance to Section 4 4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance 936 East Sparrow Road 14479133090000 Subdiviswn Variance Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 2 - KEMPSVILLE SITE SIZE 1.321 acres STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A K. Smith PURPOSE: To subdivide the existing parcel into two (2) lots, of which, only one (1) would have the required lot width of 80 feet. The proposed flag lot is depicted with approximately 24 feet at the front yard setback (the location where the lot width is measured) Major Issues: "{ • Evidence of a hardship justifying-, granting of a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance " a Site Plan / Preliminary Plat:', ,$ Existing Lot: The existing lot is 1.321 acres and contains a single-family dwelling on the site There is also a flag lot immediately adjacent to thet ti north that contains 1 44 acres The proposed new flag lot would be in between these two ) sites Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to ti subdivide the existing 1 321 acre parcel into two (2) separate sites lot A-1 with 21,783 square feet, and 24 feet of lot width (at the front yard setback) r4 and lot A-1-A with 35,781 square feet and 86 feet #Y s of lot width * xs�st . arsatar•, r �t..r... "fir sr c. Existing Lot �r111% BF.q Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 4 '•' _t. JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 2 Item Reguared LotAA Lot A-1-A Lot Width in feet 80 24 84 Lot Area in square feet 10,000 21,783 35,781 *Variance required E� if figf�! IMP Proposed Lots Access to the new Parcel A-1 is not clear, as a revised ingress/egress agreement granting legal access to this site has not been submitted. Parcel A-2 is identified as the "Grantor" in the original easement recorded in 1999 that provides access to the existing Parcel A-1 (the parcel under consideration), and as such, any modification to the access that proposes to utilize this existing easement identified on the plat must also be granted by the Grantor (Parcel A-2) Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 3 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existinq Land Use and Zoning The property is currently zoned R-10 Residential District There is an existing two (2)-story brick single-family dwelling on the site Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Elizabeth River South: • Single family dwellings / R-10 Residential District East: East Sparrow Road, Single family dwellings / R-10 Residential District West: Single family dwelling / R-10 Residential District Zoning History A Subdivision Variance was granted on this site (Number 1 on map) on September 28, 1999. The 2.77-acre site was subdivided into two (2) parcels (lot A-2 with 1.449 acres and lot A-1 with 1.321 acres). Lot A-2 is a substandard flag lot with 15 feet of lot width. A portion of the property was dedicated to the City to enable direct frontage on a City street for both parcels. There were four (4) conditions attached to that approval- 1. A preliminary and final plat shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation 2. Site plans for the two lots shall also be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval 3. The only land disturbance allowed within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) buffer is the removal of the existing structure, the removal of the existing asphalt drive and the construction of the proposed gravel drive. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 4 4. Buffer restoration, utilizing bayscape landscaping principles, equal to the amount of land disturbance within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area buffer shall be provided downslope of the land disturbance. Upon inspection of this site, it was determined that Condition 4 has not been fulfilled. Staff responsible for the "'°p-'JeffL. Baker VO 1C' SCOLC I Edzabl' ROW N ti �X 0-10 Eluabctb RI* O •�1 m P j oil VJ I� implementation of the Subdivmon Vie Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance is reviewing this potential violation The adjoining parcel to the west (Number 3 on map) was also granted a Subdivision Variance in 1998 to minimum lot width, however, the deviation from City standards was far less One (1) of the three (3) parcels created under this request was approved with only 70 feet of lot width rather than the 80 feet required under the R-10 Residential District zoning A Conditional Use Permit was granted in April of 1999 for exclusive use of two (2) of these parcels for the construction of a Community Boat Dock at the east end of East Sparrow Road on parcel C-2 Parcel C-2 is not a buildable site and provides waterfront access (ingress/egress) for these two (2) homeowners Another Subdivision Variance was granted in the vicinity on a parcel on Pinewood Court (Number 5) The deviation in lot width, however, was much less than requested with the current variance application, as the lot requiring a variance has 66 feet of frontage rather than the 80 feet required A request on Bob White Lane (Number 4) was denied in 1995. Two (2) of the four (4) proposed lots required variances to lot width, each having only 20 feet of frontage Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 5 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and sewer services are available to this site; however, services end at the 90 degree turn in East Sparrow Road Any new development must connect to both public water and sewer. A private grinder pump may be necessary for the connection to the sewer service A Professional Engineer must ultimately verify all property grades of the proposed dwelling to confirm if gravity sewer is feasible Transportation Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Ca acit No data No data Existing Land Use —10 ADT East Sparrow Road available available 2 Proposed Land Use — 20 ADT as defined by one (1) single-family dwelling 2 as defined by the addition of another single-family dwelling Public Safety Police: Adequate — no further comments Fire and Adequate — no further comments. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Evaluation of Request Staff evaluation of a Subdivision Variance is based on several factors, including the degree of compliance with City ordinances and regulations, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and adherence to good accepted land use and development practices and theory Personal hardship does not enter into the Staffs evaluation. Above all, Staffs evaluation is based on Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 6 which addresses variances to the ordinance. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states Section 9 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states. No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that A Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected C The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance E The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. A Subdivision Variance request in the vicinity, similar to the current application in regard to lot width, was denied in 1995 on Bob White Lane Two (2) of the four (4) proposed lots required variances to lot width, each having only 20 feet of frontage rather than the 80 feet required The 1995 application was denied as both proposed flag lots varied greatly from the required lot width where no true hardship was presented The same exists with the current request, as no legitimate hardship has been established. In 1999, when the Subdivision Variance that created the subject parcel was granted, the parcel was deemed unusual in size and depth for the surrounding neighborhood and the existing zoning This area is characterized by large lots in excess of minimum lot sizes based partly on the fact that City water and sewer were not available to this area until the late 1990s Staff cannot support this request for an additional substandard lot, as there is no genuine hardship There are lots similar to the existing lot in terms of size, configuration Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 7 and access in close proximity to this site It would be unwise to `open the door' for other property owners to explore similar opportunities where a genuine hardship does not exist. Based on these factors, staff recommends that this request for a Subdivision Variance be denied NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 8 .4hyi a N<big � ED N :.~j3Zt5 Lij .�,►►o)�czt k t ;Z N 74'IW2r w IM.06• gar IM ��N►PC � o ai �IL SUBJECT PARCEL WWI � l W I i LO 8xlx� Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 . JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 '0. �•�°� Page 9 t1'7 tl cJ 4 �^ C4 uj t4 O .— fl 1— v LL r Z W r� co } LO _ � (D Z G J LU M y LZ.Y L N 01 (a/0),2 I.•�6 �s-oz co r , r C, Q. � CV � O N j�O tf? tt f 0 W - r` � ...E Q Q• � V) -1 Www- In>"0tj 'd is Ca < U U j CL © Z W uj QZZZ 7 W W < CL W / EXISTING INGESS/EGRESS EASEMENT Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 10 2 in"L i Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 11 M� DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners:., a .� APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list rf necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization if the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the roe owner is a PARTNERSHIP FIRM or other UNINCORPORATED property rtY � , ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other �"■�� unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION: l certify that the information contained herein is true d curate S' use Print Nanik Subdivision Variance Application Page 9 of 13 ModffieQ 10 162M Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 JEFFERY L. BAKER / # 10 Page 14 Item # 10 Jeffery L. Baker Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 936 East Sparrow Road District 2 Kempsville September 10, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #10, Jeffrey L. Baker. Jeffery Baker: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jeff Baker. I reside 936 East Sparrow Road. I'm here to represent myself on the request for the variance of rezoning. The variance was applied for to reduce the required frontage for residential lot development as shown that you have reviewed previously. In the staff meeting, the question seems to be hardship in this case. Basically, where we are there on the river and this being an older development, potentially I guess the hardship is the right-of-way that the City of Virginia Beach has available to you because the only other way to possibly gain more would be to drain the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River and that's not obviously not going to happen so it puts an encumbrance on this property to potentially even subdivide it and development it any further than it is. My conversations with staff, I have primarily submitted a site plan to Rick Scarper and he's administratively agreed that as long as the house on the property could be out of the RPA area that CBPA wouldn't have an issue with the subdivision as well I have copies for you that I would like to present to you so you can see exactly what type of square footage the house would take on this parcel, if I may? The house located on the parcel itself meets the overall intent of all the setbacks. Again, with the exception of what the variance is applied for. As far as access ability to the site, currently Mr. McLawhorn and myself have an easement agreement. He's opposing at this point. Quite frankly, I didn't feel it appropriate to approach him without a modification to this agreement without having a variance approved because I know how difficult that can be with CBPA and with everything else you have to go through. So, the intent was that on my existing parcel to reconfigure an access drive on my property which I also have a plan which is tentatively before DSC and has been tentatively approved by the administration of CBPA also that I'd like to submit for you to review which shows an alternate access route for the existing house that is there now through the gate which was originally existing to the parcel as it stood as a three -acre parcel. I would have access to my property at that point. The new parcel that would be divided would be the only single house that would be using the access easement that was agreed to with Mr. McLawhorn for two -house use basically for that road. From a traffic perspective, it's not going to increase the use of traffic on that road at this point. Being there are residents there now we only have two vehicles mine, and my wife's that come in and out of the access itself. There's more traffic that is seen on the access road by Mr. McLawhom's activities on site. He conducts a construction business out of his residence there so he has multiple clients, vendors and suppliers and things like that using Item # 10 Jeffery L. Baker Page 2 that road quite substantially during the day and evenings. Some concern at times was I have a 12 year old and a 4 year old and I've had to on occasions had to speak to Mr. McLawhorn about traffic speed and so forth on the access that is there currently now. The intent was to be able to subdivide this lot and to provide a better use for which the residents on the lot itself. I also have a copy of the building plan that I have shown the elevations if you would like to review those as well. The Wood property, which are conducive to the majority of the architecture that is used on lot of the new homes there in the residence that have been built around the area. The lot usage itself has zoning of R- 10 on it, which requires 10,000 square feet per space and you have sites today that arerezoned and developed with 5,000 and less on them on cul-de-sacs and subdivisions. This parcel itself you'll have roughly about 3,700 square feet of building space on 22,000 square foot lot with the driveway incorporated. You probably got 3,000 square feet of space so you're looking at about 1-3 ratio development to green space. There are parcels right down from this that were previously approved even though they have only 80 foot frontage, the parcels themselves are only 12,000 square feet and they have 3,000 square feet of concrete. They have a 3,000-4,000 square foot house and a 1,500 square foot detached garage on the parcel. So, that's about three building area 3-1 for the use of the property and over half of what I've just shared with you is in the RPA. So, I think for the use of this property other than the fact the road frontages is the reason for the variance. I think it's very applicable. And, being able to develop a house there and provide another residence in the city and you're looking at potentially $200,0004300,000 worth of tax revenue of the next 15-20 years from this parcel. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Baker? Dorothy Wood: How long have you owned the property Mr. Balser? Jeffery Baker: I have been there since 1999. Mr. McLawhorn and myself originally looked at the Linwood Ireland's parcels, which are west of this property. Unbeknown to each other, we each were looking at buying those parcels when we happen to stumble on to this parcel being out there at the same time. And, together we're able to secure this property. I've known Mr. McLawhorn for over 20 years. Dorothy Wood: So sir, you're the one then that subdivided it the first time? Is that correct? Jeffery Baker: Mr. McLawhorn subdivided it with my assistance or our assistance for us being able to secure the property. At that time, it was a conversation around the neighborhood at that time that there was concern that being zoned R-10 you would have somebody that would come in and do something like a Jonathan's Cove and try and put 8-10 homes in there and that was one thing that everybody seemed to be opposed of sort of the majority of the neighborhood down Sparrow Road using it as a park facility for a long time. I think feelings were a little hard over the development of the park parcel. But I think the property itself is a very beautiful piece of property It lends itself to a better use of a house or a residence on that property. I was proposing to put my garage over on Item # 10 Jeffery L. Baker Page 3 that side but once it was determined how much acreage there actually was it just made more sense to do that. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Will. William Din: You described the access. You're going to change your access with the original gate, which is further down the road near the pier. Jeffery Baker: Yes sir. William Din: I guess the existing egress access would be turned over to the new piece of property? Jeffery Baker: Yes sir. My understanding is that typically when an easement is granted it runs with the property, however, there seems to be a question of Grantee versus Grantor in this issue. My full intention was that the new residence basically would use the entryway where our current entrance is now and maintain the easement agreement that I have with Mr. McLawhorn in full so he's no way encumbered at all. William Din: I guess my question is the letter from Mr. McLawhorn indicates he is not in favor of sharing that easement with a new lot. I don't know where we stand on that as far as the Grantor on that. Kay, can that be done? Kay Wilson: Will, you need to see the egress/ingress agreement to know how it was worded and who it was for the benefit of as to know whether or not he had an argument and if he has an objection to the new thing, it would be a simple matter to handle. William Din: He's not in agreement to granting an easement there. Kay Wilson: There may not be an easement that we can recognize. I don't have a copy of the agreement. I have no idea who it went too. William Din: So, it's not really up to Mr. Baker to determine whether he can do his easement and let the other lot have rights to that easement? Kay Wilson: That's pretty much it, again, the agreement would address that issue. I don't think he can unilaterally say I'm going to give it to somebody else. I haven't seen the agreement I can't tell you that for sure. Jeffery Baker: I think the question is whether the easement can be reassigned. In speaking with an attorney, it would have to be an agreement between me, and Mr McLawhorn on the use of that. I think he understood the intended use by Mr. McLawhorn obviously it was that more than one house beside his own would be using that and that is obviously is not the intent. When I had spoken to Mr. McLawhorn previously on the phone I conveyed that to him because he was concerned that there was Item # 10 Jeffery L. Baker Page 4 going to "high traffic" but I guess if you run your construction business out of your home you don't get much more high traffic than that and the actual use of the easement by two houses instead of one house. By the redesign and relocation of my entrance drive onto Sparrow Road the way the easement is set up there will still only be one house besides Mr. McLawhorn using the easement. William Din: If I remember correctly when this was originally subdivided wasn't the plan to put more than two lots into this area? Jeffery Baker: Not that I'm aware of. William Din: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions or comments? I guess, Barry. Barry Knight: You and Mr. McLawhom were the two principals in this property from the beginning. Mr. McLawhorn, he owned it, subdivided it into to two lots and you all were in discussion the whole time there was going to be two houses along here. I am kind of wondering why if Mr. McLawhom was going to buy this land and live in the back why he didn't he develop it into three lots originally and I kind of get the idea that maybe he just wanted two there and maybe you just wanted two there also and now there's a change. Jeffery Baker: There has been a change in something you all don't consider a hardship with myself personally. Mr. McLawhom and I, like I said, I've know Mr. McLawhorn for 20 years and some of the hardships that we've had over this situation have been fairly difficult personally, difficult for me to handle because I think he's a good friend and he's a good man. I trust him solely with a lot of things. There's some personal things that I've shared with Rahn and his intentions, mine from the start I can guarantee you, were never to subdivide this property but because of some other issues that have come about, quite frankly, I'm left at no other choice. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions or comments9 Do we have other speakers? Robert Miller: I have no other speakers signed up. Ronald Ripley: No other speakers signed up. Okay, Mr. Bourdon wants to speak. Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. I'm not used to signing up. I represent Mr. McLawhorn and I'm the one who handled the application for Mr. McLawhom to obtain the subdivision variance to create the flag lot that Mr. McLawhorn retained after he subdivided the property and conveyed to Mr Baker the lot that Mr. Baker and his wife own. You all know that I am lowed to ever come forward in opposition to anything for a number of reasons but in this case for Rahn I've decided to come forward and I'm sorry I didn't sign up because today I didn't know I would be speaking. When I went over this property and Item #10 Jeffery L Baker Page 5 evaluated it with Rahn and I had some connection with this property with the previous owner who had it and was looking at developing it. I went over the fact that he developed the property using what CBPA buffers, it would require Chesapeake Bay variance and a road to be put in but the size of the property was, 2.7 acres, clearly it could have been divided with the creation by putting in a road into more than three lots. But that would have been a major fight. The Irelands, who I also know and represented and own the property that is located to the west of this property, even though it's zoned R-10 and this little peninsula is zoned R-10, it's really not a R-10 piece of property. That's the long and short of it. And, Mr. McLawhorn decided that he wanted it to remain in character with what's around it and that is to do the flag lots and do the large lots. Not to put a road in, not to go to the Bay Board and try to squeeze four lots on this piece of property. He developed the property into two lots. Mr. Baker is also a nice gentleman. We don't have any personal problems here whatsoever. But it is breaking in faith with what was done back just a few years ago when the option to do more than one lot was there to come in and try to do piggyback flag lots because a road could have been built. It could have served more than two lots. The variance was done this way with the understanding that's what we would be doing. It's just the two lots with no Bay impact because you're not even in the buffer with what was done. So, while we're empathetic to the situation that Mr. Baker finds himself in that empathy doesn't change what this Board and eventually, I guess, City Council will have to decide is what is the proper process land use wise. And, this is really a second bite at the apple and I don't think it's what anyone anticipated or intended. You have letters of opposition as you've received. It's our understanding or my understanding anyway that the other neighbors out there are not in support of this application as well as Mr. McLawhorn. And, I'm here to support staff recommendation that it be denied. There really isn't a hardship. Not one that is legally recognized that exists here. They may have a hardship personally but there's no hardship that justifies the granting of this variance and it was a situation that was understood that when the property was divided and Mr. Baker at that point in negotiations or under contract to buy this lot but he did not develop the property. I'm not going to get into access issue because as Kay has appropriately indicated, it really is a civil matter if it ever got to that point. I don' t think it will get to that point. And, I don't think that the access can be used and that's my opinion. Again, I don't think that should be the determining factor today. I think the determining factor is a land use issue. I don't think it's appropriate to come in and seek the piggyback of the second flag lot when that was not was what was intended when the property was developed the way it was. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Mr. Baker, you have a right to rebut if you would like to come up? Jeffery Baker: The only rebuttal that I would have is obviously my relationship with Rahn goes much beyond that of Eddie Bourdon. And, that initial conversations about Item # 10 Jeffery L. Baker Page 6 even developing this lot when he and I looked at it were all strictly financial. We didn't even know we could purchase the lot because they were asking so much for it. Financially, the situation that he had personally and I had personally, it took both of us to come together and buy this lot. The primary reason that way the road was put in and things were not developed was strictly financial. It had nothing to do with 1-2-3-4 lots ever being developed. The intention behind the whole property subdivision was that we would buy the property, he would get half and I would get half. We would work out egress/ingress. Whatever we do with our half after that would be up to us. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Okay. Let's open it up for many comments or motions. Will? Dorothy Wood: I'd make a motion that the application be denied. Ronald Ripley: Hold on, we got a motion. Do I have a second? We have a motion to deny. Do I have a second? Charlie Salle': I second it. Ronald Ripley: And, we have a second by Charlie Salle'. That's the motion. Will, I'm sorry. William Din: I was just going to offer some comments. I think I do remember when this came up originally and there was a lot of discussion as to how many lots would be subdivided into and it was obviously it was more than two. And, it was going to be a lot of opposition to subdividing it up to more than two lots and I think I would not be supporting more than two lots in this area. And, I don't think I'm going to support more than two lots re -subdivision of this second lot here. This is a very small area from an access standpoint on the main roads that are coming into it. I'm not going to get into the egress/ingress access problem there but I don't think I'm going to be in favor of supporting the subdividing of this lot. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Will. Are there any other comments? Let's call for the question. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from this item. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: So noted. The motion is to deny, so the vote for is to vote to deny. AYE 9 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY ABS1 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Item #10 Jeffery L. Baker Page 7 KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0 with one abstention, the motion carries. Next item Mr. Miller. e Qe 0 Q v (b/O).gE?.RS • M ,rZ£,Zg-O/- N / .*9,09 L 1%- �e C� � ry N a fa �g 1� Page 1 of 1 Carolyn Smith - 936 East Sparrow road From: Jonathan Rlgolo To: Smith, Carolyn Date: 9/7/2003 5:51 PM Subject: 936 East Sparrow road Carolyn, In reference to the sub -division of the property at 936 East Sparrow Road, I oppose and division of that property Below are the reasons for my stance on this issue 1 This lot has been divided before. When that took place I did not oppose the subdivision because it was two lots not three Had I known that in the future there would be a push to sub -divide into additional lots I would have opposed the sub -division than. 2 If this lot is divided what is in place to stop others from doing the same to their lots? This area has seen the addition of to many houses in such a small area. 3. The roads in this area are only 13 feet wide, currently Fire and EMS units have a difficult time gaining access to many of the homes in this area Additional houses will add to this problem 4 I have lived in my house for four years, during this time I have endured continues construction in this area I have watched as construction workers from both the City and private companies damage my yard, driveway and street to never return to repair the damage. Currently the road is mix of gravel, asphalt and pot holes from previous projects that have not been completed Often due to the narrow roads, access to homes is stopped due to construction vehicles or the City Public Utility guys digging up the street and blocking access for days on end. Over the Labor Day Weekend two occupied homes and a large home under construction did not have access for emergency vehicles due to the way our City workers blocked the street ans driveways to these homes Had a fire or emergency medical event occurred there was no access for emergency vehicles 5. I have lived on the Elizabeth River for the past 15 years During this time I have seen the river go from one of the most polluted waterways in the east to a somewhat clean waterway that still needs protection from construction that will cause harmful run off Additional homes will upset this cleaning up of our river. This area is ecologically sensitive, lets protect it As you can see I oppose this additional home in this area If you need additional information please feel free to contact me either at my City e-mail or at 757-434-3090 Thanks Captain Jonathan A Rigolo Virginia Beach Fire Department Special Operations Division (w) 757-427-1706 (fax) 757-427-0907 ri olo a vbgov com file //C \Documents%20and%20Settings\caksmith\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00004.HTM 9/9/2003 Subdivision Variance ZONING HISTORY 1. 7/7/92 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (single family dwellings) — Granted 2. 4/11/88- SUBDIVISION VARIANCE - Granted y or, �4 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Willard P. Orr — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Willard P. Orr. Property is located at 1557 Indian River Road (GPIN 2412593876). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of this request is to allow a residential dwelling on the subject site, which does not have direct access to a public street. ■ Considerations: The existing lot is an open grassy field with a barn. The back portion of the site is wooded. This wooded portion of the site is below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. The existing lot was originally created as part of a larger 12.2-acre lot in a subdivision for rural estates known as "Pungo Estates" in 1963. Thirty years later, in 1993, the 12.2 acre lot was resubdivided into three lots, Lot 12-A-1 (1.3 acres), Lot 12-B (2.1 acres) and Lot 12-C (8.8 acres). Lot 12-A-1 and Lot 12-B are conforming lots that front on Indian River Road. Lot 12-C, the subject site, was created without frontage with the intent that the lot would only be used for agricultural purposes and not as a residential building site. A note stating that Lot 12-C is not a building site is shown on the plat recorded in Map Book 232 at Page 54. Lot 12-C does not have frontage or direct access to Indian River Road. Access is provided to Lot 12-C via a 15-foot ingress/ egress easement along the north side of Lot 12-A-1. The applicant would like to remove the note stating "not a building site" from Lot 12-C and build one single-family home on the lot. In order to do this, a Subdivision Variance has to be obtained The applicant states that it is the intent to build a single-family home on Lot 12-C for himself and his wife. Due to health problems, they want to be close to their daughter, who owns and lives on Lot 12-A-1. Staff cannot consider personal hardship grounds for issuance of a variance. There are other alternatives available for the applicant's situation that would comply with the zoning Willard Orr Page 2of2 ordinance, such as modifying the existing home on Lot 12-A-1 to include a flex suite. Staff determined there to be no grounds for a variance as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and recommended denial. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because, as conditioned, a deed is to be recorded granting perpetual access rights from Lot 12-A-1 to Lot 12-C, which the Commission expressed to be their greatest concern at the September hearing when this item was deferred. There was no opposition to this request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. No structures or other land disturbance shall be allowed within the wooded area that is below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. 2. A deed for the 15-foot wide ingress/egress easement shown in Map Book 232 at Page 54 shall be recorded with the amended subdivision plat. The deed must provide perpetual rights of access for both residential and agricultural use from Lot 12-A-1 to Lot 12-C. The deed shall be subject to review by the City Attorney prior to recordation. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department r. City Manage WILLARD P. ORR / # 2:6] September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: L 14-210-S V R-2003 REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance ADDRESS: 1557 Indian River Road GPIN: 24125938760000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 -- PRINCESS ANNE Subdiv►s►on Variance Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 WILLARD P. •RR / # 26 Page 1 SITE SIZE: 8.87 acres STAFF PLANNER: Barbara Duke PURPOSE: To allow a residential dwelling on the subject site, which does not have direct access to a public street. This application was deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing to allow staff to work with the applicant to determine the status of the 15 foot wide ingress/egress easement shown on the plat across Lot 12-A-1. Staff has determined that no deed is recorded that specifies the rights/limitations of this ingress/egress easement. A condition requiring a deed granting perpetual access rights for residential and agricultural use from Lot 12-A-1 to Lot 12-C has been added at the end of this report. Major Issues: • Presence of a hardship justifying the variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: Existing Lot: The existing lot was originally created as part of a larger 12.2-acre lot in a subdivision for rural estates known as "Pungo Estates" in 1963. Thirty years later, in 1993, the 12.2 acre lot was resubdivided into three lots, Lot 12-A-1 (1.3 acres), Lot 12-B (2.1 acres) and Lot 12-C (8.8 acres). Lot 12-A-1 and Lot 12- B are conforming lots that front on Indian River Road. Lot 12- C, the subject site, was created without frontage with the intent that the lot would only be used .,Carl uw- Y�AU 1-2,A -- 1 sr .oc'tioa-ano wrw 20 ow ! / f =garb �vr i Lot 12-CAPMA ov dill r awv � r+.1ar-.x�r .xuar. / a \ 71 O M iUlaL7H \ �� q alO, 11aI .a�Ota �Y 11YT K 1was0�-..IrIYi a ss nn W LA b x ..wo-r .maim �M n ntt •.onYan aI w- re a ws0aar (_ Vy � c Ta,xTaws �. rr aia wmr— ss ,.wile- w r- aawewe- s .c row* rr-a .aa -s u- ao- - ,wr' y of .=M or�+oa.. a K ww. mho B+citdin0 Conetsvcion .Ma' �Ai1° rie "ar.wc:o.�,—''SrTr ,:v. ari-- Sste t 2—C, P ngo Eatatea Aeo=s AN, sv a•..orn ro�'sx ro a; w.f,.4 A...aa �wr arYi a r x .�e11A Bl, Planning Commission Agenda U Vn September 10, 2003 WILLARD P. ORR / # 26 Page 2 for agricultural purposes and not as a residential building site. A note stating that Lot 12-C is not a building site is shown on the plat recorded in Map Book 232 at Page 54. Lot 12-C does not have frontage or direct access to Indian River Road. Access is provided to Lot 12-C via a 15-foot ingress/ egress easement along the north side of Lot 12-A-1. There is also a separate area on Lot 12-C that is shown as a 150 foot wide "No Building Area" crossing the middle of the site from east to west. The area was originally identified this way on the plat for Pungo Estates recorded in 1963 in Map Book 60 at Page 54 and was to be used for future right-of-way purposes. The applicant is also requesting to vacate this easement. Removing this restriction and vacating this right-of- way easement does not require a subdivision variance. This part of the applicant's request has been reviewed through the Development Services Center and it has been determined that there is no need for the easement as originally platted. Proposed Lot: The applicant would like to remove the note stating "not a building site" from Lot 12-C and build one single-family home on the lot. In order to do this, a Subdivision Variance has to be obtained. Item Required LQt 12-C Lot Width in feet 100 feet 0* Lot Area in square feet 43,560 386,693 *Variance required Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existing Land Use and Zoning The existing lot is an open grassy field with a barn. The back portion of the site is wooded. This wooded portion of the site is below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Residential dwellings / AG-2 Agricultural District Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 WILLARD P. ORR / # 26 Page 3 South: • Pungo Estates single-family neighborhood / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District East: . Single-family homes / AG-2 Agricultural District West: . Wooded property / AG-1 Agricultural District Zoning History A subdivision variance to allow a lot with no direct access to a public street was granted on property west of this site in 1988. In that case, there was a home already existing on the site and the variance was granted to correct an illegal situation. No other subdivision variances have been granted in the area surrounding the subject site. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Public water and sewer are not available. Septic and well service must be approved by the Health Department. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Indian River Road in this area is a two lane local collector. There are no plans to upgrade this portion of Indian River Road in the current Capital Improvement Program. Public Safety Police: No comments Fire and Adequate — no further comments. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan This lot is located in the rural portion of the City designated for agricultural uses. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 WILLARD P. ORR / # 26 Page 4 Evaluation of Request Staff evaluation of a Subdivision Variance is based on several factors, including the degree of compliance with City ordinances and regulations, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and adherence to good accepted land use and development practices and theory. Personal hardship does not enter into the Staff's evaluation. Above all, Staff's evaluation is based on Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which addresses variances to the ordinance. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The applicant states that it is the intent to build a single-family home on Lot 12-C for himself and his wife. Due to health problems, they want to be close to their daughter, who owns and lives on Lot 12-A-1 Staff cannot consider personal hardship grounds for issuance of a variance. There are other alternatives available for the applicant's situation that would comply with the zoning ordinance, such as modifying the existing home on Lot 12-A-1 to include a flex suite. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 WILLARD P. ORR / # 26 Page 5 This application was deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing to allow staff to work with the applicant to determine the status of the 15- foot wide ingress/egress easement shown on the plat across Lot 12-A-1. Staff has determined that no deed is recorded that specifies the rights/limitations of this ingress/egress easement. A condition requiring a deed granting perpetual access rights for residential and agricultural use from Lot 12-A-1 to Lot 12-C has been added at the end of this report. Should the variance be approved, staff recommends the following conditions. Conditions 1. No structures or other land disturbance shall be allowed within the wooded area that is below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. 2. A deed for the 15-foot wide ingress/egress easement shown in Map Book 232 at Page 54 shall be recorded with the amended subdivision plat. The deed must provide perpetual rights of access for both residential and agricultural use from Lot 12-A-1 to Lot 12-C. The deed shall be subject to review by the City Attorney prior to recordation. NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 WILLARD P. ORR / # 26 Page 6 Item #26 Willard P. Orr Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 1557 Indian River Road District 7 Princess Anne September 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #26, Willard P. Orr. It's an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers with regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. It's located on Indian River Road in the Princess Anne District. Mr. Orr. Willard Orr: My name is Willard Orr. We have no problem abiding by the conditions of this because we don't plan on building. In addition to that, the deed for the 15-foot egress/ingress is in preparation and will prepared and along with the amended subdivision plat so the city engineer can do it will be prepared very shortly. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Is there any objection to Willard Orr, an Appeal to the Decision of Administrative Officers for the subdivision on Indian River Road with two conditions? Is there any objection to that? Hearing none. Will you please tell us about that Joe? Joseph Strange: Okay. This application was deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing to allow the staff to work with the application, Mr. Orr, to determine the status of the 15-foot wide egress/ingress easement shown on the plat. A condition requiring a deed granting perpetual access way for residential and agriculture use for Lots 12-Al through Lot 12-C has been added at the end of this report. And based on that, we have consented on this item. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Strange. Again, is there any opposition to Willard Orr, an Appeal of Decisions of Administrative Officers on Indian River Road with two conditions? Hearing none. Thank you Mr. Orr, very much, for coming today. Willard Orr: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent agenda number 26 Willard Orr, an Appeal of a Decision for a subdivision ordinance, a subdivision of Mr. Orr with two conditions. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr. Will Din. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, we'll call for the question Item #26 Willard P. Orr Page 2 AYE 10 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT -50- Item V-L.4: PLANNING ITEM # 47309 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED, Ordinance upon application ofSHORE VENTURESASSOCIATES. L.L. C., fora Conditional Use Permit ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF SHORE VENTURES ASSOCIATES, L L C FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COILfdUMTYBOAT DOCK R01000308 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE CO UNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Shore Ventures Associates, L L C, for a Conditional Use Permit for a community boat dock at the intersection of Lynnhaven Promenade and Piedmont Circle on Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, Block 3, Section A, Ocean Park,(GPIN #1489-58-6459, #1489-58- 5541, # 1489-58-5517) Said parcel contains 24,296 square feet (BAYSIDE - DISTRICT 4) The following conditions shall be required I No commercial use of the community boat dock shall be permitted 2 The community boat dock shall be used exclusively by the owners, occupants and invited guests of lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 as shown on the submitted site plan 3 The community boat dock shall not exceed eight slips (moorings) 4 No buildings, boathouses, boat launches or additional parking shall be permitted 5 No vessels larger than 26 feet in length shall be permitted 6 The community boat dock is subject to all applicable federal, state and local rules and regulations This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 69 of the Zoning Ordinance Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twenty-fourth of October Two Thousand Voting 9-0 (By Consent) Counczl Members Voting Aye Linwood 0 Branch, Ill, Margaret L Eure, Barbara M Henley, Louis R Jones, Robert C Mandigo, Jr, MayorMeyera E Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D Sessoms, Jr and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay None Council Members Absent William W Harrison, Jr, and Reba S McClanan October 24, 2000 September 9, 2003 AGENDA REVIEW MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Planning: Application of Crab Creek Homeowners Association, Incorporated, for a modification of conditions on a Conditional Use Permit. That's Bayside. Mr. Jones, that's deferred? VICE MAYOR JOKES: The staff is asking that that be deferred until October the 28th. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes, sir. Not a problem. FORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: Under Planning, Item Kl, the Application of Crab Creek Homeowners Association, Incorporated, for a modification of conditions. That will be consent for deferral until October the 28th at the request of the Staff. MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? (No response.) Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: By a vote of 11 to 0 with the exception as stated by the Vice Mayor, you have voted to approve the Consent Agenda as read by the Vice Mayor. 2 Virginia Beach City Council October 14, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard A. Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: At -Large Bayside - District 6 Kempsville - District 2 Centerville - District 2 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At -Large At -Large At -Large Lynnhaven - District 5 James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMCA Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Application of Crab Creek Homeowners Association, Incorporated 1 -33- Item Vl K.1. PLANNING ITEM # 51798 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of October 28, 2003, Ordinance upon application of CRAB CREEK HOMEO WNERS ASSOCIA TION, INC for a Modification of Conditions on a Conditional Use Permit for a community boat dock (approved by City Council on October 24, 2000 ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICA TION OF CRAB CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC FOR A MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY BOAT DOCK APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 24, 2000 Ordinance upon Application of Crab Creek Homeowners Association, Inc for a Modification of Conditions on a Conditional Use Permit for a community boat dock approved by City Council on October 24, 2000 Property is located at 2096, 2098, 2092, 2094 Tazewell Road and 3557, 3559, 3561, 3563 Piedmont Circle (GPINS 14895855172096, -2098, 14895855412092, -2094, 14895865033557, -3559, 14895864593561, - 3563) DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE Voting 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye Harry E Diezel, Margaret L Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Richard A Maddox, MayorMeyera E Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A Villanueva and James L Wood Council Members Voting Nay None Council Members Absent Rosemary Wilson October 14, 2003 r J��ei •"1.hC'„6 . 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Crab Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. — Modification of Conditions (community boat dock) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Crab Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. for a Modification of Conditions on a Conditional Use Permit for a community boat dock approved by City Council on October 24, 2000. Property is located at 2096, 2098, 2092, 2094 Tazewell Road and 3557, 3559, 3561, 3563 Piedmont Circle (GPINS 14895855172096; -2098; 14895855412092; -2094; 14895865033557; - 3559; 14895864593561; -3563). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE The purpose of this request is to modify the condition regarding the length of a boat. The existing conditions limit the size of any boat at this pier to 26 feet. The applicant requests to increase this limit to 35 feet. This request was deferred by the City Council on October 14 to allow the encroachment agreement to be completed. IN Considerations: There are eight (8) existing duplex dwelling units on the four (4) upland parcels currently zoned R-5D Residential Duplex District. These units share access to the water via an existing community boat dock. City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Boat Dock on this site on October 24, 2000. An encroachment agreement was authorized by City Council as well for the dock to be placed within the existing City right-of-way, Lynnhaven Promenade, which is primarily under water. The developer of the property stated in the application for that Conditional Use Permit that no vessels would be larger than 26 feet in length. This was made a condition of the Use Permit Condition 5 limits the size of the boats and is requested for modification because the applicant would like to dock larger boats at this community pier The applicant is now requesting to modify Condition 5 to allow vessels no larger than 35 feet in length. The City's Waterfront Operations staff has commented that there are no specific restrictions on boat length; however, if navigation of the channel is impacted, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction. It should be noted that on Crab Creek Homeowners Association Page 2 of 2 adjacent properties, larger boats (more than 26 feet in length) are legally moored at neighboring docks The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the increased boat length is consistent with the length of boats moored at surrounding docks, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: No commercial use of the community boat dock shall be permitted. 2. The community boat dock shall be used exclusively by the owners, occupants and invited guests of lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 as shown on the submitted site plan 3. The community boat dock shall not exceed eight slips (moorings). 4. No buildings, boathouses, boat launches, or additional parking shall be permitted. 5 No vessels larger than 35 feet in length shall be permitted. 6. The community boat dock is subject to all applicable federal, state and local rules and regulations. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency. Planning Department City Manager: er: CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G03-214-MOD-2003 REQUEST: Modification of Conditions placed on a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Boat Dock ADDRESS: 3557, 3559, 3561 & 3563 Piedmont Circle; 2096, 2098, 2092 & 2094 Tazewell Road r� us —MMSMED BOAT • s � ".• .► �i�f f ��i ► •x j-' •�► _ a % MoW iwfton of Conduiom to a CUP GPIN: 14895864593561, 14895864593563; 14895855412092, 14895855412094; 14895855172096,14895855172098;14895865033557;14895865033559 ��N�B.cm Planning Commission Agenda_�- U r� September 10, 2003 ,�• -i•� } CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 • �•• •J J Pagel ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 — BAYSIDE SITE SIZE- 24,296 square feet STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn AX Smith PURPOSE: To modify the condition regarding the length of a boat. The existing conditions limit the size of any boat at this pier to 26 feet The applicant would like to increase this limit to 35 feet Major Issues: • Potential for boat conflicts within the existing 50-foot wide channel. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There are eight (8) existing duplex dwelling units on the four (4) upland parcels currently zoned R-5D Residential Duplex District These units share access to the water via an existing community boat dock Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Duplex and single-family dwelling units / R-5D Residential Duplex District South: • Tazewell Road • Duplex and single-family dwelling units / R-5D Residential Duplex. East: • Lynnhaven Promenade (paper street), creek of Lynnhaven River West: • Stratford Road • Duplex and single-family dwelling units / R-5D Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 Page 2 Residential Duplex Zoning History City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Boat Dock on this site on October 24, 2000. An encroachment agreement was authorized by City Council as well for the dock to be placed within the existing City right-of-way, Lynnhaven Promenade, which is primarily underwater In 1989, a City owned parcel to the northeast was rezoned to P-1 Preservation District and is the site Crab Creek municipal boat launch. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Public Facilities and Services Public Safety Police: Adequate — no additional comments Fire and Adequate — no additional comments Rescue: Summary of Proposal Proposal The Conditional Use Permit limiting the size of any boat at this dock to 26 feet or less was approved by the City Council on October 24, 2000 The developer of the property stated in the application for that Conditional Use Permit that no vessels would be larger than 26 feet in length. This was made a condition of the Use Permit. The existing Conditional Use Permit has six (6) conditions 1. No commercial use of the community boat dock shall be permitted. 2. The community boat dock shall be used exclusively by the owners, occupants and invited guests of lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 as shown on the submitted site plan 3. The community boat dock shall not exceed eight slips (moorings) Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 Page 3 f0� 4 No buildings, boat houses, boat launches, or additional parking shall be permitted 5 No vessels larger than 26 feet in length shall be permitted. 6. The community boat dock is subject to all applicable federal, state and local rules and regulations Condition 5 limits the size of the boats and is requested for modification because the applicant would like to dock larger boats at this community pier Evaluation of Request The modification of Condition 5 appears to be reasonable and is recommended for approval to vessels no larger than 35 feet in length It should be noted that issues of navigation are the responsibility of the United States Coast Guard; however, Staff is concerned that on a potentially busy weekend, due to the City's Crab Creek launch facility in close proximity to this property, the narrow 50-foot wide channel does not provide larger vessels ample room to maneuver This is particularly true in situations as when a storm is threatening and boats become stacked up in the channel waiting The City's Waterfront Operations staff has commented that there are no specific restrictions on boat length, however, if navigation of the channel is impacted, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction It should be noted that on adjacent properties, larger boats (more than 26 feet in length) are legally moored at neighboring docks Staff recommends approval as conditioned below (Conditions 1 through 4 and Condition 6 are the same as granted in 2000) Conditions 1. No commercial use of the community boat dock shall be permitted 2 The community boat dock shall be used exclusively by the owners, occupants and invited guests of lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 as shown on the submitted site plan 3 The community boat dock shall not exceed eight slips (moorings) 4 No buildings, boathouses, boat launches, or additional parking shall be permitted 5 No vessels larger than 35 feet in length shall be permitted. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 Page 4 6 The community boat dock is subject to all applicable federal, state and local rules and regulations. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 Page 6 M-A JF oeptemoer lv, zoa kB CREEK H.O.A. / # 1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: cr4 6reeL 60MY,a-5 List All Current r , Property Owners: (f r4 e f dlh�2o Pl.� 'pc�'fj l'o+�✓, C PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) 1A If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary) C] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. o &CEA104 S' ature Print Name Modification of Conditions Application Page g of 13 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 Page 9 F==q- �;Oe� V PMM=4 FMTM04 Q O Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 CRAB CREEK H.O.A. / # 11 Page 10 Item # 11 Crab Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. Modification of Conditions _- 20961, 20981, 20925 2094 Tazewell and 3557, 35593-3561, 3563 Piedmont Circle District 4 Bayside September 10, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #11. It's the Crab Creek Homeowners Association. It's an Ordinance of Crab Creek Homeowners Association for a Use Permit for community boat dock. It is in the Bayside District. It has six conditions. Is there anyone here representing Crab Creek Homeowners Association? Gene, would you please? Eugene Crabtree: Yes. This was a very simple one because this is just requesting that they be allowed to bring larger boats into the dock instead of 26 feet to 35 feet. The only thing would be if there was enough room for the larger boats to turnaround within the area of the dock, however, this is not a city controlled function. It's a Coast Guard controlled function and therefore, since it's a Coast Guard controlled function we felt like it was suitable for a consent item. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any objection to the Crab Creek Homeowners Conditional Use Permit for a community boat dock with six conditions? Hearing none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent agenda item number eleven Crab Creek Homeowners Association with six conditions. That's in the Bayside District. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr. Will Din. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, we'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. Map G-3 ('r"h rroob Nns-nvn�»»vr�c ,LI ccn��nt�n� at • CITY Q��? INIA BEACH OPOSED BOAT RAMP OAF .J� it ` w • ISDI 1. � .. Modif:canon of Cond:t:ons to a CUP ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (community boat dock) — Granted 10-24-00 2. Subdivision Variance — Granted 6-23-98 3. Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) — Granted 8-23-94 4. Change of Zoning (B-4 Business District to P-1 Preservation District) — Granted 3-27-89 5. Change of Zoning (R-5D Residential District to P-1 Preservation District) — Granted 3-27-89 6. Change of Zoning (R-8 Residential District to B-4 Business District) — Withdrawn 7-7-86 Map L-10 Map Not .o Scale air r O/ 0 o� AV— l 12A O ,4 ] Dos 024 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. ,T _-- - - - — ------------- I qg 004 �2 Conditional Zoning Change from AG-2 to R-SD ZONING HISTORY 1. 11/14/95 — REZONING from AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional A-12 Apartment District — Approved 2. 3/19/84 — REZONING from AG-2 Agricultural to R-9 Residential District — Withdrawn 3. 1/28/85 — REZONING from AG-2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential District — Approved 4. 6/27/95 — SUBDIVISION VARIANCE — Approved 5. 8/20/84 — REZONING from AG-2 Agricultural to R-8 Residential District - Approved bus . �s1 4L 'r CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. — Change of Zoning District Classification (AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on property located at 960, 964 and 966 Old Dam Neck Road (GPINs 24156491440000; 24157424560000; 24157415220000). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this site for residential uses above 3.5 dwelling units per acre DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE ■ Considerations: The property consists of three separate lots and is zoned AG-2 Agriculture. The westernmost lot has one house located on it. There are at least five small houses on the two eastern lots. The houses were established on the eastern side of the site over thirty years ago for farm workers, when the surrounding area was a farm. The houses on the eastern lots are now considered non -conforming uses. The residential neighborhoods to the south and east of this site were developed during the 1980s. There is a condominium development west of Upton Drive that was more recently rezoned in 1995. The applicant is proposing to remove all of the existing structures on the subject site and to rezone and subdivide the 5.06-acre property for seventeen (17) single-family home sites, resulting in a density of 3.3 units per acre. The applicant's plan has many features that will help to reinforce the positive characteristics of the existing neighborhoods to the south and east of the site. The majority of the proposed lots will be between 8,000 and 10,000 square feet in size. New homes do not back up to the main roadway, Old Dam Neck Road; instead, there is an open space and stormwater management area serving as a roadside buffer. The new street serving the proposed subdivision will connect to an existing neighborhood street. Some of the trees on the site will be preserved in a 15 foot wooded buffer that will provide some continuity in the landscape for the existing homes in Pinehurst Estates that have backed up to this wooded area for over 15 years. Two very large oak trees located in the northwestern corner of Home Associates Page 2 of 2 the stormwater management green area will also be preserved. The proposed subdivision meets the Comprehensive Plan objectives for healthy neighborhoods and the density requested is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the development will enhance the area. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: L10-213-CRZ-2003 REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District. ADDRESS: ProDertv located at 960, 964, and 966 Old Dam Neck Road .; z../ova• N/ t f. Aome Associates ': i yTA SCHOOL r i GPIN: 24156491440000; 24157424560000; 24157415220000 �,N__1'r lA 8£� - _ Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 U� HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 5.06 acres STAFF PLANNER: Barbara J. Duke PURPOSE: To develop seventeen single-family homes Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property consists of three separate lots and is zoned AG-2 Agriculture. The westernmost lot has one house located on it. There are at least five small houses on the two eastern lots. The houses were established on the eastern side of the site over thirty years ago for farm workers, when the surrounding area was an operating farm. The houses on the eastern lots are now considered non -conforming uses. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Ocean Lake Elementary School / R-10 Residential District South: . Single-family homes / R-5D Residential District East: . Single-family homes / R-10 Residential District West: . Single-family home and vacant property / AG-2 Agricultural District Planning Commission Agenda September 109 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 2 Zug and Land Use Statistics With Existing The non -conforming structures on the site cannot be Zoning: improved or replaced without City Council approval. If the non -conforming structures were removed, the property could be developed into two new single-family home sites. With Seventeen single-family homes developed in Proposed accordance with the proposed proffer agreement. Zoning: Zonina History The residential neighborhoods to the south and east of this site were developed during the 1980s. There is a condominium development west of Upton Drive that was more recently rezoned in 1995. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The Navy has reviewed this proposal and does not support the requested rezoning. A copy of a letter noting the Navy's position on this rezoning is provided at the end of this report. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer This site must connect to City water and sewer service. There is a 12-inch water main in Old Dam Neck Road. There is a 16-inch gravity sanitary sewer main in Old Dam Neck Road. Sewer and pump station analysis for Pump Station 603 is required to determine if flows can be accommodated Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 3 Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): There are no planned roadway projects or other capital improvement projects in the immediate area surrounding this proposal. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity No Count Existing Land Use - 20 Old Dam Neck Road Available 13,600 ADT Proposed Land Use 3 - 170 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by two single-family homes 3 as defined by seventeen single-family homes Schools School Current Capacity Generation' Change 2 Enrollment Ocean Lakes 643 846 5 5 Elementary Corporate Landing 1,727 2,115 3 3 Middle Ocean Lakes 2,241 2,273 3 3 Senior High "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students) Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 4 Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Fire Department concerns will be addressed during detailed Rescue: subdivision review and building permit review. Comprehensive Plan The subject site is located in the Courthouse/Sandbridge Planning Area. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for residential use with a density of 3.5 units to the acre or more. The density on the subject site should be kept close to 3.5 units per acre due to this property's location within the 70-75 dB Ldn noise zone near Naval Air Station Oceana New residential development in this area should generally try to reinforce rather than change the positive character of our neighborhoods. Summary of Proposal Proposal • The subject site is a consolidation of three separate parcels currently zoned for agriculture. One of these existing parcels does not have frontage on a public street and shares access with the eastern front parcel via a shared driveway off of Old Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 5 Dam Neck Road. There are several non -conforming structures on the two eastern parcels of the subject site as well. • The applicant is proposing to remove all of the existing structures on the subject site and to rezone and subdivide the 5.06-acre property for seventeen (17) single-family home sites, resulting in a density of 3.3 units per acre. • There is a small piece of property on the eastern edge of this site, adjacent to Storm Lake Drive that is not a part of this subdivision. Title to this small piece, which measures 26 feet wide by 187 feet long, is in question. The applicant is in the process of researching the title and intends to pursue purchase of this property and incorporate it into the proposed subdivision. Site Design • The applicant is proposing to develop seventeen (17) single-family homes on lots ranging from 7,500 square feet to 13,861 square feet in size. • One cul-de-sac street is proposed to serve as access to the new lots. • A stormwater management pond has been located along Old Dam Neck Road, separating the home lots from the road. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • The proposed subdivision plan shows one new cul-de-sac street serving the new homes. The new street connects to an existing residential street to the east of the property known as Storm Lake Drive. Storm Lake Drive is the main access road for the neighborhood known as Pinehurst Estates. No access from Old Dam Neck Road is proposed. Architectural Design • The homes that will be constructed will be a mix of one story and two story models. The applicant has proferred an elevation for both types. All homes will contain no less than 2,100 square feet and an attached garage containing no less than 315 square feet. The style and size of the homes proffered is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Landscape and Open Space • The plan shows a stormwater management pond located along the frontage of Old Dam Neck Road. There is some green area around the pond that will remain open and will be dedicated and maintained by a homeowner's association. This will provide a visual, passive open space amenity for the neighborhood. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 6 • The Subdivision Ordinance requires that 5 percent of the area on site be dedicated as open space. This equates to 11,020 square feet. The total square footage of the stormwater management pond and green area is 34,657 square feet. At least 15,000 square feet of area is outside of the pond and therefore meets the requirement for open space dedication in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. • There are two large existing oak trees in the northwest corner of the stormwater management green area that will be preserved. • A corner of the open space will front on the subdivision roadway at the entrance to this subdivision, enhancing and defining the entrance. The applicant is attempting to acquire the small piece of property, measuring 26 feet wide by 187 feet long, that is located between the open space area and Storm Lake Drive. If acquired, this area will be incorporated into the development as additional open space. • The northern half of the subject site is wooded. The applicant has noted on the proffered site plan that a wooded buffer of at least 15 feet in width will be preserved on lots 3 through 9. • There are two existing City neighborhood parks within walking distance of the proposed subdivision. Proffers PROFFER # 1 When the Property is developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than seventeen (17) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "COLLINGS QUAY, A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION," dated 5/02/03, prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The number of lots shown on the plan is in conformance with the density recommendation set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant has provided open space in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. The size of the lots is compatible with the subdivisions on the north side of Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA/# 1 Page 7 Old Dam Neck Road and east of the subject site. The open space provided at the front of the site will serve as a roadside buffer and visual amenity for the subject property as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The site plan identifies two significant oak trees at the western edge of the site that will be preserved within the open space area and also identifies that a 51 foot wide buffer of existing trees will be preserved on lots 3 through 9. PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed, the party of the third part shall install sidewalks within the public right-of-way on both sides of the road as depicted on the Concept Plan Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. PROFFER # 3 When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owner's Association. The Deed Restrictions will include Articles providing for Architectural Controls and mandatory assessments for maintenance of community open space. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. Although the subdivision contains only 17 lots, the amount of open space that requires maintenance is also small. Staff feels that a reasonable maintenance fee can be established that would not become burdensome to the homeowners. PROFFER # 4 All homes constructed on the lots depicted on the Concept Plan shall have exterior architectural features, design and building materials substantially similar to homes depicted on the drawings labeled "Building Elevations — COLLINGS QUAY" dated 5/02/03, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable and ensures that the new homes constructed will be compatible in style and quality to the surrounding homes. PROFFER # 5 All homes constructed on the lots shall contain no less I'icJ�'F'� BLi Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 8 than 2100 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and an attached garage containing no less than 315 square feet. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable and ensures that the new homes constructed will be compatible in size to the surrounding homes. PROFFER # 6 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R- 7.5 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. Staff Evaluation: This proffer states a standard policy and is acceptable. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated May 23, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the subject site from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R- 7.5 Residential District is acceptable. The applicant's plan has many features that will help to reinforce the positive characteristics of the existing neighborhoods to the south and east of the site. The majority of the proposed lots will be between 8,000 and 10,000 square feet in size. New homes do not back up to the main roadway, Old Dam Neck Road; instead, there is an open space and stormwater management area serving as a roadside buffer The new street serving the proposed subdivision will connect to an existing neighborhood street. Some of the trees on the site will be preserved in a 15 foot wooded buffer that will provide some continuity in the landscape for the existing homes in Pinehurst Estates that have backed up to this wooded area for over 15 years. Two very large oak trees located in the northwestern corner of the stormwater management green area will also be preserved. The proposed subdivision meets the Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA/ # 1 Page 9 Comprehensive Plan objectives for healthy neighborhoods and the density requested is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. There is one improvement that the staff feels would make this proposal even better, and that would be to include the two remaining agricultural zoned parcels to the west of this site into this development. Consolidation of parcels is always encouraged for infill development as it results in a more coordinated, higher quality proposal. The applicant noted that he has tried to purchase the parcels, but the owner is unwilling to sell at this time. Staff recommends that the request to rezone the subject site from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District be approved as proffered. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 10 • DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA 1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINLA 23460-2168 IN REPLY REFER TO 5726 S>e r 32 /0313 August 4, 2003 Ms. Barbara Duke Municioal Center Department of Planning Buiidir_g 2, Room 100 2405 1-ourthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Duke: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning request for the proposed construct:.or_ of Collings Quay, a single-family subdivision. The site is located in the 70-75 decibel (dB) day -night average (Ldn) noise zone. The ?Navy's Air Installations Compatiole Use Zones Program states tna;. reswaential land use is incompatible in this zone. The Navy acknowledges the landowners' desire to develop their property, but 1 urge you to deny their request. We would view residential development at this site as encroachment upon operations at ;Naval Air Station Oceana. If you have any questions, please contact my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. Ray Firenze at (57) 433-3158. Sincerely and very respectfully, T. tiOiflficer C _Navv Com Copy to: COM AVREG MIDLANT Mayor Mevera Ooernoorf Virginia Beacn City Council Virginia Beacn Planning Commission Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 11 1i r k1c, r vrw r& W"w rr V C Z I'4,'F'a� yLiti Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 12 le �Jkzojj Model 300 II Optional Brick Elevation ` shown with ROC 0- Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1"°"""°= Page 13 �CLL�C1i7?ij� Model 301 ,t_ � _ _ _ ;rr , ';�ir'`4fst''��/a`�,.jl l�� ,. Jr � .J�aJ�•�f`''`'F�� .1.. '�/�"�.r/f/:.a' % ._.. I __. - � ,rJ.r�l'�/�,�%,�jt�, � r i/ % Jd/,- i r , 'f�l.�':'r� . � .,.1✓f/�rf�%/ '�A % , "f��j ��€ _ Optional Brick: Elevation 1m. J � a. _ NJ.,ri .a«..... ., ., s �� iir ��lllf`.`+l�s w �b" , •�'.Cx_.. �. _. �.— .,_ .,N1A BF,.. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 o HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1,;;;;r�` Page 14 } •55 i V lw a ;)j r Ji" - Vmn; �' f .Y^ L �y '� Ana f � (��,i q�•� s * � • •f W izi 511 Ak _v L LLJ xio IA Ni '' .s �..rf.-afro-�.•1+-,-•'�, z ...^ -"� � -41 11L s , � x f �.. � �.g°.� h ~"� �Y` �j"% r �r t 'fir '.:�` ' ..i��- �� ., �I':e• ry � `V,s91 • e, 1. � ti T cunning Commission Ageni September 10, 20, )ME ASSOCIATES OF VA / A o--- c� 41zy ` r r Fn C ti �a _M, f, LA co ' r `VVjvII� 41. rAll S to f -� ' (�E t Y •r _ , a i fi R Y 'i � * W. ^•e+'" 5 `w i .,#�' s'�.•yy� � � .Mt i.�4.t_rw., .a L x i :a .t i ` f .�Yc ,ice©, #`S N� ma`s ✓�'. �." �: � f" Y*.1• a f10 ��:+K..•'z� Y�''+��.3y."�..2.�YI e.�3T.r.�x�'I °ab �"�.k�. •'"4 ,� Aw�- DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 11 Applicant's Name: _ H.A.V.' INC_ List All Current ESTATE OF ODELL WRIGHT BY JEFFREY T. TALBERT, Property Owners- ESQUIRE, ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR __r,r`_______�__ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below - (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below (Attach hst if necessary) 10 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) JAIMES M. ARNHOLD, CHAIRiM+AN; ROBERT L._PRODAN_,_ III PRESIDENT; BRENDA CARUANA, VICE PRESIDENT; _ MARY L. HEALD, SECRETARY If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION. ! certify that the information contained herein is true an orate. H I AV , C. t� BY' _ _ JAtiiES M. OLD, MAMAS- Signatov Print Name Subdivision Variance Application Page 9 of 13 Modified 10 16 2002 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA/ # 1 Page 17 PQ cam 03 'a CAf A • DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA { 1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA 23460-2168 IN REPLY REFER TO 5726 Ser 32/0313 August 4, 2003 Ms. Barbara Duke Municipal Center Department of Planning Building 2, Room 100 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Duke: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning request for the proposed construction of Collings Quay, a single-family subdivision. The site is located in the 70-75 decibel (dB) day -night average (Lan) noise zone. The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program states that residential land use is incompatible in this zone. The Navy acknowledges the landowners' desire to develop their property, but I urge you to deny their request. We would view residential development at this site as encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana. If you have any questions, please contact my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. Ray Firenze at (757) 433-3158. Sincerely and very respectfully, T. C ai , U . Navy Commarldind Officer Copy to: COMNAVREG MIDLANT Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Virginia Beach City Council V ircin:a Beacn Planning Com-nission Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 HOME ASSOCIATES OF VA / # 1 Page 18 Item # 1 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. — Change of Zoning District Classification 960, 964, 966 Old Dam Neck Road District 7 Princess Anne September 10, 2003 CONSENT Ronald Ripley: The next order of business is our consent agenda and Vice Chairman Dot Wood will present this. Dot. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Chairman. This afternoon we have 10 items on the consent agenda. As I call the item will you please step to the podium and tell us whether or not you've read the conditions and whether or not you agree with them. The first item is Item #1, Home Associates of Virginia. It's an Ordinance to Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agriculture District and R-10 Residential District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on Old Dam Neck Road and this in the Princess Anne District and it has six proffers. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you madam secretary. Eddie Bourdon, for the record and obviously we are in agreement with the proffers that we've submitted and appreciate being on the consent agenda. Dorothy Wood- Thank you sir. Barry, would like to comment on that item? Barry Knight: On this proposed rezoning, the applicant's plan has many features that will help reinforce the positive characteristics of the existing neighborhood to the south and east of the site. The majority of the proposed lots will be between 8,000-10,000 square feet in size. Also some of the trees on the site will be preserved in a fifteen foot wooded buffer and in addition two very large oak trees on the northwest corner of the storm water management green area will also be preserved. The proposed subdivision meets the Comprehensive Plan objectives for healthy neighborhoods and the density request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Therefore, we view this as an appropriate use of this property. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #1, Home Associates of Virginia? This is an application for a Change of Zoning District? This is in the Princess Anne borough. Hearing none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent agenda item number one Home Associates of Virginia with six proffers. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do I have a second? Seconded by Mr. Will Din. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, we'll call for the question Item # 1 Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Page 2 AYE 10 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT 1 ABSENT FORM NO P 5 18 IA BEAc� r 0 a o 9�rs 0� S CF OUR City Of Virgirzia Beech In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5759 INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: October 16, 2003 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney FROM: B. Kay Wilson DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application Home Associates of Virginia, Inc., et als The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 28, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 23, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY 4"Hu SYKES, BOURDON AH£RN & LWY PC WESLEY J. BARNES, Executor of the Estate of Mary Henley Barnes, deceased CLIFFORD C. COLLINGS, III and PHILIP A. LIEBMAN HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA, INC., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 23rd day of May, 2003, by and between WESLEY J. BARNES, Executor, Grantor, party of the first part; CLIFFORD C. COLLINGS, III and PHILIP A. LIEBMAN, Grantors, parties of the second part; HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA, INC., a Virginia corporation, party of the third party, and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the fourth part. WITNESSETH. WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of one (1) parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 2.164 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 1 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with the other parcels referenced herein and described in Exhibit "A" are herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of two (2) parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 2.899 acres as more particularly described as Parcels 2 and 3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcels, along with the other parcel referenced herein and described in Exhibit "A" are herein referred to as the "Property"; and GPIN: 2415-74-1522 2415-64-9144 2415-74-2456 1 PREPARED BY 7� SCAM S 1 KES. BOURDON. AHERN & LEVY. P C WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation, and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit diffenng types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in venting, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-7.5 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, 2 ___-------t I - - - -- -- --- ---- PREPARED BY HIM SYKKS. BOURDON. AHERN & LEVY. PC which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title and which will not be required of the Grantor until the Property is developed: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than seventeen (17) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "COLLINGS QUAY, A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION," dated 5 / 02 / 03, prepared by Site Improvement Associates, Inc, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") . 2. When the Property is developed, the party of the third part shall install sidewalks within the public right-of-way on both sides of the road as depicted on the Concept Plan. 3. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owner's Association. The Deed Restrictions will include Articles providing for Architectural Controls and mandatory assessments for maintenance of community open space. 4. All homes constructed on the lots depicted on the Concept Plan shall have exterior architectural features, design and building materials substantially similar to homes depicted on the drawings labeled "Building Elevations - COLLINGS QUAY" dated 5 / 02 / 03, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 5 All homes constructed on the lots shall contain no less than 2100 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and an attached garage containing no less than 315 square feet. 6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-7.5 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date 3 PREPARED BY NUMB SYK£S. BOURDON, AMN & LEVY. £ C j of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that. (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate, 4 . r-- r - - - - - -- - PREPARED BY .19 SYKES. ROURDON, NA A1IERN & LEVY. PC (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee. 5 PREPARED BY .910 SYYES BOURDON `A AHERN, & LEVY P C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: THE ESTATE OF MARY HENLEY BARNES By: !_3�'� 1 - '? j %L(SEAL) Wesle vJ. Barnes, Executor STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF CL,�1 f` d"�40-wit: 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of tA ' 2003, by Wesley J. Barnes, Executor of The Estate of Mary Henley Barnes. Notary Public My Commission Expires: r- 6 WITNESS the following signature and seal - GRANTOR. •:, �.-�x lc�.;t �. 1,� �/.r-: Az (SEAL) Clifford C - Collings STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/ COUNTY OF VIP- DINT A REACH , to -wit. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30 TH day of May , 2003, by Clifford C Collings., by Philip A. Liebman, his agent and attmrney in fact. My Commission Expires: January 31, 2004 PREPARED BY NO SYKES. $OURDON. &M AHERN & LEVY. P C Notary f u 7 WITNESS the following signature and seal: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF _ GRANTOR. VIRGINIA BEACH (SEAL) Phillip A. Liebman , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30th day of May, 2003, by Phillip A. Liebman. My Commission Expires: January 31, 2004 PREPARED BY 112 SYKES. POURDON, Nil A11£01 c& LEVY PC Notary Pu is 8 WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA, INC., a Virginia corporation James/M � Arnhold, Chairman STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Zq day of May, 2003, by James M. Arnhold, Chairman of Home Associates of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation. rr, _ I . .. 1 My Commission Expires: 5 PREPARED BY .519 SYK£S, BOURDON, W AH£RN & LM4 PC Public PREPARED BY NO SYK£S BOURDON, s ARM & LLAr' Pc EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1: ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto, situate, lying and being in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly designated as tract "Parcel 5, 2.164 AC." on that certain plat entitled, "Survey of Property of Mary H. Barnes, D.B. 653 P 397 Princess Anne Borough Virginia Beach, Va.", which said plat is duly recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Map Book 170, at Page 27; reference to which plat is hereby made for a more particular description of the tract. PARCEL 2: ALL of that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto appertaining, situate, lying and being in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly designated as tract "Parcel 6, 0.536 AC " on that certain plat entitled, "Survey of Part of Property of Mrs. W. O. Gilbert Princess Anne Borough Virginia Beach, Va.", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 69, at Page 4; reference to said plat being made for a more particular description and location of the aforementioned property. GPIN: 2415-64-9144 PARCEL 3: ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto appertaining, situate, lying and being in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly designated as tract "Parcel 7, 2.363 AC,", on that certain plat entitled, "Survey of Part of Property of Mrs. W. O. Gilbert Princess Anne Borough Virginia Beach, Va.", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 69, at Page 4; reference to said plat is hereby made for a more particular description of the aforementioned property. GPIN: 2415-74-2456 CONDREZONE/ HOMEASSOCIATES/ COLLINGSQUAY/PROFFER 10 AA—, . T X Map Vot to Scale ri ear i�,00srxgxm �-07,r L 1010 r..�_ ;PA/ III/��// �•! • Z,, s �.� ME some, -, - /��`V!_-ram , / • \ Conditional Rezoning ZONING HISTORY 1. 6-18-63: Rezoning (R-S3 Residence Suburban to L-Cl Limited Commercial) —Approved 7-8-85: Conditional Use Permit (Multiple -family dwellings) — Denied 2. 6-18-63: Rezoning (R-S3 Residence Suburban to C-G1 General Commercial) — Approved 1-3-66: Conditional Use Permit (Gasoline Station) — Approved 11-27-90: Conditional Use Permit (tire installation) - Approved M. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Near Post, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification (H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Near Post, L.L C for a Change of Zoning District Classification from H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District on property located at 1020 and 1040 Laskin Road and a portion of Parcel A, Oriole Drive (GPINS 2418613236, 2418616228, 2418246584, and a portion of 2418517557) DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN The applicant is proposing the consolidation of three parcels to develop 90 luxury condominium units, parking and associated recreational amenities ■ Considerations: Currently the Seashire Motel, a Hardees restaurant and a small portion of the Cavalier Golf Course occupy the property The submitted conceptual site plan depicts ten buildings, landscaped areas, a pool and recreational building Five buildings front along Laskin Road, with four buildings located along the rear of the property A building also fronts on Oriole Drive Single entrances from Laskin Road and from Oriole Drive are depicted on the plan, however, several existing entrances from Laskin Road will be eliminated Ornamental fencing is shown along Laskin Road and Oriole Drive as part of the landscaping The building heights along Laskin Road and Oriole Drive are varied to create visual relief and to lessen the `wall' effect that large buildings can establish along roadways The proposed landscaping and ornamental fencing along the roadways will soften the eye level vision of the proposed buildings. The proposed development represents a dramatic reduction in the number of units compared to what could be built by -right on the site with the existing H-1 Hotel zoning (90 units under this proffered rezoning versus up to 264 under the H-1 zoning) This is significant considering the fact that the site is situated within the 70 to 75 dB AICUZ and Accident Potential Zone 11 Near Post Page 2 of 2 Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant submitted an additional proffer containing provisions requested by the United States Navy This new proffer, Number 10, reads as follows The Grantor agrees to insert in the Sales Contracts between Grantor and the Purchasers of the units within the Pines at Birdneck the following notices (a) The Property is located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn Noise Zone and the Aircraft Accident Potential Zone (APZ) II for the_NAS Oceana Air Base During flight trials, there is the potential for direct overflies of the Property (b) The preceding facts are subject to change and potential buyers are urged to contact the Community Planning Liaison Officer at NAS Oceana. Staff recommended approval There was opposition to the request ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as proffered ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: � NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 October 8, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: L06-215-CRZ-2003 REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Community Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District ADDRESS: Property located at 1020 and 1040 Laskin Road and a portion of Parcel A located on Oriole Drive .. Map Not -to Scale ,, Y-6srjAJM � �� S 7 ,� �� si ;.ram • �. pmv fir,• ��i��/� ��- �� - /, . � Conditional Rezoning GPIN: 2418613236; 2418616228, and portions of 2418246584 and 2418517557 �aNl_.I'r- ABE— — Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003; NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 - LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE 5 9 acres STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie PURPOSE: To rezone the site from H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Community Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District and develop 90 multiple -family dwelling units, parking and associated recreational amenities. APPLICATION This request was deferred at the August Planning Commission hearing HISTORY: to provide time to address several outstanding issues. The request was deferred at the September hearing due to an advertising error Major Issues: • Compatibility with the surrounding uses. • Consistency with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existina Land Use and Zonina Currently the Seashire Motel, a Hardees restaurant and a small portion of the Cavalier Golf Course occupy the property The property is zoned H-1 Hotel, B-1 and B-2 Business and R-40 Residential Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: • Cavalier Golf Course / R-40 Residential South: • Laskin Road • Across Laskin Road are restaurants, small Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 26 Page 2 service businesses, condominiums and offices / B-2 Business and A-18 Apartment East: • Merchants Tire Company / B-2 Business West: • Offices / 0-2 Office Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Within the H-1 Hotel District portion of the site, all of the Zoning: uses permitted in H-1 such as hotels, parks and public buildings and recreational and amusement facilities. If the site were redeveloped with a hotel / motel the allowed density would be 264 units. Within the B-1 and B-2 Business District portion of the site, all of the uses permitted in the B-1 and B-2 such as offices, retail, restaurants, public buildings, and automotive sales and service Within the R-40 Residential District portion of the site, all of the uses permitted in the R-40 such as single- family dwellings, golf courses, churches and public grounds and buildings. With Ninety multiple -family dwelling units, associated Proposed parking and recreational area. (If the site was rezoned Zoning: to A-36 Apartment without a proffered restriction on the number of units, the allowed density would be 212 units). Zoning History A portion of the proposed site was rezoned from R-S 3 Residence Suburban to L-C 1 Limited Commercial in 1963 Until 1973, the balance of the proposed site was zoned R- S 3 Residence Suburban with a T-1 Supplement. With the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in 1973 the sites were zoned H-1 Hotel, B-1 and B-2 Business respectively The Seashire Inn was constructed in 1952 as an accessory to the golf course. The Hardees Restaurant was constructed in 1969 Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 3 ____ - I r_ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn and an Aircraft Accident Potential Zone (APZ) II surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy comments that "residential land use is not compatible" within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ zone The United States Navy "would view residential development of this site as an encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana" Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The site has an existing water meter that may be used or upgraded with the development. The site is connected to city sewer Sewer pump station analysis for Pump Station 107 will be required during detailed site plan review to determine if the proposed flows can be accommodated. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Laskin Road in front of this site is a major urban arterial facility. It is identified on the MTP for a 150-foot right-of-way However, CIP Project 2-165 Laskin Road Phase II, which implements the recommendation of the MTP, proposes the widening of Laskin Road to six lanes (divided) and a bikeway. Currently the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is designing a plan for this section of Laskin Road The ultimate right-of-way shown on those plans is less than 150 feet and indicates that minor (one to two feet) right-of-way reservations may be required along the Laskin Road frontage to accommodate the new roadway The applicant has been given copies of the proposed alignments and is aware that right-of-way may be required during detailed site plan review With the minor nature of the reservation, the applicant will still be able to meet setback requirements from the right-of-way as required by the City Zoning Ordinance The Department of Public Works / Traffic Engineering Division notes that the entrance on Oriole Drive will not be allowed unless sufficient sight distance can be provided for the traffic exiting the site This will be further examined during the site plan review process. Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 4 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use —1,400 Laskin Road ADT4 311700 ADT' 3 Proposed Land Use - 97 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by the existing hotel and restaurant 3 as defined by 88 luxury condominiums Schools School Current Capacity Generation' Change 2 Enrollment Linkhorn Park 647 702 6 6 Elementary Virginia Beach 841 1,43 3 3 Middle Cox High 12,040 12,018 14 14 i "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students) Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site A site lighting plan will be required during detailed site plan review. Fire and Private fire hydrants must be maintained annually. Fire Rescue: hydrants must be within 500 foot of residential multi -family structures On -street parking should be located on only one side of the Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 5 streets in the complex in order to ensure access to the buildings by fire and rescue vehicles Fire lanes will be required. The minimum fire lane width should not be less than 18 feet, and under some conditions, a greater width may be required. These issues will be addressed during detailed site plan review. Gated sites should provide for Fire Department access using the Knox or Supra key system. Electrically operated gates must have a failsafe operation in the event of a power failure Security for ingress and egress must be approved by the Fire Marshal so that the fire department access is not obstructed. Gas grills, charcoal grills or similar devices will not be allowed on combustible balconies or within 10 feet of combustible construction A certificate of occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official before occupancy of the structures Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as suitable for retail, office, and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities However the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan (ORACP), a component of the Comprehensive Plan, recognizes the Laskin Road Corridor as the northernmost east/west roadway accessing the resort. This gateway provides many visitors with their first impression of the resort area The ORACP states that this gateway will establish the kind of quality that one may expect throughout the Oceanfront Resort Area The Concept Plan also recommends that development in this area be in compliance with the principles established for the Oceanfront Resort Area. These principles emphasize the following issues 1 Laskin Road must be able to move high volumes of traffic destined for the oceanfront resort; 2. Improvements along this corridor must exhibit exceptional design quality (page B.15) Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 6 Summary of Proposal Proposal • The applicant is proposing the consolidation of three parcels to develop a luxury condominium project. The request is to rezone the three parcels from H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Community Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District and to develop 90 multiple -family dwelling units, parking and associated recreational amenities. Site Design • The submitted conceptual site plan depicts ten buildings, landscaped areas, a pool and recreational building Five buildings front along Laskin Road, with four buildings located along the rear of the property A larger building fronts on Oriole Drive Single entrances from Laskin Road and from Oriole Drive are also depicted on the plan. Ornamental fencing is shown along Laskin Road and Oriole Drive as part of the landscaping `, Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • Currently, there are four entrances to the sites from Laskin Road and Oriole Drive Single entrances from Laskin Road and from Oriole Drive are proposed Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 7 with the project. • Sidewalks along the right-of-ways will be required as part of the detailed site plan review • Staff will recommend during detailed site plan review that internal sidewalks to the entrance of the buildings and to the recreation area be installed. Architectural Design • The buildings are a modified transitional style, with varying heights of 2 stories to 6 stories. The varying building heights provide visual relief and lessen the "walled" effect some condominium projects project from the roadways. Two units per floor are proposed for the buildings. • The exterior of the buildings are to be constructed of high quality cementitious clap board siding, colored off-white, and brick veneer, complementary in color to the siding The siding will be installed horizontally on the first 3 to 4 floors and vertically on the top floors to provide visual relief in the building walls. • Partially gridded double -sash windows with transoms above are proposed The windows will be vinyl wrapped wood. • The proposed hip roof will be dark green standing seam metal. Gabled end details provide visual relief along the rooflines. • Covered decks with storm shutter systems provide views of the golf course and waterways • Each unit will have its own garage, and most will have a double car garage. Additional surface parking will also be provided. Landscape and Open Space • The A-36 Apartment District limits the lot coverage to 75 percent of the lot area The submitted plan depicts 69 percent lot coverage, leaving 1.8 acres of green area. The applicant is proposing to retain as many of the existing trees as possible on the site The buildings are situated on the site to take advantage of the expansive views of the golf course and waterways. • The submitted conceptual plan depicts the required street frontage, foundation and buffer landscaping Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 8 Proffers PROFFER # 1 The property shall be developed and landscaped substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "Concept Site Layout and Landscape Plan of the Pines at Birdneck" prepared by MSA, P.0 and dated 7-24-03 (hereinafter the "Site Plan"). Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable as it insures that the site will be developed in accordance with the submitted preliminary site layout plans The submitted preliminary site plan depicts a coordinated development of the site in terms of design, parking layout and traffic control and circulation within the site. PROFFER # 2 The total number of dwelling units on the Property shall not exceed ninety (90) Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable as it limits the total number of dwelling units that may be constructed on the site /f not limited, the total number of units allowed would be 212 PROFFER # 3 Access to the Property shall be provided from Laskin Road and Oriole Drive and no vehicular access shall be provided from Tanager Trail. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable as it limits access to the site from Laskin Road and Onole Dnve and prohibits any access from Tanager Trail Tanager Trail serves only the residents located on the southern side of the street This proffer protects the residents from intrusion of additional traffic from the condominium As previously noted in the Transportation section of this report, the access on Onole Dnve must provide adequate sight distance PROFFER # 4 When developed, the existing three curb cuts located on Laskin Road shall be closed and the only access to the Property from Laskin Road shall be restricted to one location as shown on the Site Plan. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable as it eliminates curb cuts along Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 9 Laskin Road and restricts access to the site to a single entrance on Laskin Road. PROFFER # 5 The architectural design and exterior building materials utilized on the dwelling units shall be substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled: "The Pines at Birdneck" prepared by Sampson and Associates, P.0 and dated July 24, 2003 Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable /t ►nsures that the structures win be constructed ►n accordance with the submitted elevations, which depict attractive buildings and high quality materials PROFFER # 6 The recreational facility shown on the Site Plan shall be constructed with the same architectural style and building materials as the primary structures on Property Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable /t insures that the recreational facility and area will be developed with high quality building materials ►n a design complementary to the condominiums PROFFER # 7 An architectural fence shall be constructed along portions of the perimeter of the Property as depicted on the Site Plan The design, materials and height of the fence shall be as depicted as shown on the exhibit entitled. "Architectural Fence Detail" prepared by Sampson and Associates, P C and dated July 24, 2003 Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable. The decorative fencing adds visual appeal to the site, in addition to defining the perimeter PROFFER # 8 An enclosed one or two -car garage shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Staff Evaluation: The proffer ►s acceptable. PROFFER # 9 The Grantor shall dedicate a twenty -foot public utility easement for maintenance and repair of the five -inch water line located at the southern edge of the Tanager Trail cul-de-sac, and along the northern boundary of the Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 10 property, or shall relocate the water line subject to the approval of the Department of Public Utilities Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable It insures that the existing five - inch water line running along the northern boundary of the property will be relocated subject to the approval of Public Utilities or an easement for maintenance and repair recorded. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated July 25, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the site from H-1 Hotel District, B-2 Community Business District, B-1 Business District and R-40 Residential District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District and to develop 90 condominium units, associated parking and recreational area is recommended for approval as proffered The proposed development represents a dramatic reduction in the number of units compared to what could be built by -right on the site with the existing H-1 Hotel zoning (90 units under this proffered rezoning versus up to 264 under the H-1 zoning). This is significant considering the fact that the site is situated within the 70 to 75 dB AICUZ and Accident Potential Zone II The applicant worked with staff to produce a project that furthers the upscale vision for the Laskin Road Corridor The building heights along Laskin Road and Oriole Drive are varied to create visual relief and to lessen the `wall' effect that large buildings can establish along roadways The proposed landscaping and ornamental fencing along the roadways will soften the eye level vision of the proposed buildings The proposed building materials are of high quality and are complementary of one another. The buildings are situated on the site to take advantage of the expansive views of the golf course and waterways. Several existing entrances from Laskin Road will be eliminated. The redevelopment of the site will present a positive image for the surrounding area and this gateway to the Oceanfront Resort Area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request as proffered. Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 11 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 12 Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 4 =' NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 "• '�`� Page 13 Building 7 LEJ k'� Kit 9i L -71 Planning Commission Agendaeo October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 14 �a Building 4 "lift i k �k tR flA J1 1 i-I 11 fill C� Planning Commission Agenda ►� October 8, 2003 ::,i• NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 '`,:• Page 15 3� Buildings 3� �i. z d Q Q inI 7 LL z a d 1 � i �Nln B� Planning Commission Agenda y October 8, 2003. ,: NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 16 D L Buildings2��,�3 Z lu w ,V`.+. .rl`'hLi Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 z,� NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 •,� Page 17 O I 4 1 06 E IZ Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 18 LO c m Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 19 Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. I # 25 Page 20 Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2002 KICAM 0n0T I I r% .-u DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name- Near Post. LLC. a Virginia limited liability company List AU Current Property Owners: International Investors, a Virginia partnership APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) John C White. Manacina Member ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, conW iete the Property Owner section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below- (Attach list if necessary) See attached Exhibit for list of Partners ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION- l certify that the information contained herein is true and accuratf. Sign Rezoning Application Page 10 of 15 Print Name Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 23 777 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name►: Near Post. LLC, a Virginia !untied Itability_M2nny List All Current Property Owners: International Investors, a ilirairtiartnership APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, lest all officers of ttv Corporation below: (Attach list it necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach Imt if necessary) John C. White, Mannino member 13 Check here 4 the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. 9 the aMMewt Is not tka cuawt oww r of dw pn*w1y, c omple[e do Propewty Owner siatbn ha%w. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in tho organization below: (Attach list if necessary See $ttached Exhlbit for list of Partners 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: l cerIffy that the information contained herein is true andaccurate. SIgnat4re` Print Name Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 24 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Near Post, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company List All Current Property Owners' BNE Restaurant Group 11, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) John C White, Managing Member ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner section below. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) See attached Exhibit for list of Members ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. See Attached Signature Page for BNE Restaurant Group II Signature Print Name Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 25 Signature Page of BNE Restaurant Group, II, L.L.0 A Virginia limited liability company Property Owners to Conditional Rezoning Application Property Owner Disclosure BNE RESTAURANT GROUP. il, L.L.0 A Delaware limited liability company By* BNE Restaurant Corp A Delaware corporation, Managing Member By: Name. vet• c.ra.' Title: v z u pre Atr.� Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 26 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name. Near Post, LLC,, a 1/irginia limited liability company List All Current Property Owners: Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club, a Virginia corporation APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, last all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZEATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) John C White, Managing Member ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. if the applicant is not the current owner of the properfyi complete the Property owner section below. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below - (Attach list if necessary) See attached Exhibit for list of Officers If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I cerfify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signatur Print Name Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 27 Signature Page of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club A Virginia corporation Property Owners to Conditional Rezoning Application (Page 9of14) CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB, A Virginia corporation By - me' Jam¢ � +�� . �o►�un� Title: President Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 28 International Investors A Virginia partnership 1072 Laskin Road Suite 105-C Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 Telephone. (757) 422-2020 BNE Restaurant Group Il, LLC A Delaware limited liability company 1021 Noel Lane Rocky Mount, NC 27804 BNE Restaurant Corp., a Delaware corporation Managing Member Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club A Virginia corporation 1052 Cardinal Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 (757) 428-3131 Exhibit Partners. Lloyd Tarbutton Kenton L Tarbutton C Todd Woolston Gregory A Tarbutton William L Boodie, President W. Craig Worthy, Vice President Debra Baker -White, Vice President Michael Hancock, Vice President of Property Management David W. Schmitt, Vice President Debra Baker -White, Treasurer Kimberly L. Webb, Assistant Secretary Angeline Meredith, Assistant Secretary Officers: Delbert M. Corurn, President Ronald J Foresta, Vice President Joseph H Robins, Treasurer Robert L Young, Secretary Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 29 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA :750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD VIRGINIABI=ACH VIRGINIA23+4r60-2168 IN REP_Y RE=EiR TO Ser 32/ 0220 June 5, 2003 Ms. Faits Christie P=aTriring �epartmen y ti_ r^. i nia Beac^ ^ "aL:rthu.;se ;rive r..ec.r Ms. Cnri5 ;io: ^':an k you ffar the opportanity 'zo coirarent on the rezoning req-,est CyV Near Post :PLC and their proposed apartment constru--ti or, o:: vas;ci:: Road. The site ; s Located in Accident 7otentiai Zone Two fA?Z-2) and in :be 70-- J decibel (dB) :ay-n,g!�t average (Lan) noise zone. Tne Navy` s Air _. stcl aiC7 5 Use Zones Program S:.att'S `E"az residential . c:na use is not cc.-Ipaz :ble and should ae pro1+ ba tr d this zone. `l':ne Nary acknoa edges th.e landowner' s desire to dove' op tti'?1 r nro erty, bu: : U'ae you 0 den `i their request. We wou? O .e�• residential development at this site as an enc.roaahme :t );1 CLerG -iOr$ at Ncva_ Rif Station Q1.etz.:1G1. if you have arty please con' act Iry CC?I:'mun -,ty Karn_no L.`� aison Officer, Ray F-.renze at i-37; 433-3158. Sincerely and very respect' -fully, rn Ca a, .S. Navv Or) to: --ie honcracle Mayor 'YIe rera :oernaor_ ', ira :n-a Beach City , ini:a Sec`!.;!-, ?2 an-inc ConLT _ss-or. r Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 NEAR POST, L.L.C. / # 25 Page 30 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 222 Certral Park Avenue Suite 2000 VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA 23462 www troutmansanders corn TELEPHONE 757 687 7500 FACSIMILE 757 687 7510 R J Nutter, II r} nutter®troutmansanders com October 8, 2003 BY HAND DELIVERY Ms Faith Christie Planning Department Operations Building, First Floor Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 RE Near Post LLC Rezoning Application Dear Fai Direct Dial 757-687-7502 Direct Fax 757-687-1514 As you know, this application was deferred from the Planning Commission's September agenda to its October, 2003 agenda Dunng that time period, we had occasion to meet with the Cove Point Condominium Association Board of Directors and their attorney. One of the principal concerns raised by the residents of Cove Point was that with one of our proposed access ways to our project on S Oriole Drive While the Department of Public Works has not yet approved the location of that access way, the concern raised by the residents of Cove Point was that the vehicles entering my client's property from S Oriole might back up traffic on S. Oriole to the point where the residents of Cove Point might not be able to get into their condominium project. While we advised them that my client's application would substantially reduce the projected traffic on S Oriole and Laskin Road from that allowed under existing zonings, we agreed that we would seek permission from the City to add a left turn lane into our site on S Oriole Drive Consistent with this, my client is willing to move Building #9 further west approximately 10' to 12' and to dedicate that area to the City and construct the left turn stack lane on S Oriole Drive We recognize this is an issue that is addressed at the site plan process, but we wanted to make clear our intentions and our willingness to construct improvements within the public right- of-way that will benefit the residents of my client's proposed project, as well as the residents of Cove Point Condominiums ATLANTA - HONG KONG LONDON - NORFOLK • RALEIGH • RICHMOND TYSONS CORNER VIRGINIA BEACH • wASHINGTON, D C TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP ATTORNEYS AT L A W A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Ms Faith Christie October 8, 2003 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance with regard to this matter. Sincerel , �d R J /Nutter, II cc Mr. John C White Michael H. Nuckols, Esquire Document2 Item #25 Near Post, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification 1020-1040 Laskin Road and portion of Parcel A, Oriole Drive District 5 Lynnhaven October 8, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #25, Near Post, L L C. R.J. Nutter Mr. Ripley, members of the Commission. I want to thank you. Ronald Ripley: It's tough when you get deferred. You get deferred and you get called to the back. R.J. Nutter: I bet the group that you called up earlier, and they've seen that application, and they ought to be thanking you right now. At any rate I want to thank you, not for only hearing it, but for not taking a break. Donald Horsley: I agree Mr. Chairman. Eugene Crabtree: Can we have a 15-minute recess? R.J. Nutter: I can imagine you're tired. First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is R.J. Nutter. I'm an attorney. For the record, I represent the applicant Near Post. This is Dan Sampson He is the architect for this project, who has done a terrific job. In addition to that is David Miller. David is an attorney representing the Cavalier Yacht and Country Club, who has the street closure for this application, who is in the front row as well. While I am at it, Mike Nuckols is here. Mike is representing the Cove Point Condominium Association with whom we met with recently, and I think have come to accord. Having said all those things and introductions let me try and briefly go through this application with you. It was on your last month's agenda. It's actually been on your agenda on two prior occasions. While this is the first time you've had the opportunity to hear it, it is probably the third time you've been briefed on it by your staff, so I will try to be very brief Mr. Ripley. First let me tell you that I think the highlight of this application is in fact it is 5.9 acres. The property consists of portions that are zoned H-1, B-2, B-1 and R-40. It's current zoning would allow for an intensity use far in excess of what is on the property today, and what is being proposed in this application. It is located at the entrance to City's Gateway Project, which is recognized in the Comprehensive Plan and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and recognized in the new Comprehensive Plan, which is under consideration today So, this property plays an important role in what happens in this area of the city. We recognize that, and as a result we have paid a lot of attention to the quality levels that the city is looking for, for a project in the Gateway center of the city. As I indicated to you the property is currently zoned H-1 and would Item #25 Near Post, L.L.C. Page 2 allow 260 some units on the property by right. The existing hotel facility that's there today is probably most kindly referred as an area that this is somewhat at risk. I would tell you all the comments from the residents of the neighborhoods around it, Birdneck Point and others, they would tell you some horror stones about what has gone on at that hotel over the course of the years. It is frankly an area that needed some serious redevelopment, and that is what this project brings to you. To give you an idea of the financial degree of that development you can look at this a many number of ways. If you look at it from a zoning context it's a substantial reduction in the densities, traffic impacts and other things that could affect the property and the area around it. If you look at it at a context of the zoning restrictions, which most are H-1, B-2, and B-1, they are all unrestricted. They're not conditional. Any use can go there without review by the city outside subdivision and site plan ordinance. What we bring to the table then is a redevelopment that makes it fully conditional. It restricts the density down well under what is there today. Frankly, it brings a stunning project right to the Gateway of the city As I indicated to you as another way of measuring it as a financial way, and right now the estimated value, and this is being very kind of the improvements on the project, is somewhere just under five million dollars. The estimated value of this property after development will be in excess of 50 million dollars. So, it is a ten -fold increase in public benefit, if you are a taxpayer, while all the time putting conditions on it and reducing the intensity of the development. The development consists of really a series of individual buildings that house a total of 90 condominium units. The units range in size from about --� 2,000-3,000 square feet. The beginning sales price of these units will be about $385,000, and they'll go up to about $750,000 and that is without extras. I think the reality is that they will go from $400-800 thousand dollars and up. This property enjoys a vista of the golf course, Cavalier, that is unrecognized to many of us because we are used to driving by and seeing the hotel What you realize is once you remove the hotel that you have a dynamic view down that golf course and even a view of over the water, which is the same view that is enjoyed by the Cove Point Condominium Association, which is right on the water. So, our concerns of this project were therefore then how to design this to meet the quality levels and the capability levels, and we think we've accomplished that. Now, first as I told you, the series of buildings are depicted on the site plan, and I want to pay particular attention to a couple of details. In working with staff, Bob and his office on a number of occasions, we agreed to reduce the height of the structures along Birdneck Road I'm sorry, along Laskin Road to five story structures and the rear portion of those same structures would be six stones. Conversely, we get the same exact thing on the golf course as five stones along the golf course and six stones on the interior. The building has drawn a lot of attention, and I want to point this out to you and that is the building over here on South Oriole Drive. This building, and we have a rendering of that, and if I could go perhaps to the next one. This particular elevation depicts the location. Laskin Road would be here and South Oriole would be here. This is the Merchant's Tire and Auto on the corner. This is the building that I'm speaking about and I've pointed these things out to you in the record because I promised Mr. Nuckols and the Cove Point Condominium Association that I would make a particular reference of these features. This is a structure that really goes from two to three to five and six stones. It is designed to be two stories here because it is adjacent to structures across the street that are two Item #25 Near Post, L.L.C. Page 3 stories and in some cases three story structures So, we had to pay particular attention to that, and this is all part of the proffered plan that is submitted to staff and apparently this particular rendering did not make the staff s web page so we told them that we would make a particular point of pointing it out to them in the presentation that this would be the building, that is in fact intended for the property and proffered for the property. The other nice components of this are that we brought this application to not only with staff comments for review and their recommendation but we also presented this proposal to the Resort Advisory Commission as a request to the Resort Advisory Commission. They also have recommended approval of the application. We have met with the Birdneck Point Civic League and the Birdneck Point Civic League has also voted to recommend approval. I have a letter from them and in fact, I'll be happy to pass out to you Most recently, we've met with Cove Point and they asked us to address several issues and I want to take a little time to do that. One I've already addressed with you, namely the building that's adjacent to the entrance to their property. The other issues they were concerned principally had to do with, and I could go back to the perhaps the plan of entry zoning map Ashby. Their access way is right here off of South Oriole Drive. They were concerned about traffic stacking up entering this property because we have an access way proposed back here and our principal entrance is here, but as you all know there's a median that goes along here with no median break. If you're coming from a westerly direction traveling east then when you come to this light you have several ways of entering the property. You can go up to the Birdneck Point entrance and go down the -1 feeder and come in that way. You can go down Laskin Road to Oriole and either do a u- turn, which is rather tight quite frankly, do a u-turn here and come in that way, or you can go down to Oriole and enter the property in that direction. So, there was concern that there would be increased traffic on Oriole and Oriole is only 30-foot wide nght-of-way. Although we showed them and they didn't deny that with this reduction in density, and as your staff report points out we are reducing the amount of traffic per day from 1,400 to about 97 vehicle trips per day. They acknowledged all that. What we agreed to do in short, and we submitted a letter to Faith that says we would agree to move this first building which is right here further to this direction by 10-12 feet so we could dedicate about a 10 foot area along here so we could install a turn lane for stacking into our site. We have no objection to that whatsoever. The staff would have to agree to that during site plan approval, but we have proffered that. I shouldn't say that but we have written to staff requesting to be able to do that. We urge the civic league to work with us to make that happen. We hope to work with the district representative on Council to pull that in, and again we would be making those improvements. I see the light is coming so I'll try to wrap up briefly. Ronald Ripley: The light has come and gone. R.J. Nutter: Come and gone? I would like to pass this letter out to you, and I'll probably respond if I could to any questions. Ronald Ripley: I'm sure you'll find ways of getting your points out. Item #25 Near Post, L.L.C. Page 4 R.J. Nutter: You are all very good about letting us add to and address questions because they are questions here. I want to make sure that we got those points out to the civic league. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. We have a John Milleson to give support of this. Do you wish to speak? John Milleson: Hi. I'm John Milleson. I'm the General Manager of Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club. I'm here on behalf of the Board of Directors, who are unanimously supporting this project. We believe it will add greatly to the entire neighborhood of Birdneck Point, and it's a very suitable part of what we see as beneficial to the city at large. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Is there anybody else to speak in favor of the application? In opposition is a Mike Nuckols, an attorney with Fraggert and Frieden Is this who you are representing, the Cove Point Condominium Association? Mike Nuckols: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mike Nuckols: I thank you for hearing me. I wasn't sure to sign up in opposition or in favor. You don't have a box that's in between, and that's where I am right now with the Association Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mike Nuckols: We have met with representatives of the applicant, Mr Nutter, and we've been able to work through a number of issues and concerns that we have had initially and quite frankly, the Association would really like to support this project 100 percent. They think it's an excellent project. It has a lot of ment to it. There is one major issue however that concerns the Association and the residents of Cove Point, which is that intersection at Oriole Drive and Laskin Road Currently, I am told that there are times when residents try to exist the condominium have to sit through two or three light cycles just to get on Laskin Road. The reason for that is because the road is so narrow that unless people pull over far enough to make a double lane, you can't make a right turn to exit on to the feeder road. There is also quite a bit of traffic there and so it's a concern We also realize that it's one that this developer doesn't really have any real direct control over, but it is something that the city has some control or ability to control. We want to employ the city to look at this intersection and to take an affirmative action to make the improvements that really are needed for this intersection. There are a couple of projects on the other side of Laskin Road that are currently underway as I understand it that would also empty into this intersection creating additional traffic back up and tie ups. Unless something is done soon it's going to be a major problem for everybody worse than it is Item #25 Near Post, L.L.C. Page 5 now What really brought this to our attention is the fact that there really will be no median break for this project. As R.J pointed out, if you want to enter into the main entrance you either have to get on that feeder road at the Birdneck light or you will have to come to Oriole and make u-turn either onto Laskin or on to the feeder road, which further ties up traffic trying to exit or turn right coming out of Onole and go west on Laskin Road. It's the sense of the Association that people who are trying east on Laskin who want to enter this project are not going to bother with that u-turn and are not going to turn onto Birdneck Road, they're going to come to Oriole, make a left and go down and turn into the entrance that's projected and proposed off of Oriole. The applicant has addressed that issue by offering to establish a center turn lane going into the project and that helps in that direction but it doesn't help exiting onto Laskin. When you add these new developments into the mix it's really going to create a headache and some potential problems that quite frankly are already there in many ways. The feeder roads are difficult to negotiate in any event. I don't know if you ever tried to make a turn at that intersection at all but I have. I used to work down there back in the mid to late 80's, just down the road at the Birdneck intersection. Even at that time, entering on to that feeder road was a problem. I know it's only gotten worse since that time As I say, the Association would really like to support the project because they think it is an excellent use, but we also would like the Planning Commission and the City Council to add to their agenda a project that would take care of the issues and problems and traffic congestion that currently exists and is only going to be made worse by these additional projects entering into the intersection. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Ronald Ripley: Mr. White, can I ask you something? Stephen White. Sir. Ronald Ripley: With the Laskin Road improvements, we got one side of Laskin Road that is going to be improved up to about Birdneck, just a little bit beyond and the second one all the way to the Oceanfront. Are there preliminary plans out showing how Laskin Road will be treated in this area, which might alleviate some of the concerns of Mr. Nuckols? Stephen White: For this section of Laskin Road, those plans are currently under design. We looked at the conceptual, and my feeling is that some of these issues, if not all of them, will be resolved by those plans and what's being done with that. However, I've got to tell you that those plans are conceptual at this point. They are not final. The other thing that is noted in staff report is there are still issues with that access point on Oriole, and that is an issue that would have to be addressed during site plan review. Traffic Engineering itself is not comfortable with that access on Oriole, as of yet, and that access may not even be there. There are still some issues to resolve as far as turn lanes and those kinds of things. Ronald Ripley: Even going a step further though, I think they can take into harp with what Mr. Nuckols says here, and take those notes back to traffic to explain the concerns Item #25 Near Post, L L.C. Page 6 of those of the Association as they go a long ways if you fit it into the plan. Stephen White: Absolutely. Ronald Ripley: If you all would do that we would appreciate it. Stephen White: We'll be glad to. Mike Nuckols: The biggest problem with the Laskin Road project is waiting on it, because there is no real time frame as I understand it. That's where the Association is coming from. They really do like the project, but this intersection is trouble now, and it is only going to get worse. Ronald Ripley: Your comments will bring focus to it I'm sure. Mike Nuckols: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. We have Ray Firenze from Oceana. Ray Firenze: Good afternoon. My name is Ray Firenze. I'm representing the Navy at Oceana, and I'm here today in opposition to the proposed. Before I start I'd like to tell w-, you, Mr. Nutter, I've met with him and his staff, his architect and all the concerns that I'm going to lay out for you here I shared with him a week ago. This project is two and half miles northeast of Oceana in a 70-75 decibel day/night average noise zone. It's in accident potential zone number two It's directly aligned to our runway two three, which accounted for 47 percent of 218,000 annual flight operations in 2002. That is about 102,000 operations. What you see there is one straight line coming off the ocean, but that actually represents five different flight tracks. For example, there are two flight tracks that I analyze, two radar type approaches between September 2002 and August 2003. We over flew that area 4,891 times, and that's just two of the tracks. So what does that mean? It's two and half miles, at about five miles at 1500 feet the airplane starts final descent into the runway At 300 feet a mile the rate of descent we're going to be over the top of that complex at 800 feet. So what does mean? It means that were going to over fly that place quite frankly and at night, no doubt. Using metric caught sound exposure level and what the sound exposure level does is it measures the impact of the noise duration, the maximum and minimal db levels, so what they can expect is an F-18 right now, Hornet, at a 1,000 feet is 109 decibels and a Super Hornet, which we are getting. Now the last time I was up here that decision hadn't been made. It's going to be 114 decibels, but if you want to compare some decibel levels, normal conversation is 60 db and a rock concert is a 110 db. So you will have 100,000 rock concerts flying over year. It's not only about jet noise. It's also a safety issue about putting this complex in an accident potential zone. Oceana and Fentress are 24-hour facilities. We ask that you consider our concerns on your way to a final decision and like our letter stated from Capt. Keeley, that we view further development in this area as incompatible and an encroachment upon operations at Oceana. That's it. Thank you Item #25 Near Post, L.L.C. Page 7 Ronald Ripley: Are there questions of Ray? Ray Firenze: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Mr. Nutter, please. R.J. Nutter: Thank you. I want to thank Ray and the gentleman that he brought with him and I keep forgetting his name. Forgive me. Ray Firenze: Bobby Roundtree. R.J. Nutter: Bobby Roundtree. Thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with them We shared with them quite a bit of information about this project and now Just what we showed you but a lot of the construction details. I shared a little bit of that with you. This is not a normal stick and brick construction. When you go to six stones in height and five stones in height these buildings are all constructed out of concrete and steel. They have the heaviest of installation and windows So from the sound effect, they are built to standards that, quite frankly that most residential buildings in this area don't meet at all, well in excessive. Secondly, we've tried to point out and I think and they don't deny. This is a little different then other applications that have taken a more public stand on where the zoning is not in place and where you have a situation ---, where the existing zoning allows a degree of intense development far and excess of what's being proposed. In fact, this is definitely a reduction in the number of people living, working, and being in and around that same exact area with this application. That's the one point that I think I can almost leave with you, because there is no other way to reduce the potential impact on what can be built on that property other than a rezoning application and otherwise you can go 267 units plus B-1 and B-2 properties in additional to that, unconditional. As you may know H-1 district does not have height limit. We have a height here in this case of 85 feet at the highest point. If there were no zoning there, I would have a difficult time making this presentation But the fact is that we're reducing what's there and that's an improvement in terms of what the potential problems are here. Secondly, we're building this to standards that far exceed residential normal standard. Third, let me tell you that the normal buyer and what we're finding is that the buyers for these properties are interested in the properties as staying there for only months a year. Most of these are second homes for them. This is what we shared with the other condominium owners at Cove Point as well. The other is, quite frankly is that many of them live right in and around this area today and at Cove Point, we've talked with them and we've talked with and we've met in their room, which is Just right across the street. They know it very well and several of them expressed some interest in it. I just want to tell you that people, who live, work and play in this area no this issue. They like the Navy they think they are an asset. They use the ability to live on that property as an asset. This is the only thing that I can tell you that we'll actually reduce the concerns that the Navy might have by reducing the densities or by right can be built on the property. That is how we tried to address their concerns. That is why we think this distinguishes us from other cases that they have taken a public position on. Mr. Ripley, Item #2 5 Near Post, L L C. Page 8 thank you for the opportunity to respond and rebut, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. We've got everybody here and if you have any questions whatsoever. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Nutter? Barry Knight- R.J., two questions. Is any person who buys the condominium unit going to have a disclosure? R.J Nutter: Yes sir. Barry Knight- I mean, Oceana was here first. They need to understand that, nght9 You're signing this document, and I'm sure that Ray will probably and hopefully won't get any complaints, but they were put on notice when they bought this condo unit. R.J. Nutter- That's correct. In fact, we've suggested in this case, and in fact Ray asked us if we would consider what he called a "sight specific" warning. Not just what is required in the ordinance but one that identifies the particulars are there and the number of fights that apply. We certainly have no objection to that. Barry Knight: Number two. I noticed that in the 70-75 decibel range and course that is outside. If someone was in their house what type of reduction do you get on decibel rating by being inside by the way you're going to construct this building? R.J. Nutter I would have to ask Dan. I know it's a big one because this is so much better than my home. My home is built with sticks and basically with lumber. I don't have concrete doors and steel construction. I apologize. If it held up during the hurricane, I guess I'm okay. It is not the normal wood frame construction. Dan, if you can try to address that. Dan Sampson Again, I'm Dan Sampson with Sampson and Associates Architects We're the design architects for the project. The city ordinance requires and establishes a minimum a STC rating for the exterior walls within each of the different sound zones We certainly anticipate and will anticipate exceeding those requirements. I think the STC rating in that area has to be at least 56, which translates to essentially six inches of steel planks with installation, a couple of layers on either side. There will be siding on the outside. The roof also has similar sound attenuation requirements and in addition to our efforts we will be employing an engineer will be involved in the design of the building and also give us the opportunity to ensure that our construction is going to deal with the sound issues that are there, if we don't it is not going to sell. So, we haven't done anything for our client unless we do provide that level of construction. Overall, the building is planning on being a steel structure with pre -cast concrete planks. The central core will be a masonry structure inside the building. Barry Knight: Can you give me a number as far as decibel reduction? If it's 75 sound on Item #2 5 Near Post, L.L.C. Page 9 your porch, can you give me a number what you will think it will be inside with the windows closed? Dan Sampson: No. Other than that it will be definitely what the ordinance requires and probably greater than that. Barry Knight. Hopefully greater than that. Dan Sampson: Certainly greater. Barry Knight: I'm sure you're going to exceed the minimums, I would think. Dan Sampson: To give you a specific number, I would risk the probability of being wrong. That's not something I'm involved in. I'm telling you that our staff will include or the team that's designing will include acoustics as well Barry Knight: When Ray told us 60 decibels for normal conversation, I've got a benchmark on that. You said you couldn't, and I understand that but I'd like to ask this question, and I'll ask it again if you come before us again and you want a different project. I'd like to know how much it would lower, because if it lowers it to 65 decibels, Ray isn't going to get to many phone calls, but if only lowers it two or three decibels, he might receive a phone call or two. Dan Sampson: Certainly. They put out a little pamphlet that explains that the minimum requirements for the sound zones. Eugene Crabtree- Ray said the Super Hornets dbs are 114 dbs. I think what Barry wants to say is because 114 dbs that's coming over there at 800 foot, what is the dbs going to be inside one of these apartments? Dan Sampson: I can't answer that, other than to tell you that the ordinance will be complied with. Eugene Crabtree- Noise doesn't bother me as much as crashes. I don't care how much steel you put there it's not going to stop one of those Super Hornets if it goes into the side of that building, and it's going to have 102,000 flights a year right over there. That to me is a major concern, and I want to know if the people who are going to buy those things, if they are going to be aware and fully aware of this as well as they are the noise because ten years from now I don't want somebody suing the United States Government for 60 million dollars because one of those went into one of those buildings. Dan Sampson: Certainly Eugene Crabtree. Or the noise Either one. Item #25 Near Post, L.L.C. Page 10 Dan Sampson: I mean, life has risks Eugene Crabtree: I understand that. Dan Sampson: As long as you're informed. Eugene Crabtree: The Navy knows it, but are your clients going to know it? Dan Sampson: The answer is yes. Eugene Crabtree: As you know, I am torn between this, in fact that you can build a hotel there and have a lot more people there and have tourist there, or you can build it this way and have a reduction. You're darned if you do and you're damed if you don't type thing. R.J. Nutter I think it makes it more plausible for you because quite frankly you are able, and we've worked with instances before, with the Navy where we've had higher density possibilities and lower them and those were about two years ago. I don't know how to equate that today. Eugene Crabtree: I'm more concerned with the accident potential. —� R.J Nutter- I understand. That's why I think that what this does and this is the only opportunity you have on this property to reduce the accident potential problems that could exist. That's the best way I know how to put it. It's going down to 90 units from 264 plus B-2 and B-1. That's a big, big reduction. We acknowledge the issue and thought there was a way as to building it the right way and put people on notice to what's going on We feel like no one knows this. If you go down on Birdneck Road where all those people live and work at Birdneck Point, this is no strange subject to them. When we sat at Cove Point we had several flyovers at that time. They know it very well. You're right, not many leave it. They would love it. They would absolutely love it. You can see the ocean, go to the country club and play golf, and they're perfectly happy. They were happy to see these units would be built and probably raised the fair market value. Dan Sampson: I can also add that without having advertised the owners have informed us that they already have 23 reservations. That's not a purchase, but it's got that kind of interest, and they haven't even tned to advertise it yet. Ronald Ripley: Are there other comments? Yes, Kathy. Kathy Katsias. This is a wonderful improvement to this location. I was wondering about Merchant's Tire. R.J Nutter: We've had a lot of questions about that. Let me tell you the situation. We've talked to the property owners Right now, this property is covered by a lease, and Item #25 Near Post, L.L.0 Page 11 it has about five years left on its term. This property we built is in phases, in that it's starting from the west and moving east. It's our hope that as we get closer to that time period and the closest to the termination of that lease that we might be able to work arrangements with them at that time. That's the most asked question that we've had from Birdneck Point, Cove Point and other residents that we've spoken with. We are trying to negotiate with them if at all possible. Kathy Katsias. Thank you. R J Nutter- Yes ma'am. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. R.J Nutter- My pleasure Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Is there any discussion amongst the Commissioners? Charlie. Charlie Salle': This is a project that I want to support. I do want to make a comment as far as what the people from Oceana had to say, and that although I support the project, I do take what they have to say very seriously. I think it's an area where we do have a potential for the development, and I think that's what is better in the long run. I think that --� as much as I'm concerned with the noise and more so then the crash potential, I think we have to look at the reality of the situation, and we understand that neither the Navy or the city is going to condemn and prevent any development within the areas that are colored on that map. So, absence that commitment there's going to be development, and there's no way we can deny that, and so I think what we have to do is try and control the development in the best possible way I think this project does that for that property. As I say, absent wiping out all developing and buying that land up by either the city or the Navy, which never will happen, we have to deal with reality that something is going to happen there and try to manage it the best way we can. Ronald Ripley- Gene Eugene Crabtree: I tend to agree with Charlie. Everybody knows that I support the military and the Navy thoroughly in this, but unfortunately, I think we're going to have to go with this because it's the less of two evils. If we don't go with this and something else goes there, I think we might have more potential for something far more dangerous. Therefore, I think this is the lesser of the things that we might decide to do. Even though it sort of goes different in my brain, I'm going to support this application, I think Ronald Ripley: Are there other comments? Yes, Jan. Janice Anderson: I just want to say that I think it is a quality product. It is a gateway in to the resort area, being Laskin Road, and that it could spread improvement and that follows the Comprehensive Plan and what they have to improve the gateways. They Item #25 Near Post, L.L.0 Page 12 have support of the neighbors, and I think that is a good. There is concern for I believe Public Works can improve the work on with the street problem. With comment said by the Planning Commissioners, I'd make a motion to approve Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve by Jan Anderson, seconded by Kathy Katsias. Is there any more discussion? I want to make a comment to and I'll try not to be redundant. The project is a beautiful project. It's absolutely perfect for the city, however, I think the location relative to the crash zone, and I think Charlie probably expressed it well, and I think those people up here understand that, and that is the zoning is in place and by-nght is a far more intense development that could occur, and this what one point that I had to wrestle with the application. All other things in the application were absolutely outstanding. So, we take it to heart, but we're kind of between a rock and a hard spot unlike the last application Anyway, I'm going to support it also. Are there any other comments9 Let's call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. ABSENT FORM NO P S 16 ��4G�r1IA BEAc� o�; - q� Op OUR NA'00'N 5 City Of Virgiriia Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No DF-5764 TO: Leslie L. Lilley ig FROM: B. Kay Wilso INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE RE: Conditional Zoning Application Near Post, LLC, et als DATE: October 16, 2003 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 28, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated July 25, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure Document Prepared By: Troutman Sanders LLP 222 Central Park Avenue Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 Phone: (757) 687-7500 Facsimile: (757) 687-7510 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this 25th day of July, 2003 by and between NEAR POST, LLC, a Virginia lirruted liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), the contract purchaser of certain parcels of property generally located on the north side of Laskin Road, west of Oriole Drive in Virginia Beach, Virginia, which property is more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter the "Property"), INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS, a Virginia general partnership, BNE RESTAURANT GROUP II, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB, a Virginia corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor") and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification from H1, B 1, B2 and R40 to A-36 Conditional on the Property, and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN NOS.: 2418-61-3236-0000 2418-61-6228-0000 2418-24-6584-0000 2418-51-7557-0000 WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned A-36 are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing A-36 zoning district by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or vaned by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and executed by the record owner of the subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion of quid pro I quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that these proffers (collectively, the "Proffers") shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, it's heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: 1. The Property shall be developed and landscaped substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of The Pines at Birdneck" prepared by MSA, P.C. and dated 7/24/03 (hereinafter the "Site Plan"). 2. The total number of dwelling units on the Property shall not exceed ninety (90). 3. Access to the Property shall be provided from Laskin Road and Oriole Drive and no vehicular access shall be provided to the Property from Tanager Trail. 4. When developed, the existing three curb cuts located on Laskin Road shall be closed and the only access to the Property from Laskin Road shall be restricted to one location as shown on the Site Plan. 5. The architectural design and exterior building materials utilized on the dwelling units shall be substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled. "The Pines at Birdneck" prepared by Sampson and Associates, P.C. and dated July 24, 2003. 6. The recreational facility shown on the Site Plan shall be constructed with the same architectural style and building materials as the primary structures on Property. 3 7. An architectural fence shall be constructed along portions of the perimeter of the Property as depicted on the Site Plan. The design, materials and height of the fence shall be depicted as shown on the exhibit entitled "Architectural Fence Detail" prepared by Sampson and Associates, P.C. and dated July 24, 2003. 8. An enclosed one or two car garage shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 9. The Grantor shall dedicate a twenty foot public utility easement for maintenance and repair of the five inch water line located at the southern edge of the Tanager Trail cul-de-sac, and along the northern boundary of the Property, or shall relocate the water line subject to the approval of the Department of Public Utilities. 10. The Grantor agrees to insert in the Sales Contracts between Grantor and the Purchasers of the units within the Pines at Birdneck the following notices: (a) The Property is located within the 70 to 75 Db Ldn Noise Zone and the Aircraft Accident Potential Zone (APZ) H for the NAS Oceana Air Base. During flight trials, there is the potential for direct overflies of the Property; (b) The preceding facts are subject to change and potential buyers are urged to contact the Community Planning Liaison Officer at NAS Oceana. Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. 2 The Grantor covenant and agree that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 5 Signature Page of Near Post, LLC To Proffer Agreement Dated � �,-�%OZ 2 _4 2003 NEAR POST, LLC A Virginia limited liability company By �- Jack C WhCte Managing Member COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGR' IA CITY OF CL ac� , to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2 day of • s i 20031P by John C White, personally known to me to be the Managing Member of ear ost, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, on behalf of the Company Notary Public My Commission Expires ( A&t0_'4 rol Signature Page of International Investors To Proffer Agreement Dated 4 , 2003 ^25th INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS A Virginia general partnership B yo 77i ��'"'� General Partner STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF ZI,060V�� , to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this C�� day of 003, by i ,6 //P%— , personally known to me to'be the n e/a4 Q rr/AU e✓ of International Investors, a Virginia general partnership, on behalf of the Partnership Notary Public My Commission Expires C i �/ 020z) Signature Page of BNE Restaurant Group, II, LLC To Proffer Agreement Dated j,,ly 29 , 2003 BNE RESTAURANT GROUP, II, L.L.C. A Delaware limited liability company By: BNE Restaurant Corp., A Delaware corporation, ' Managing Member B ' Name: Title: C C ; Pro C-` -t -, r- STATE OF (A/IPiK� C,14fIJCOUNTY OF , to -wit: The foregoing ins t was ac owledged before me thisZ day of 2 03 b personally known to me to be th .y P Y of BNE Restaurant Corp., a Delaware corporation, Managing Member of BNE Restaurant Group II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the Company. C: " (P. � C� NotaryPubl c My Commission Expires: I 1 IS "0�S t1atar� Ph'51IC Signature Page of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club To Proffer Agreement Dated 2.5 FG Ja , 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB A Virginia corporation G , By �P e � tt-�.,• S . Mr �.c.�,�s�-. J Title Drneiao+++ L 441:5 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF �� , to -wit - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z day of 2003, by S&hn 6 1h, %/e6U)-� , personally known to me to be the resident of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club, a Virginia corporation, on behalf of the Corporation Notary Public My Commission Expires `MD V' A fir; 940 0 EXHIBIT A Parcel 1: (GPIN No 2418-61-3236-0000) Parcel One: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and more particularly known, numbered and designated as Site 14, as shown on the plat entitled "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT" which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 7, Page 2, at Page 192. Parcel Two: ALL THOSE certain lots, pieces or parcels of land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being known, numbered and designated as Sites 12 and 13, "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT," made by John M. Baldwin, C.E., and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 7, Part 2, at Page 192. TOGETHER WITH that certain tract of land lying between Sites 12 and 13, "CLUB SECTION AND LASKIN BOULEVARD," and more particularly bounded and described as follows, to -wit - BEGINNING at a point which is the northwest corner of Site 12 of "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT" and in the southern line of Tanager Trail, as shown on the plat of "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT" and from said point of beginning running along the southern line of Tanager Trail in an easterly direction along the arc of a circle the radius of which is 1,686.4 feet a distance of 200 feet to a pin in the dividing line of Sites 12 and 13 on the plat of "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT;" thence continuing in an easterly direction along the southern line of Tanager Trail as shown on the plat "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT" and along a curve the radius of which is 1,686.4 feet a distance of 200 feet to a pin in the northeast corner of Site 13, plat of "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT" thence turning and running S. 30 degrees 15' 30" E. along the eastern line of said Site 13 a distance of 150 feet to a pin; thence running S. 30 degrees 50' 30" E. a distance of 165 feet to the northern line of Laskin Boulevard; thence turning and running westerly along a curve, the radius of which is 1,371.4 feet a distance of 325.28 feet along the northern line of Laskin Boulevard to a pin, thence turning and running N. 44 degrees 34' 39" W. a distance of 165 feet to a pin the southwest corner of Site 12, plat of "CLUB SECTION, BIRDNECK POINT," thence running along the western line of Site 12 a distance of 150 feet to the point of beginning LESS SAVE AND EXCEPT that portion of the property conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to Laskin Boulevard consisting of approximately .33 acres, more of less, by deed duly recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 305, at Page 441, and more particularly shown in Highway Plat Book 1, at Page 446. fl] IT BEING the same property conveyed to International Investors, a Virginia general partnership, by Deed of General Warranty from Clark Enterprises, a Virginia general partnership, a successor, by merger to Birdsong & Clark, a Virginia general partnership, dated February 11, 1984 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 23247 at Page 397. TOGETHER WITH that portion of a closed street and cul-de-sac, formerly known as Tanager Trail, which is 30' wide and abuts the northern boundary of Lots 12, 13 and 14 (otherwise known as The Seashire Inn, 1040 Laskin Road), together with any portion of said Tanager Trail extending to the southern boundary of Oriole Drive, reference being made to a certain plat entitled "MAP OF BIRDNECK POINT, CLUB SECTION," property of Birdneck Realty Corporation dated June 1926, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 7, Part 2, at Page 192 LESS SAVE AND EXCEPT that portion of the property conveyed to the Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club, a Virginia corporation, consisting of approximately 0.041 acres, more of less, by Deed of Exchange duly recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 200303040833046. TOGETHER WITH that portion of the property conveyed to International Investors, a Virginia general partnership, from the Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club, a Virginia corporation, consisting of approximately 0.041 acres, more of less, by Deed of Exchange duly recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 200303040833046. Parcel 2: (GPIN No. 2418-61-6228-0000) ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Parcel B-1-A, as shown on that certain plat entitled, "RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A, PARCEL B-1, LOT 15, AND LOT 16, AS SHOWN ON PLAT ENTITLED `SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL `B' PROPERTY OF PAUL W. ACKISS AND FRANK W. HANCOCK, JR. AND PARCEL 5 AS SHOWN ON BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR CAVALIER BIRDNECK LAND CORPORATION" dated December 6, 1999 and made by Horton & Dodd, P.C., Surveyors -Engineers -Planners, Chesapeake, Virginia and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 283, at page 15. IT BEING a part of the same property conveyed to BNE Restaurant Group Two, L.L C., a Delaware limited liability company by Special Warranty Deed from Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc, a North Carolina corporation, dated March 25, 1997 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 3727, at page 1178. 11 Parcel 3: (Part of GPIN No. 2418-24-6584-0000; 2418-51-7557-0000) ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin located in the northeasternmost corner of the property now or formerly owned by BNE RESTAURANT GROUP H, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and shown and described as "Parcel B-1-A" on that certain plat titled "RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A, PARCEL B-1, LOT 15, AND LOT 16, AS SHOWN ON PLAT ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL `B' PROPERTY OF PAUL C ACKISS & FRANK W. HANCOCK, Jr AND PARCEL 5 AS SHOWN ON BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR CAVALIER BIRDNECK LAND CORPORATION" dated December 6, 1999, made by Horton & Dodd, P.C., and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 283, at page 16 (the "Point of Beginning"); thence N 65°58'36" W, a distance of 108.64 feet to a point; thence N 25059'20" W, a distance of 82.98 feet to a point; thence N 76028' 13" E a distance of 101.86 feet to a point; thence N 13005'43"E a distance of 187.12 feet to a point; thence S 76°54' 17"E, 170.40 feet to a point; thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of 84.26', a distance of 100.92 feet to a point; thence S 08016'56"E, a distance of 101.62 feet to a point; thence S75040' 15"W, a distance of 36.14 feet to a point; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 1536.651, a distance of 206.70 feet to a point; thence N22°55'40"W, a distance of 50.00 feet, to the Point of Beginning. IT BEING a portion of the that certain piece of land, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being known, numbered and designated as a portion of "RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A, PARCEL "B-1, LOT 15, AND LOT 16 AS SHOWN ON PLAT ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL "B" PROPERTY OF PAUL W. ACKISS & FRANK W. HANCOCK, JR., AND PARCEL 5 AS SHOWN ON THE BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR CAVALIER-BIRDNECK LAND CORPORATION", dated December 6, 1999 made by Horton & Dodd, P.C., and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 283, at page 16. 2393675 12 Map J-11 SOUTHEASTERN I I PARKWAY (proposed) ton F11� R- 5 � [ICJ' AG 11 .c AG-1 R-10 R -10 R-10 (OP) Gp:n 2404-57-3796 - 56-4943 ZONING HISTORY AT.('AR T.T.' 1. 9/26/00 - REZONING — from AG-1/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion — Denied 2. 8/10/99 — REZONING — from AGA/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion — Granted 3. 3/19/84 — REZONING — from AGA Agricultural District to R-5 Residential District — Granted 4. 3/19/84 — REZONING — from AGA Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District — Granted 5. 5/28/83 — REZONING — from AGA Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District — Granted 6. 4/25/88 — REZONING — from R-10(Open Space) Residential District to PDH2 Planned Development — Withdrawn 7. 1/28/97 — REZONING — from AG-1/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-7.5 Residential District - Granted rVsi�t�' �4C�y ro 'P a '"•y '��.,. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: ALCAR, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification (AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District) Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE (b) An Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943, 2404371633). DISTRICT 7 —PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of the requests is to develop a neighborhood of 132 single-family homes on 7,500 square foot lots utilizing the Open Space Promotion option. ■ Considerations: The property is currently vacant. Extensive areas of floodplain and wetlands are interspersed throughout the site. More than half of the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 100-year flood level of 6.25 feet. There are three general categories of wetlands present on this site. The first is tidal wetlands as defined in the City Zoning Ordinance These wetlands are immediately adjacent to the floodway of West Neck Creek. The second category is nontidal wetlands as defined by the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance and the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are present on the site for a distance of approximately 800 feet eastward of the floodway of West Neck Creek and also along the edge of the stream that traverses through the southeast portion of the site. The third category is nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and identified as "Isolated/Headwater Wetlands" (IIH wetlands). Most of these areas are at the edge of the floodplain and on the higher ground proposed for home lots. ALCAR Page 2 of 3 The subject site has a total area of 112.3 acres. This total area can be broken up into three categories. Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with the exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the subdivision is located. There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands present in this area. This area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the West Neck Creek linear park. Open Space Area — The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The majority of the land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet and contains some areas of nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Open Space Area contains four identified park sites, the largest being 37,500 square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet. Housing Area — The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres. This includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan. Most of this area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. There are some pockets of I/H wetlands that will be impacted by home construction. This area can best be described as three islands of high ground connected by roadways that traverse the lower floodplain and wetland areas. The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open Space and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres. 132 units divided by 72.7 acres equals 1.8 units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for residential use at a density of 3.5 units to the acre or less. The applicant has coordinated access to and from the site with the adjacent Capital Improvement Program (CIP) roadway project (Nimmo Parkway), proffering to construct two lanes of that roadway from its current terminus at the Princess Anne Recreation Center to the subject site. The applicant has also limited the proposed floodplain fill to the roadways and edges of the lots. In sum, the applicant has proffered a plan that minimally meets the intent of the various development ordinances of the City It must be stressed, however, that this site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a Natural Resource/Conservation Area overlay. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that such areas are more suited for a low intensity use such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. The significant land disturbance associated with a conventional single-family subdivision will no doubt impact these areas even with the best measures employed in an attempt not to. It is likely the applicant will encounter significant issues during review of site plans regarding stormwater drainage. The proffered plan may need adjustment and the number of lots may decrease in order to provide an adequate stormwater system that not only serves this site but also integrates well with surrounding sites The applicant is aware of this possibility. ALCAR Page 3 of 3 Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: �-,, Z�3 �� ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION J11-210-CRZ-2002 NUMBER: J 11-210-C U P-2003 REQUEST: 19)Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1/AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential District 20)Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion ADDRESS: North side of proposed Nimmo Parkway, 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane ja J'I ALCAR, LLC Map to Scale ■ ��.�i�� nor ANN Na iMAP law ►� � . _ter �._ �i �._ � �� Gpin 2404-57 3796 - 56-4943 ._4111' Brl- Planning Commission Agenda �'6;-t s September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 1 G PI N : 24043371630000 24045737960000 24045649430000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 112.3 acres PURPOSE: To rezone the property in order to develop a neighborhood of 132 single- family homes on 7,500 square foot lots utilizing the Open Space Promotion option APPLICATION These requests were deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning HISTORY: Commission hearing at the request of the applicant. Major Issues: • More than half of the land on the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet Land disturbance and fill are restricted in this area by the City's development ordinances • Consistency of the proposal with the land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. There are two roadway projects planned for roads adjacent to this site, Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A (CIP 2-121) and Seaboard Road (CIP 2-107). Coordination and impacts on the roadway projects are concerns Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently vacant and is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District �p1'A BFq Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC 1 # 19 & 20 Page 2 Extensive areas of floodplain and wetlands are interspersed throughout the site. More than half of the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 100-year flood level of 6 25 feet. There are three general categories of wetlands present on this site. The first is tidal wetlands as defined in the City Zoning Ordinance These wetlands are immediately adjacent to the floodway of West Neck Creek. The second category is nontidal wetlands as defined by the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance and the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are present on the site for a distance of approximately 800 feet eastward of the floodway of West Neck Creek and also along the edge of the stream that traverses through the southeast portion of the site The third category is nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and identified as "Isolated/Headwater Wetlands" (I/H wetlands). Most of these areas are at the edge of the floodplain and on the higher ground proposed for home lots. The site was recently logged in 2000/2001 The mature trees were removed from the majority of the site Some mature trees were left remaining in the I/H wetland areas, areas bordering West Neck Creek and a forty to fifty foot area of trees bordering the neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge, along the northern boundary of the site The native vegetation that is currently growing on the site has an average height of 4 to 5 feet at this time Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Single-family homes / R-10 (OP) Residential District South: • Proposed Nimmo Parkway right-of-way East: • Single-family homes / R-5D Residential District West: . West Neck Creek / AG-1 Agricultural District Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Uses consistent with the underlying agricultural zoning Zoning: on this site, such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. With Approximately 132 single-family homes as shown on Proposed the proffered conceptual subdivision plan associated Zoning: with this request The number of homes is approximate and may be less than 132 when the subdivision plan is reviewed in detail for stormwater management, utility services, etc Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 3 Zoninq History The neighborhoods to the west of this site, Pine Ridge and Hunt Club Forest, were zoned and developed for residential use during the 1970s and 1980s The neighborhood of Castleton north of the site was developed for residential use more recently during the 1990s The most recent residential rezoning in this area occurred south of the site, on the west side of Seaboard Road in 1999 This neighborhood is known as Princess Anne Woods On the subject site, a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-10 Residential District and a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion for 255 single family homes was denied by City Council on September 26, 2000. The subject request is similar to the 2000 request, except that the number of home sites has been reduced to 132 and there is far less fill and disturbance of the floodplain on the present plan. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The northern portion of the subject site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The southern portion of the site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana The Navy has reviewed this proposal and does not support the requested rezoning. A copy of a letter noting the Navy's position on this rezoning is provided at the end of this report Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 30-inch force main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way fronting the southeast portion of the property There is a 16-inch water main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of- way fronting the southeast portion of the property. This subdivision must connect to City water Hydraulic analysis, fire demand requirements, and plans and bonds are required for the construction of the water system City gravity sewer is not available to this development. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new pump station (off -site) and sewer system. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The subject site does not have access to an improved public right-of-way at this time Proposed Nimmo Parkway borders the site on the south and the applicant has proffered to construct two lanes of this roadway from its current terminus near the Fire Station/Library/Recreation Center complex to the east and ending at the new Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 4 subdivision entrance Public Works has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study regarding this proposal and concurs that this is the most prudent way for this subdivision to gain access to surrounding roadways. There are two roadway projects in the vicinity of this subdivision as noted below. NIMMO PARKWAY PHASE V-A CIP 2-121 — This project is for construction of a four -lane divided roadway on a six -lane right-of- way, with a bikepath, from Holland Road at Kellam High School to that part of Nimmo Parkway Phase V previously constructed to provide access to the Princess Anne Community Recreation Center from General Booth Boulevard. The estimated start of construction is July 2006 and estimated completion date is July 2008. SEABOARD ROAD CIP 2-107 - This project is for the construction of a three -lane undivided highway from Princess Anne Road to Nimmo Parkway, a distance of approximately 3,200 feet. This project will also include an upgrade of the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road to include a new traffic signal. Additional funding was added for the interim cost participation project to realign the intersection at Princess Anne Road The estimated start of construction is July 2006 and the completion date is November 2007 Traffic Calculations: This development is expected to generate 1,366 vehicle trips per day. Schools The chart below indicates that Kellam High School is currently over capacity. The information provided below does not take into account the potential impacts of other proposals pending or under construction that could affect the same schools School Current Capacity Generation � Change z Enrollment Strawbridge 860 895 46 46 Elementary Princess Anne 1511 1658 24 24 Middle School Kellam Senior High 2276 1990 32 32 School generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 5 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students) Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and No comments at this time Fire requirements will be reviewed Rescue: during detailed subdivision construction plan review. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map indicates that this property falls under the following two Planned Land Use Categories. One category is suburban low density that states that this area should be planned for residential uses below 3.5 dwelling units per acre The other category is Natural Resource/Conservation that states that the land disturbance in the area consisting of tidal and nontidal wetlands, sensitive soils, and other natural features should be avoided, mitigated, or under certain circumstances prohibited Summary of Proposal Proposal • The subject site has a total area of 112 3 acres. This total area can be broken up into three categories • Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with the exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the subdivision is located There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands present in this area. This area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the West Neck Creek linear park • Open Space Area — The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The majority of the land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet and Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 6 contains some areas of nontsdal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Open Space Area contains four identified park sites, the largest being 37,500 square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet. • Housing Area — The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres. This includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan Most of this area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6 25 feet. There are some pockets of I/H wetlands that will be impacted by home construction. This area can best be described as three islands of high ground connected by roadways that traverse the lower floodplain and wetland areas • The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open Space and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres 132 units z- 72 7 acres = 1 8 units to the acre Site Design • The conceptual subdivision plan shows one main entrance to the subdivision from Nimmo Parkway. The roadway extends northward, crosses a stream, enters the Housing Area and then comes to an intersection, where the road splits to the east and northwest • The southeast portion of the site, where the stream is located, is designated as a Conservation Area The roadway travels through this Conservation Area for a low- WRFI— Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 7 distance of 900 feet before it reaches the Housing Area • The roadway crosses the floodplain/wetland areas in four locations At each of these locations, the construction of the roadway will require fill within the floodplain. • There is also some fill proposed within the floodplain along the edges of some of the home lots • The applicant has submitted a conceptual floodplain fill plan to the Development Services Center (DSC). It has been determined by the DSC that this project falls under the criteria for administrative review of fill. A conceptual floodplain mitigation plan was also submitted and reviewed in accordance with the same criteria. The final approval for fill within the floodplain will depend on detailed engineering design New information and facts may alter the expectations of the developer and may ultimately reduce the number of home sites allowed. • The minimum size for the home lots is shown as 7,500 square feet. Most of the lots on the plan are uniform; there is not a lot of variation from this minimum lot size • Most of the home lots back up to the Open Space Area or stormwater management ponds, except for those along the northern boundary of the site These home lots are directly adjacent to existing home lots in Castleton and Pine Ridge. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • Currently, the subject site has no direct access to an improved public right-of-way There is a dirt road on the south side of proposed Nimmo Parkway that connects to Seaboard Road and travels through this site • A traffic impact study was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works The Department of Public Works concurs with the study's recommendation that access to the subdivision be provided by Nimmo Parkway. The applicant is proffering to construct two lanes of Nimmo Parkway within the existing public right- of-way for a distance of approximately 2,500 feet. The roadway would be built from the subdivision entrance east to the current terminus of the roadway near the Princess Anne Recreation Center. • The section of Nimmo Parkway to be built by the developer would not connect to Seaboard Road The Department of Public Works does not recommend subdivision access to Seaboard Road until the planned roadway improvements are constructed along Seaboard Road to Princess Anne Road with CIP 2-107 (described earlier in Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 8 this report) • When the two lanes of Nimmo Parkway are built, there will be a new intersection created at Rockingchair Lane, approximately 910 feet to the east of the new subdivision's entrance improvements and traffic movement control will be required for this intersection Residents of Southgate and Hunt Club Forest will have access to the new two-lane section of Nimmo Parkway in addition to the residents of the proposed subdivision. • The proposed subdivision roadway connection to existing Nimmo Parkway will impact the traffic signal operation and timings at the intersection of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard, and the developer will be responsible for working out new traffic signal timings. • A temporary emergency fire station traffic signal may be required in front of the General Booth Fire Station on Nimmo Parkway. The developer will be responsible for working with the City regarding design, construction and costs associated with the installation of this signal. • The subdivision entrance road has been located to accommodate the preliminary designs for Seaboard Road and Nimmo Parkway. Additional coordination with these two CIP projects will be necessary during the detailed engineering phases of the projects. • It should be noted that the proposed subdivision will have only one access point and will not have any connections to neighboring properties. Architectural Design • A mixture of one-story and two-story dwellings is planned. The applicant has proffered four architectural styles and a minimum square footage for the homes. In addition, it has been proffered that all homes will have a two car garage. Landscape and Open Space • The conceptual subdivision plan shows a 39 5 acre Conservation Area to be dedicated to the City as part of the West Neck Creek linear park. The subdivision entrance road traverses this Conservation Area in the southeastern portion of the site It should also be noted that preliminary design plans for the Seaboard Road and Nimmo Parkway CIP projects show drainage outfalls at the stream located in the southeastern portion of the Conservation Area. It is likely that the proposed subdivision will also have drainage outfalls in this area, although no detailed engineering for stormwater management for the proposed subdivision has been Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 9 conducted • The conceptual subdivision plan shows the Open Space Area to be dedicated and maintained by the Homeowner's Association This area is below the 100-year floodplain elevation of 6 25 feet and contains pockets of nontidal wetlands regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. • The applicant has submitted an application for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for the impacted I/H wetlands associated with this project This application is currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers. The permit application shows that there will be some on -site mitigation to create new nontidal wetland areas for those being impacted by the roadway and home construction. These areas of new wetlands are identified as "wetland mitigation" on the conceptual subdivision plan • The Open Space Area contains four designated park sites totaling 2 4 acres Three of the four park sites can be accessed from the main roadway The fourth park site, adjacent to the northern boundary of the property in the western portion of the site is not accessible as shown on the conceptual plan due to the fact that it is surrounded by I/H wetlands that are designated to remain. Proffers PROFFER # 1 When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable The Concept Plan shows a conventional single-family subdivision This type of development, with long winding collector streets and numerous cul-de-sacs, will, however, result In substantial land disturbance and alteration of the land within an area designated as Natural Resource/Conservation by the Comprehensive Plan The plan does little above the Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 10 minimum required to protect and preserve the highly vulnerable natural resources on this site The Concept Plan does though technically meet the minimum requirements for development It should be noted that one particularly valuable aesthetic natural resource that is being eliminated with the current proposal is the existing forty -fifty foot wooded buffer along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed, approximately 22.7 acres of parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open Space" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. When the Property is developed, playground equipment and neighborhood park improvements meeting the City's Department of Parks and Recreation Standards shall be installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the Concept Plan. Staff Evaluation: This proffer ►s acceptable with the following caveats Although the Open Space Area contains more acreage than required, there are some concerns with the area The Open Space Area shown on the Concept Plan is below the 100-year floodplain elevation of 6 25 feet and contains several areas of nont1dal wetlands regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers This area was logged two years ago and there is only scattered mature vegetation remaining The average height of the remaining vegetation is four to five feet and there is not much aesthetic value to this area The absence of mature vegetation makes the condition of this open space less than ideal In addition, the conceptual subdivision plan shows that there will be areas of nontidal wetlands to remain and new areas of nontidal wetlands to be created directly adjacent to and/or between home lots to mitigate for the impacts on existing wetlands on the site If a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is issued for this project as proposed, the ultimate conditions that will be placed on the permit for the remaining and new wetland areas may preclude certain maintenance options for the homeowners association Typically, homeowners Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 11 associations are not versed ►n wetlands regulations. The four park sites within the Open Space Area possess some limitations as proffered by the applicant Two of the four park sites are below the 100-year floodpla►n elevation The other two park sites do contain some higher ground, but the applicant has shown that these higher park areas will be used for floodpla►n mitigation purposes, actually lowenng the ground elevation on these sites. Although the subdivision ordinance allows recreation sites to be dedicated within floodpla►n areas, those sites are best suited for passive recreation The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that active play areas be on high, dry ground that can be well drained PROFFER # 3 When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres of land designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable The dedication of this area is consistent with the land dedications along West Neck Creek that have occurred as part of the development of other subdivisions to the north, west and south of this site PROFFER # 4 When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Homeowners Association, which shall, among other things, maintain the Open Space areas Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable It clearly defines the entity responsible for maintenance of the open space However, there are concerns that the condition of the open space is not ideal and may cause maintenance problems for the homeowners association over the long run PROFFER # 5 All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall incorporate architectural features, design elements and high quality building materials substantially similar in quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs labeled "Typical Home Elevations at NIMMOS QUAY" Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 12 dated December 12, 2002 which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two- story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, at two (2) car garage. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable It ensures that the quality of homes is comparable to those in surrounding neighborhoods. PROFFER # 6 When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part shall construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP 2-121 in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's engineering standards for the roadway, within the existing Nimmo parkway public right-of-way extending east approximately 2,560 feet from the entrance to the subdivision to connect with the existing improved Nimmo Parkway section. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable The property does not currently have access to an improved public right-of-way The Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP project is currently in the design phase and the applicant will need to build the two lanes proffered using the current VDOT plans for the CIP project This scenano assumes that the subdivision will be ready for occupancy pnor to the CIP project for Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A being completed. There is an alternate scenano that is conceivable given that the construction completion date for Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A and the subdivision build -out date are both within the next five years (2008) If the completion of the CIP project for Nimmo Parkway and occupancy of the subdivision occur concurrently, it is not clear with this proffer whether the applicant would share in any of the roadway cost Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC I # 19 & 20 Page 13 PROFFER # 7 When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to serve the subdivision, including the possible construction of an off -site sewage pump station. Staff Evaluation: This proffer ►s acceptable It should be noted that an off - site pump station is a major expense and that the developer will be required to find and purchase a suitable property for the pump station and also pay to construct the station solely at his expense PROFFER # 8 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant city agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-10 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is a standard condition and is acceptable In this particular case, this proffer may mean that the number of lots shown on the conceptual plan may have to be reduced in order to comply with requirements associated with floodpla►n fill/mitigation, stormwater management and sanitary sewer design. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated December 12, 2002, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form Evaluation of Request The request for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential District and a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion is Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 14 acceptable, but with a caveat Staff notes that Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for residential use at a density of 3.5 units to the acre or less and that applicant has coordinated the access plan with the adjacent roadway projects and has limited the proposed floodplain fill to the roadways and edges of the lots In sum, the applicant has proffered a plan that minimally meets the intent of the various development ordinances of the City It must be stressed, however, that this site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a Natural Resource/Conservation Area overlay, the Plan indicates that such areas are more -suited for a low intensity use such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. More than half of the site is below the 100-year floodplain elevation of 6 25 feet and there are extensive areas of nontidal wetlands on the site The significant land disturbance associated with a conventional single-family subdivision will impact these areas even with the best measures employed in an attempt not to. Staff can support this request; however, the low elevation of the overall site combined with its natural resource characteristics, as described above, are pause for concern, particularly regarding the subject of stormwater drainage. The applicant will, no doubt, encounter significant issues during review of plans for stormwater drainage. It is likely that the proffered plan may need adjustment and the number of lots may decrease in order to provide an adequate stormwater system that not only serves this site but also integrates well with surrounding sites. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 15 Jt rianning %,ommission Agenaa September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 16 Nag Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 -y ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20�` Page 17 Typical Has. Elsvabon at Wrmw's Ouay 12H2102 Typk;W Home Elevation at t MUO'a Quay 121121M Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 18 is...-. .'.' .- ... ... ..__. ._ a � r' .� ..-✓-h mow. _..,- ... w,. - ... ...... -,.,..-,.o..<w+.-...w..� ..,. ., r .:e...s:..r-': x,.ak e � t' ..,, M � l� � . �.a�• r .yyr ..1 � Y. a.'-1�7�w7S/'.- S �a� z ::....... ....:.. ... .,. ._ _. ..... ...._.:. ..... _....-.. ;:��Fr �. r.. .... ,.uw.-win«, ... DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ,G NAVAL AIR STATION OOEANA 1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD MONK BEACH, VIRGINtA 23460-2 � Y REFER T 57 A % 3 2 / 0222 une 5, 2003 Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Department City of Virginia Beach Building 2, Room 100 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Duke: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning request by ALCAR LLC, for the proposed construction of 138 homes. The site is located in the. 65-70 decibel (dB) day -night average (Ldn) noise zone. The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program states that residential land use is incompatible in this zone. The Navy acknowledges the landowner's desire to develop their property, but I urge you to deny their request. We would view residential development at this site as an encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana. If you have any questions, please contact my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. Ray Firenze at (757) 433-3158. Sincerely and very respectfully, T. KE Ca , U Navy Comm din Officer Copy to: COMNAVREG MIDLANT Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Virginia Beach City Council Virginia Beach Planning Commission Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 20 T DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 11 AppIicant's Name. ALCAR1_L.L.C. List All Current Property Owners False Cape Associates, L.P. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below (Attach list if necessary) Cameron Munden, Gerald Shulman and Douglas Talbot ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Man S . Resh , Member Carmen Pasapia, Member ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION- ! certify that the information contained herein is true and a ALC} V L. ' Pti Signature Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Alan S. Resh. Member Print Name Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 21 r11A BF� Q O V DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name ALCAR, L.L.C. ------ - - -__- List All Current Property Owners _ False Capes Assq iares, L.P. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach list if necessary) Cameron 1qnc+en_,_ G 1_ _ huLman_and-I?gu las Talbor-_--_-_ ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach hst if necessary) Co rmc n t'a s ap i a , Member —------------------- ------------ ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION- I certify that the information contained herein is true andiccurate. Falsf Llpe Assogia>t Signature J Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 �\ Print Name Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 22 �p1IA BE,q ��ay.,• w.^�ya ro4y�'� 'h AC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name-I_t,_C. List All Current Property Owners _ `one fost�ler� Trustee and Barbara C._Most iler�T�ry PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners to the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ©.Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, fist all members or partners in the organization below. (Attach fist if necessary) Alan S _ Resh,_Member --Carmen Pasapzs.-Member __---__-_-_____----------_.___-__._._____------ ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION. I certify that the information contained herein is trite and accurate. 51 Signature Conditional Rezoning Application Paae 10 of 14 Print Name Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 23 Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit North side of Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne September 10, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #19 & 205 Alcar, L.L.C. Eddie Bourdon: Sorry to block your views. Ronald Ripley: We get signals from staff. I'm just kidding. Eddie Bourdon: This one is going to be flipped over. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon and it is my pleasure to come before you this afternoon representing the application of Nimmos Quay. Mr. Resh is here as well as Joe Bushey, from Clark Nexsen who are the engineers working on this project. Mr. Resh and I have been working on this project now for about a year. My history with this particular property goes back to 1997, which I'll get into in a few minutes. We've had a very positive process that we've gone through with staff. I want to thank Barbara Duke who I understand is sick. I think someone gave her some bad food on her birthday but she worked very hard with us as with the rest of the staff including the folks in Traffic Engineering This is a proposal on a 112-acre parcel of which approximately 73 acres are developable acres. To create a very high end subdivision of 132 lots, probably a few less than that. These houses, we proffered the type of houses that will be built. They will be very attractive homes that will be priced between $350,000 and up. I think the quality is very clear and very evident. The property is located south of Castleton and south of a section of Pine Ridge and west of Hunt Club and west of the section of South Gate. We're surrounded both on the north and on east by residential development. To our south is the, I guess Nimmo Parkway Phase V, I believe. I may be wrong on the phase number. And below Nimmo Parkway is the Princess Anne Woods subdivision. The property, because of the way Castleton developed, and I guess the best place to look is up here on the pinpoint. The property was supposed to be accessed via this roadway here through Castleton but for reasons I won't discuss, and there are a lot of reasons, and that's not going to happen and that can't happen and as a consequence, the property must be accessed by Nimmo Parkway and one of the things that we've done with this application is we've done a Traffic Impact Study, presented to the City, and this applicant will be constructing two lanes on Nimmo Parkway to meet the standards for Nimmo Parkway at a cost of approximately $900,000, and that will be extended from the fire station to the property The property itself is a series of clustered lot configurations that are for the most part surrounded by open space. We are with this proposal only utilizing 26 percent of the land for roads and houses. Of the developable land, we're using less Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 2 than 40 percent for roads and houses. In other words, 74 percent of the site is going to remain as open space. Over 60 percent of the developable land will be open space. And over 100 homes will be backing up to open space. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is not in the Transition Area. It sure as heck looks like it is a plan in the Transition Area. Now, the reason that I put this map up here is to show you that there is a little bit of history behind this piece of property. Back in 1997, Taylor Farm Associates had most of the property under contract as shown over here and they brought forth a plan to develop 230 lots on this piece of property. The property that I'm talking about is the property here. Not every bit of what I'm talking about in this application. That application was recommended for approval by the staff consistent by the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation of 3.5 units per acre. The rezoning was R-10 open space and it was recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission for approval. The Courthouse Coalition of Civic Leagues was supporting the application, as was the Pine Ridge Civic League, which I met with on a number of occasions at that time. And, between Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant deferred the application. He was working with the Corps of Engineers and was developing Castleton at the time wanted to get all this wetlands permits from the Corps of Engineers, which he in fact did receive and the property is the subject of an approved wetlands disturbance permit from the Corps of Engineers. But during that process some contractual issues arose and other things occurred really having nothing to do with the prospects of the application being approved at that time but the contracts fell through and so the deal at that point died. It never went to City Council, but it was recommended for approval, by the staff and by the Planning Commission unanimously for 230 lots. At that time the floodplain ordinance is not what it is today. The floodplain ordinance that exists in the northern part of the city today applied to all the city at that point and that development plan would have impacted about 30 percent of the floodplain on this site. That's flood fringe. We can talk about floodplain if you all want but floodplain is not wet area. It's just area that stores a little bit of water at a 100 year storm event, but it's not wetlands. It's not swamp. It's just high land that's not high enough that is outside the floodplain. It gets wet when there's a 100-year storm event. Anyway, later in the year 2000, this property was assembled by Clark Whitehill, and they brought forward an application for 255 units on this piece of property, and that's what shown here. And what this is also to show is that all the ground here are residential lots that surround this property, developed residential subdivisions that surround this property. And, what you see here is the plan that was submitted in 2000. And, their timing was certainly not good. That's when we were dealing with the flooding issue that existed in Castleton or were trumped up in Castleton and mainly they were because of construction problems and blockage in lines but it was an issue at that time. They had some major storm events. We also had the Lotus Creek situation going and so floodplains were a hot button item. This 255-unit subdivision, was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Staff did not recommend approval. They thought it was too great an impact on floodplains and on wetlands and it was more significant in terms of development than the previous application of Taylor Farm Associates So that application was actually denied. Now we have an application where this applicant has done everything that he was asked to do. He went in and said okay, I'm not going to ask for a floodplain variance to impact the floodplain more than is Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 3 permitted. There is a small amount that is permitted under our new floodplain ordinance that only applies to this part of the city and I'm going to go and have gone to the Corps of Engineers to modify the existing permits on this property to reduce the impact to isolated non -tidal upland wetlands by 40 percent over what is already permitted on this property by the Corps permit with this application. And, thus we have an application before you for a plan that instead of looking like this plan, it looks like the one you see there, which when you put that to everything around it, you see a few lots surrounded by a lot of green space up against residential development all around. There are 65 lots in the adjacent neighborhoods that abut this piece of property. Our development plan has a total of 18 lots that abut some of those lots. As a matter of fact, they abut 16 of those lots. And, what we have done when this property was logged, and it was logged a few years ago, we retained on the site, because knowing eventually it would be developed residentially, believing that would be the case because that is what our Comprehensive Plan recommends, we left a wooded buffer on the back of the property. Some of that wooded buffer is also on the 65 lots that adjoin our piece of property. There's a 30-foot easement between our property and that would remain. And, we intend to keep on our property those trees that are in that buffer. Now, there may be a tree or two towards the southern part of the property that we have to take out for drainage purposes but that's why those trees were left. It is our intent to keep those trees on the property. I see that light blinking and I don't know whether you all want me to. I have a lot of things to talk about on this, but if you want to ask some questions. Ronald Ripley: Can we handle those in questions and answers? Eddie Bourdon: I'll try to. I'm happy to do that. Ronald Ripley: I'm sure there are a lot of questions about this application. Eddie Bourdon: I just don't know if you want me to do it that way or address them as I go forward. Ronald Ripley: Technically, I think that would be the appropriate way of handling it. Eddie Bourdon: You all want to ask me some questions, I'm happy. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: No questions. That's good. Ronald Ripley: No, we got questions. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Obviously, I'm very familiar with this piece of land and have walked it. Having had it timbered, it does bring some issues with regard to perhaps how that open space is going to be handled, the part that hasn't been timbered. I don't know if that is part of the parcel. I assume that the timbering just wasn't in these lots because it is hard Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 4 to tell exactly where it was but in that open space area is where the timbering occurred. How is that handled? Also the other thing that I would like to have addressed is the extension of the road, two lanes of that road I heard how expensive it is. I also looked at Seaboard Road and wondered if that was a point of discussion as the extension too. Eddie Bourdon: I'll start with the last question first. It certainly was a point of discussion, the extension of Seaboard Road. That is a project that is actually under design and will be done by the City. The Nimmo Parkway proposal, that road is a VDOT project. And, the Traffic Impact Study, and frankly everyone, and I don't think there is any disagreement at all it is that the best way to access this property, is to build two lanes of Nimmo Parkway, which is far more expensive then extending Seaboard Road. And the time frame of this development will be two years before these lots will be sold. The extension of this roadway made more sense than dumping the traffic on Seaboard Road to come into this section of Princess Anne Road that currently is under some stress, which will go away with Nimmo Parkway or be significantly alleviated with Nimmo Parkway, which has been held up for quite some time. But is now going forward and will be going forward in 2008, which is the date that it's intended to be open. So, putting the traffic onto Nimmo coming out to General Booth was clearly the best way to deal with the subdivision. But what will happen is there will be an intersection at Seaboard Road when Seaboard Road is punched through to it, which will be happening also by the course of the next five years. But that project is actually in the works but it will not happen overnight. The open space areas when the property was logged those areas that were accessible. There is obviously open space area almost 40-acres being given to the City on West Neck Creek, part of what the Comprehensive Plan requires, asks for, not requires in that area that is truly low area was not logged. The other area there is some vegetation that is growing on trees but those open space areas will generally be passive open space areas but there are parts that are designated and those parts are all on areas that are either outside the floodplains and some are in it but again, floodplain does not mean that it is swamp or wet. There is a problem with perception and it's even in this write up. There's one place where it kind of talks like these are little islands of high land around low land. Folks, everything you see around this, all these houses, all these lots, those are houses and lots that were built in the same floodplain. Same floodplain was mitigated, and in this case there's minimal impact at all in any floodplain. We stayed essentially out of the floodplain except for the roadway sections that we're mitigating 100 percent. On this case, we're talking about a total of 2.1 acres of floodplain that isn't impacted at all, and we're mitigating with 5.1 acres of mitigation and again, with previous plans, the one Clark Whitehill had, 36 percent impact and the one that was before that was over 30 percent impact. So, we're totally staying out of any impacts on floodplains even though floodplains are developable land and floodplain is land that is frankly ideal for recreation. Down at Munden Point Park most of that park is in floodplain. Significant amount of parks, Red Wing Park, is in floodplain. There are lots of parks in the city that have area within the floodplain. It's not the flood way. It's not water flying through there, it's just that what you have is during a major storm event there might be an inch or two of water that's there for a period of a few hours while they drain. That's what a floodfringe and floodplain are. Our recreational areas will generally Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 5 be passive with some trails but there isn't an intention to put equipment into the park sites for people who live in the community. And, that is not a problem. It's not going to float away when there's a 100-year storm event and you have an inch or two of water around playground equipment. That's my answer. Ronald Ripley: Charlie Salle'. Charlie Salle': Eddie, I think you alluded to it and there is some comment in the staff report about the storm water drainage for the area and the need to address it both here and in the surrounding area. Can you tell us how you have done that? Eddie Bourdon: We understand completely what the challenges are and that's why this development will meet those challenges. But, frankly, there are problems that are very long ago. Lake Placid had some problems, as did Pine Ridge because they used the wrong flood elevation. So, you got some historical issues there. The City's done a study many years ago that recommends that there be a BMP in this area, a large one to handle. There isn't anything at Oceana at all. All of the water flows south but the water that flows south sheet flows through the ditches to the south. So we got a situation here where there have been historically some problems in both Pine Ridge and Lake Placid because back before of what our standards are today. And those are problems that with this Castleton development and again, the biggest problem with Castleton really was debris in the lines, because I would suggest it was well engineered, but with Castleton there were some problems. I believe they have been totally solved. We had a very rainy period this summer, and they haven't experienced flooding problems in Castleton. Our stormwater does not go in that direction number one. Number two, it will all be handled on site and then will be released using the BMPs that are now required using today's standards. We will actually be helping the process is our opinion. And frankly back in 1997, when this was held up when the original application for Taylor Farm Associates was going through the process, I got a number of calls during the hold up period wanting to know why we weren't going forward because they viewed it, the people who were in charge of the civic league at Pine Ridge, they viewed it as being a positive. It was going to help drainage. Clearly things that have happened since then have been done to clear the lines, to clear the canals and the drainage has been helped and so I'm not going to suggest that this is going to be a panacea but it is clearly going to help drainage and not going to hurt drainage and we're using everyone My client, our engineers, City, their engineers, Mr. Block and everyone else are well aware of the situation that exists out there and I think everyone is working towards solving it. I think it's been solved frankly, but we're going to be under a microscope and we know that. We are also well aware that there may be a few less lots than this in the end, but at this point and this is not a situation that's been approved for a "X" number of lots. I had put in the proffers originally a maximum of 132 lots. They asked me to take "maximum" out and I said fine because I know we're not going up, we're only going down. If we go down, and I'm not saying that we're going to, but I think that's a possibility. We recognize that. We are fully aware of the challenges that this site presents, but in the big picture, and I don't want this to be overstated, the challenges are that we're not developing like everything around us Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 6 -- on similar properties have developed in the past. We met and we believe totally exceeded the requirements that the challenges that are presented to us. Ad in the end, you also went up to a higher end product because of all the open space that you have behind the lots. You don't have lots that back up to each other. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're not asking for any variance to create any more buildable land. Eddie Bourdon: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: You're staying on the high land that exists that's receiving water now running into the floodplain and of course you have retention that's controlling some of that. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: That's absolute. Our BMP's are on high land. You can't put a BMP in the floodplains. So all of our storm water retention is on high land. None of our homes are built on anything but high land. There is a total of about 10,000 square feet of area of floodplain on this entire project that will be filled a few inches on the corners of some lots. That is it. No houses are built anywhere in the floodplain. And, the City's floodplain ordinance in this part of the city allows up to five percent impact and we're about half of that, and of that, it's almost off of roads in the subdivision. I'll also tell you on Nimmo Parkway, the amount of floodplain impact there is more than 10 times the floodplain impact that we have and ours is minimal. Ronald Ripley: The number that you used for improving Nimmo, is that also include the pump station? Eddie Bourdon: No. That's the cost of the road. Ronald Ripley: So you have a road and a pump station? Eddie Bourdon: The pump station will likely be on site too. We put it in the proffers again just because we just wanted. Staff said they want to be aware. It might be offsite. We're confident that it will be onsite, but that's in addition to the pump station. Ronald Ripley: Will that relieve any sewage issues in the area or is it just for this property and future properties? Eddie Bourdon: I'm not aware of any sewage problem or any capacity problems. I think it's just a service this property. There really isn't anything else out there that's developable. Ronald Ripley- Yes. Barry Knight Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L C. Page 7 Barry Knight: I have a couple of observations. You talk about the 100-year floodplain. That 100-year floodplain could happen back to back, but the average occurrence of this happening is going to be once every 100 years. The floodplain elevation in that area is 6.3 feet. So, if you have 6.2 feet you're in the floodplain inches. If you have 6.4 inches, a difference of 2 inches, you're out of it. So, I understand from where I live, and farming all of our land down here is a whole lower than this but it is a floodplain but a floodplain is not wet area. It's area that could wet in this 100-year storm event. I kind of want to help you clarify that. And on the number of houses, you have 132 homes. You're asking for a permit for 132 homes, but it's possible that when you go in for site review and stormwater management, you could possibly end up with less than 132 homes. Would you think that 132 homes isn't set in stone. That it could possibly be less than that, because of those, but maybe is there any thought you may consolidate some of these lots? Eddie Bourdon: That's a possibility. As this process goes forward, and because of the microscope that this site is under because of the issues we talked about, we recognize that there may be both to make sure that we more than adequately deal with these stormwater issues and again, that's correcting other problems. We have considered that there may be some consolidation of some of the lots. So, there's no question in our mind that 132 represents the maximum, and the likelihood is that it will be somewhat less than that before it's over with. And, your point about the floodplain is 6.25 feet but it's absolutely correct. So, all we're talking about is a couple of inches of storage capacity. Not swamp land. There are some isolated non -tidal wetlands, that are already permitted to be impacted and were reducing that by 40 percent over that which is already permitted to be impacted. Ronald Ripley: Well, the biggest issue that I heard in the first application that came through here, and the biggest concern that I think that everybody had was the drainage that was coming out of Castleton and the adjoining neighborhoods. And, we're going to hear from some folks out there and I'm sure that they'll testify some way or the other about what has happened here. It is my understanding that's been greatly improved with some retention and the system being cleaned out and some of the things you've said. That's a real important point because it was a real big point then, if I recall, and it may still be a big point. I'm not crossing over this. But we do have some other people to speak. Eddie Bourdon: In conclusion, half the density essentially of what the Comprehensive Plan recommends for this area. Thank you very much for your time. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Other speakers that have signed up. Irene Duffy. Irene Duffy- Good afternoon I'm going to pass around two pictures to look at while I speak. Just to clarify this is the area in question. Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 8 Ronald Ripley: Ms. Duffy? Irene Duffy: What? Ronald Ripley: You need to speak at the podium. Irene Duffy: Oh, sorry. This is the area in question right here. This would be where a part of Nimmo Quay would be to the south of Buckingham and Castleton. And this is one of our retention ponds; our only retention pond in Buckingham. There are others in Castleton. This is Buckingham. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Irene Duffy: As I said, my name is Irene Duffy, and I'm on the Board of Directors for Buckingham of Castleton and President of Castleton. I'm here representing Buckingham today, which is a village adjacent to the proposed Nimmo Quay. Thank you for this opportunity to speak this afternoon. The Village of Buckingham is opposed to the development of this kind on the attractive land in question for the same reason you've opposed to it approximately two half years ago. At that time, City Council heard and understood our concerns regarding drainage and flooding, and turned down the requested proposal. In addition, in a former case, the Planning Staff s recommendation to the Commission was to deny the request. We find ourselves in the same position today. Last month, when this application for rezoning was deferred, the Planning staffs recommendation was for the request to be denied. We wholeheartedly agree with that decision for the following reasons. The neighborhood we live in borders West Neck Creek and that is our storm drainage outlet. The proposed development, Nimmo Quay, will be directing their storm drainage water into the same creek. We are a very wet neighborhood. In fact, city engineers, to their credit, are still trying to workout the kinks for the dry BMP that was proposed and dug to alleviate drainage problems that had been overlooked by the developer. The BMP was created this past winter. The attention was to have a dry BMP that filled up only during large events such as tropical storms or hurricanes or otherwise. It was to be maintained by the City in the fashion of a meadow were fescue would grow, and it would be mowed and maintained by the City. Since its creation, it has not been mowed once for good reason. If a lawn mower were to go in there it would never come out. It would sink into three feet of water that currently stands where the tall wetland weeds have established themselves. It is turning into a wetland. One might argue, well this has been a really wet year and this will never happen again. To this person I would say we had a real wet year not more than two to three years ago and that's 50 percent of the time that I have lived here. If we were to have a serious storm or hurricane now, as it stands, we would have some serious flooding problems. One might argue well, this developer is different. They would do it differently. They really know how to mitigate their rainwater. They won't make any mistakes because they have smarter engineers. To this person, I would say all the prior engineers were reputable and confident. None of them started out saying we really aren't able to do this but let's do it anyway, knowing that things would go wrong. Otherwise, they would have Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L C. Page 9 _ designed the drainage differently or not built here at all. It is foolhardy to ignore what other professionals have experienced. All that we are asking is that the Commission pay very close attention to where they are proposing to build and how much fill would be brought in and where they intend the water to go. The property can be built on can be encompassed as wetlands and floodplain. There is a huge amount of standing water on that land. There is not two to three inches, and I invite you to go back there and look. There are two to three feet of standing water at any given time back there in that area where they want to build. If the water was redirected or displaced it might flood an already existing, saturated community. Can we be certain that more development directly abutting and adjacent to our home will not increase our propensity to flood during a minor or major rainfall. I would like to read a quote that I found on the website belonging to the Virginia Beach Planning Department under the heading of Flood Control. "Wetlands provide flood control by acting as a giant sponge absorbing and holding water during storms. Fast moving water is slowed by vegetation and temporarily stored in wetlands. The gradual release of water released creates erosion potential and possible property damage. When wetlands are filled, areas designed by nature to control floodwaters from Nor'easter extreme high tides, etc, are lost." We believe it is the City's responsibility to put the safety and welfare of its citizens above the interest of private enterprises seeking personal profit and gain. We are asking that the Commission give strong consideration to the recommendation given by the City's Planning staff last month, which brings me to a question that I need to ask. What change was made in the application request that would warrant the change in the staff s recommendation? Since the deferral last month, there has been a change in the recommendation made by the Planning staff; so, I'm wondering if the development plans were redesigned or adjusted to avoid disturbance in this environmentally sensitive area. This land is marginal at best and building here not only threatens existing homes but is irresponsible business practice regarding the new home owners of Nimmo Quay. And to Mr. Bourdon, I would say, please tell my sump pump under the house that the water in the cinder block voids are trumped up drainage problems. I thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Ms. Duffy? William Din: I got a question. Ronald Ripley: Yes. William Din: The two pictures that you passed around shows a dry BMP. Obviously a dry BMP is only dry in dry weather but is intended to collect water. Irene Duffy: Well, the dry BMP intention was to be wet during large events. It was not supposed to be a retention pond and it was not supposed to be a retention lake. We have one of those already. William Din: What is your intention, and I don't understand why you're showing us a picture of a dry BMP with water in it when it is supposed to collect water. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 10 Irene Duffy: Well, its supposed to be dry most of the time I would assume, if it's a dry BMP, but it has not been dry since it was done. My point is that the purpose of the dry BMP was to retain water that was supposed to go in to the permanent retention pond. It was supposed to be an over fill and it was supposed to happen only during large events such as hurricanes. My point was that it is wet all the time. We have not had a hurricane as of yet, and it already has wetland plants growing in it and it has not been maintained by the city, because we can't grow grass. It doesn't survive because it's too wet. What I'm saying is that if a hurricane was to happen now, or we were to have a large storm, it would flood because that is the last action for us, that dry BMP. William Din: And the retention pond is suppose to have water in it? Right? Irene Duffy: Exactly. William Din: And you're showing us that it does have water in it? Irene Duffy: I'm showing you that it is full and that it is at the top of the drainpipe and that is how it sits most of the time because West Neck Creek is where the outfall is for our retention pond so when it doesn't flow it ends up backing up. William Din: Are you having flooding in your area on the streets? Irene Duffy: No. It's much better now. It's much better now, than it was in the beginning. We had a lot of flooding due to, as was mentioned, the BMP system and we haven't had a large event either so I think we're maxed out. William Din: We've had some rain events here but during the rainy events what kind of flooding do you encounter there? Irene Duffy: We don't have flooding in the streets anymore. Not since they've fixed the drainage. We do have water in our yards and in my crawl space. I use a sump pump to get the water out of the cinder block voids that are there periodically. William Din: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: JoAnn Massey. JoAnn Massey: Good afternoon. I am here to present a petition from the Chartwell of Castleton and Buckingham of Castleton homeowners in opposition of the rezoning. We oppose this rezoning based on our neighborhoods flooding problems and remedies by the City of Virginia Beach that Ms. Duffy spoke to about earlier Castleton as a whole has always been indated with drainage and flooding issues We do not think it would be prudent for the Commission to approve this rezoning and ultimate subdivision Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 11 development of the above referenced property on Items #19 & 20. The flooding and drainage issues of Castleton, we feel would escalate as a new development in that location would permit considerably more drainage into our already overburdened and troublesome dry BMP and drainage system. I do have additional photos of the dry BMP, which has never been dry ever. It's right behind my house. I've got pictures from the very beginning up until a couple of weeks ago. It has never been dry. Here's the petition. Ronald Ripley: Is that a copy of the petition? JoAnn Massey: It is original signatures. Ronald Ripley: Do you have a copy of that? JoAnn Massey: No, I don't. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You may want to get a copy from staff later if you would like to have a copy. JoAnn Massey: Okay. Yes, I would. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Ms. Massey? Thank you very much. Will, has a question. I'm sorry. William Din: It's the same question and you're quoting that there's flooding problems and draining problems in your neighborhood. JoAnn Massey: Drainage problems now. Flooding problems before. The drainage problems being that the BMP and the retention pond flowing into the West Neck Creek which this subdivision would be draining its into West Neck Creek. West Neck Creek backs up, the retention ponds back up, the dry BMP backs up and the dry BMP has never been dry. William Din: Has the dry BMP every overflowed into the neighborhood? JoAnn Massey: The pipe is a very large drainage pipe. It's gotten to be this close to the top of the pipe. My house is right on the edge of that pipe and the water comes right up to my backyard. And, no it has never flooded my backyard but if we were to ever have a hurricane it may Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. JoAnn Massey: Thank you. Robert Miller: Christine Capozzohi. Forgive me if I mispronounced your last name. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 12 Christine Capozzohi: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Christine Capozzohi. 1 live at 2408 Windy Pines Bend. My husband and I bought our house and property in October 1987. Next month, it will be 16 years. We love the neighborhood. The first thing that we noticed as we pulled into the entrance, this is a beautiful bird sanctuary. We have signs there. We love being close enough to the ocean and yet still living in the country with all the birds abutting our backyard. We used to have deer come up. In the backyard, we throw out crumbs and whatever and other animals come up. We had no problem. This was just absolutely beautiful. Now that I have brain surgery in 1997, I'm a shut-in. I have vision problems. I have no peripheral vision whatsoever. I can't drive. The only thing that I have daily is to look at the backyard or maybe once in a while be able to cross the street if there's no traffic coming to walk one of my three dogs. When this proposal first came out two years ago, you were talking about them building houses in the woods. But before that we had drainage problems. I'm guessing about five years ago the City came in to help with the drainage problems. There is about a 10 foot buffer in the back of the property, which comes from the end of Windy Pines Bend to the other. I guess I'm talking about maybe 15-18 houses and a brand new drainage system, which helped us so much. I thank Castleton. First of all, while they were building Castleton and they carve in and they logged all the woods behind us. They left us a few little skinny trees. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Capozzohi, you're starting to run out of time. Christine Capozzohi: I'm sorry. I just want to say that my property is not of any use to me if they're going to go in there and build and put more houses in. If this is passed by this board'. I would like the owner of that property, or the builder to come and buy my property from me and they can do whatever they want with that as long as I get a good decent price for my house. I thank you all very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you all very much. Robert Miller: Angela Snyder. Angela Snyder: Hello. My name is Angela Snyder. I am a resident of Pine Ridge. This application was deferred from the August 131h agenda, and I have the same question that the first lady had and that I understand that from this morning staff s meeting that the Commission now supports this application. But, what has changed since the recommendation was for denial at the August 13th agenda? I am an adjacent property owner and I would like to show you where my house is because it does effect this development. We are right about here and the back of our house will be right behind the new development. We have terrible flooding problems. Our backyard looks like a lake just when it rains We're not talking about a significant event, just normal rainfall. So, I can imagine that the new houses will have that problem as well. The Comprehensive Plan does identify this area as a Conservation Area. It does contain tidal and non -tidal wetlands. There will be no buffered trees for noise reduction and wildlife retention. There will be a definite negative impact on schools and roads. It was noted in the Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L L.C. Page 13 recommendation of the staff, that Kellam High is currently over capacity by 286 students and that does not take into account other developments that have already been approved and are under construction. That's a real concern. The wetlands will be negatively affected. I heard the lady mention what I was going to quote from your website, but I believe she has already done that about the wetlands being a sponge. I just wanted to stress about the flooding being an issue. The stormwater drainage is very poor. The US Navy also opposed this request. They feel that it's an encroachment on their operations. I have letters of opposition I think have been filed. We do have a petition, which has already been submitted to you. There are 62 names on that. I do have a question of Mr. Bourdon, and I'll be able to ask that? Ronald Ripley: You can state it and we can ask him. Angela Snyder- The question is I heard him say and point to this map which I could not see from my location but there was going to be a row of buffered trees that I wondered where that was going to be? We ask that you deny this request. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Angela Snyder. Thank you. Robert Miller: John Snyder. John Snyder: Hello. My name is John Snyder: I've lived on Windy Pines Bend for probably since December. Just moved there. Right there would be my house. According to your plans, these new lots would abut to my back property line. Behind my property line there is a drainage system that the City had installed and I'm not sure when because I just moved there. I have a constant problem with water running off the back of these lands onto my yard because my water is trying to go towards that property to go away from my house and my house is flooded. The way I see it with these property lines connecting or abutting to each other as they are in this drawing, if they properly grade the yards of these new homes, the backyard of that house is going to be flowing right towards the back of mine and therefore, I'm going to have more problems. All that I wanted to say about this drain that is back there is the drain sits so far high out of the ground because the ground is so low that when the water does gather around towards the drain, it doesn't get high enough to go into the drain. I've had several people come out from the City, from Public Works, and they tell me they can't access it. So, how are they going to access this when they have these property lines connecting to mine and not only is that drain back there that should be absorbing some of the water and I've been trying for months to try to get my water to go towards these drains so it would be out of my yard and away from my house and it just doesn't do it. It just stands there and goes nowhere. Also behind my fence line is the electrical box and everything else, and I just don't know how with these property lines like this, if anything happens, how are they going to access any of these public utilities. Those are a few of my concerns. Like I said, I'm just a new Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L C. Page 14 -- homeowner trying to keep my yard dry and at least get it running off my property and its just running right back to my property from where it is now. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Snyder, is there a ditch behind your property or is it a drainage pipe that has a drop in? John Snyder: A very large City drain with very big grates in it. I mean a small animal can go through there. I've told my son not to mess around and get Ins foot caught in it or something. Ronald Ripley: Is it a grading issue you think to get the water to the pipe? John Snyder: Yes. See, that is what I told the people who came out. If you all would grade the land around there a little better, maybe it would flow into that drain. Also in my backyard we have mature trees, very large mature trees. Earlier concept plans in past years from looking through papers, City work, they left a nice buffer with those mature trees between the neighborhoods and with the property lines connecting like that and the utilities there and everything, I don't know how they're going to do that. It kind of doesn't make any sense to me why they would want to connect the property lines. I would think you would leave it zoned between there so you could access the public utilities. I don't know whether they are planning on moving these public utilities. Ronald Ripley: Typically, what you'll find is that there will be a City easement. You have a City easement across the back of your property for which the City should be maintaining that swale. It's their easement. This development will also have to dedicate their City easements for the same reason. We'll have Mr. Bourdon address this. John Snyder: I was just concerned on how they were going to access public utilities that are behind my house and that's going to go between these two. I would also like to say that we moved in there, my fourteen year old son was really looking forward to running around through the woods back there and being a boy. He hadn't been able to go back there. It's too muddy. He'll sink up to his knees. They ask me if I would allow them to access that area through my yard. I said bring a tow truck because any heavy equipment your taking through my yard is going to sink. My yard hasn't been dry since I've been there. I have trouble just trying to mow the grass. Those are a few of my concerns. Thank you very much for hearing them. Ronald Ripley: Thank you for coming up. Robert Miller: Jack Reich. Jack Reich: How you doing? My name is Jack Reich. I live at Hunt Club Forest. My property borders the proposed thing. When we get a rain and not even a heavy rain, water comes up four feet. I had that creek and I guess it connects to West Neck Creek at the edge of my backyard It comes up four feet up from that creek into my yard. I have Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 15 an embankment. It comes up that embankment four feet. With just the rains that we've had, I mean we haven't had, God forbid we have. It's a lot worse now since they knocked all those trees down back there. I mean in the past, when I guess water would be held in the woods back there. I didn't have that much of a problem other than in a hurricane, of course you would expect it to come up. Now, with just heavy rains like we've had. I mean I'm not exaggerating and we're talking four feet up on my property, up the embankment. I cannot get flood insurance because the corner of my property is in a flood zone. I won't have a house left. I have an above ground pool in my backyard. If that water comes up any higher, it will end up taking my pool out. -I mean this is just absolutely nuts. And, they're going to drain into West Neck. It can't handle what's there now. I just can't understand any of this and I don't want to see my property destroyed. I probably lost, and anybody can come out and look, I probably lost two feet of my property in the last two years at the edge. The City doesn't maintain anything. I maintain it. I do my best to keep it up. I keep the grass cut. I keep everything back there. Clean up the garbage that flows from other people's houses down. Thank you Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller, has a question. Robert Miller: When you bought the house. When do you buy your house? Jack Reich- 1987. Robert Miller: Wasn't there a drainage easement on your property then and that canal was there at that time? Jack Reich. Yes sir. Robert Miller: Okay. Since you've live there, you're telling me that Public Works have never been out there to maintain that canal? Jack Reich. No. Robert Miller: That's something we definitely have to have our staff investigate. Jack Reich: I take care of it. Robert Miller- No. Jack Reich- I have never called up and complained. Robert Miller: I believe what you're saying, and I think that could be part of the issue if your having water rise four feet, perhaps it's blocked up somewhere and it's not properly draining and it's something that Public Works can get out there and do something about it. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 16 Jack Reich: Just since they've cleared those trees. Robert Miller: I hear you. Thank you. Jack Reich: You're welcome. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Jack Reich: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Do we have anybody else? Robert Miller: Jeff Trenton. Jeff Trenton: I've got a couple of points. The first one is goes to the credibility of the proposal. We've talked about this buffer area. On page 11, the Planning staff says, "it should be noted that one particular valuable aesthetic natural resource is being eliminated with the current proposal is the existing 40 to 50 foot wooded buffer along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge." It kind of contradicts what Mr. Bourdon says. I would assume the Planning Commission is objective on this because it goes to the credibility of the proposal. The major issue I'd like to address is has everybody seen the newspaper today? You see the newspaper today, massive headlines "Super Hornets Coming to Virginia Beach." We got the squadrons. Massive headline is going to be a lot louder. Headline basically today is "Super Hornets coming to the Beach." It's big, the biggest story in this town for quite a while. Let me suggest what tomorrow's headline can be if you make a mistake on this. "City Council Approves Additional Residential Development Despite Navy Objections." Navy says new development will encroach on air operations. That's your headline. I've heard that sort of debate when I was on the Castleton Oceana Liaison Committee. The Navy would always marvel that the city would continue to build even when the Navy was saying that there are serious noise level issues and other issues concerning flight operations. And they would marvel that the city could continue to do that. Now especially today when they say we're going to get the Super Hornets. When they say they're going to be much louder. When they say they're going to have training operations with new aircraft, to have additional building to approve the next day, additional residential construction when the Navy tells you that you shouldn't be doing it, you're going against what the Navy says, and were saying that we're a Navy town and were patriotic. However, we're going to go for the buck and do the building. That is what it seems to me. I guess that is all that I'm going to say. Robert Miller: Where do you live Jeff? Jeff Trenton: I live right there in Castleton. Robert Miller. Can you point to A9 There's a pointer right there on the table. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L C. Page 17 Ronald Ripley: The little black thing. Jeff Trenton: I'm right here. Robert Miller: Okay. How's your quality of life there? Jeff Trenton: It's nice to have the woods behind. Robert Miller: A nice neighborhood? Jeff Trenton: It's a nice neighborhood. The noise is an issue. Robert Miller: Really. Jeff Trenton: Especially the question of when the Super Hornets being louder. Because we know Navy guys who fly and say yeah, the Super Hornets are going to be a lot louder. Robert Miller: Every time you see one of those Navy guys making all that noise, why don't you thank him for the freedoms you have. Thank you. Jeff Trenton: The Navy is the one who's saying your encroaching on their operations. Not me. Robert Miller: Thank you. Jeff Trenton: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Is there anybody else? Robert Miller: No sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Where do I begin. I think you already picked up on the fact that the BMP that is holding water is a BMP that is working given the fact that we had a record summer for rainfall and the first young lady who spoke on it, I'll be happy and be candid and say that the flooding problems are corrected. They're not flooding. Frankly, depending upon the size of a hurricane, if we have a hurricane, there are a lot of places in the City of Virginia Beach, a whole lot of places that are going to have flooding on a temporary basis and for the flat area coastal plain that we live in, that's an inevitability. There's nothing anybody can do about that if we have a hurricane You can't design a storm drainage system for a city based on a hurricane event. And, we haven't nor have any other coastal cities that I'm aware of but we certainly in this case, being that we are downstream of Castleton, we're not going to be putting water upstream. What we also will be doing is as you all know, and as we've talked about, is our BMPs all have to be in Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 18 = upland areas. They have to be designed and engineered so that we are in not any way shape, or form increasing the rate of flow into that drainage system in a storm event. And, again, Castleton is the latest development that had experienced some problems. They developed, and a significant amount of their lots are in the floodplain. None of these lots are in the floodplain. The other development, Pine Ridge specifically and Lake Placid up the upstream, they have houses, many, many of them which were built in the floodplain but the flood elevation used to calculate their height was too low, which is the issue with the runoff. All of this is being addressed and has been addressed and we will be addressing it so that we will not be adding in anyway to anybody's water problem and that's what this plan represents, because it is such a minimal amount of development with all of the sponge left unimpacted. With regard to Ms. Snyder, she brought up a number of different things. The buffer behind here, first off all, behind their houses there is a 30- foot easement between our lots and their lots that would be maintained. We also maintain wooded area along the entirety property line with the neighboring properties and of that entirety, there are 65 lots that adjoin us, this is one section. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're over your time. But you're answering our questions. Eddie Bourdon: I knew you were going to ask that question. Ronald Ripley: So consider your questions and answers. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. I'll consider mine questions and answers. We got this section here where there is a wooded buffer because it's the wooded buffer that we maintain. There are trees on the back of these lots. If you notice, these lots are larger lots than those in the neighborhood. There are a number of trees on these lots. There are trees on our property all the way around. Most of our boundary with the neighboring subdivisions, all of these lots go directly to our property line. We have left a wooded buffer and that buffer will remain. What the staff was commenting about is that in the 255 lot plan, our lots were not to the property line but we're still going to maintain on the back of these lots. Not 50 feet although in the case of these seven lots here to the east, there's already 30 foot buffer that will remain and that is an underground drainage easement and we will be able to add another 15 to 20 feet to that. So basically, about a 40 to 50 foot buffer that will occur here. This area here the buffer will be less but these lots that we adjoin here. We have 10 lots that adjoin a total of eight above us. We'll be probably able to leave about 20 to 30 feet of trees on our property in addition to roughly the same amount of trees that exist on the back of those lots Elsewhere, there is no impact at all in terms that trees remain adjacent to the rest of the properties. Ronald Ripley: While you're on that subject Mr Scott, it wouldn't be appropriate for this applicant to size the drainage pipe along those adjacent property lines to service water coming off of Castleton for example but it would be appropriate for the city, when they're in there doing the development to get their grades right if the grades have gotten Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 19 filled in or what not so that we get two drainage systems that are getting the water out of there. Would that be appropriate to say? Robert Scott: Really, you have to leave that up to the design engineer and what concept they're going to use to drain it. It wouldn't be inappropriate to do. Ronald Ripley: Would it be inappropriate to oversize it to take other water? Robert Scott: It's not a question so much of oversizing as it is of grades. The problem is the land is very low and very flat. The grading issues are most of the problems I believe. I certainly don't want to rule anything out like that, but at some point, someone is going to have to figure out how to drain this land and their concept might possibly include that. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: You'll also notice and it's obvious to everyone, and I'm going to show you, that there are lots all along here, lots all along here that come to our property line and had our property line were a floodplain, what does that tell you? These lots were all built in the floodplain. And, that's a reality. The houses of a lot of these people that adjoin us were in the floodplain and that's not happening on our property. We're not doing anything as far as building houses in the floodplain that exists around us. That's the key to this whole situation is that we're not going to be creating any problems for anybody else and our stormwater off of our impervious surfaces go into BMPs that we're creating on our property to hold that water on our high land not in the floodplain. So we're not affecting the flood storage capacity or the rate of flow in any way in the floodplain. Eugene Crabtree: I think you just answered my question. Your three stormwater management facilities should actually improve the wetlands that is now draining to people's property by holding it on your own property. What they say is running form the woods now and having problems with that when you put these in that should correct some of their problems because then it will not run there but will be held in your stormwater management. Eddie Bourdon: We fully believe and understand and appreciate the fact and it is a reality given the history of these other developments that we are going to be looked upon to not only make sure that we have no impact but to probably help to alleviate some of the existing impacts and we are well aware of that and prepared to address that challenge. Eugene Crabtree: That's what I was asking. Ronald Ripley: Jan Anderson. Janice Anderson: On the wooded buffer that you said you would leave there, that is a Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 20 drainage easement also, is there any problem with keeping it wooded? You said that you might have to take a tree or two but it's not going to be clearer Eddie Bourdon: Those mature trees are the ones the owner left and didn't log when the rest of the property was logged because they provide that buffer. The answer is I don't believe, we hope there aren't any trees that have to be taken out. It is our desire to leave that buffer, but maybe some that do, but they will be the ones farthest away from the shared property line. They won't be on the shared property line. Again, unless for some reason that we're not aware of dealing with the existing drainage improvements or the City drainage improvements that would have to necessitate some removal. We're not anticipating that will be the case. Janice Anderson: Is there anywhere the proffers that you can make just say maintain the wooded buffer. It wouldn't be specific. Eddie Bourdon: We could between now and City Council we could put on the plans a note about the wooded buffer that exists. That can certainly be done. In terms of the proffers themselves, I'm not sure from what other developments such as wording that anyone is really going to be comfortable with. Barbara is not here. Barbara Duke and I have had discussion a lot lately. I think that she and I'll just quote her for the staff, I think they're more comfortable with some type of a note on the plan itself as opposed to trying to come up with words in a proffer to deal with that. I think that is an issue that we could address by putting a note in to the proffer that trees in this area are to remain. Janice Anderson: The wording in your proffers. Eddie Bourdon: You're referring to the plan. Janice Anderson: To the plan. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Charlie Salle' and then Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Mr. Bourdon, in reference to the gentleman that was complaining about the aircraft, if I understand the position of this property, this property is not in the actual major flight plan of take off or landing and the crash zone is just the noise zone. So from a safety standpoint of view we don't have it in direct line of any of the major runways and therefore the noise level is the only question? Am I correct? Eddie Bourdon: That is correct. Ronald Ripley: Charlie. Eddie Bourdon: We left plenty of room for a jet to crash with all the open space on 74 percent of the property. I hope none ever do Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 21 ._ Eugene Crabtree: I just want to make sure that you're not in that direct crash zone. Eddie Bourdon: No, were not even near a crash zone. We surrounded by residential development at three half units per acre. Eugene Crabtree: Just clarifying it that's all. Charlie Salle': My experience with crash zones is when an airplane flies over your head you're in a crash zone. Eddie Bourdon: With all this conservation area we're setting aside, there is plenty of room and God forbid if one every came down. We hope they wouldn't come down in any of the neighborhoods that surround us but it doesn't exist. Charlie Salle': I had a couple of questions and Jan explored part of that on the buffer zone, I noticed that the wooded buffed areas is across the actual platted lots and I guess to what extent is the subject lot owner bound to keep that area wooded? Eddie Bourdon: There certainly is an ability to put in an easement on the property. It could be a Homeowners Association that's going to own not only all the open space and the vast majority of our property that abuts to 65 lots in a neighborhood would belong to the association and so there is the ability to put an easement to allow the association to enforce not only on their own property but on the back of the 18 lots that we have that adjoin other lots. Charlie Salle' • That might be one of the responsibilities. Eddie Bourdon: I would agree Mr. Salle', and I don't think you would have any problem with putting in a condition. The issue simply would be the depth of the easement on any of the lots. Charlie Salle'. And the other question deals with drainage. This project is downstream from the areas that we had people had concerns about it. Is the system of drainage connecting the existing drainage that's will be flowing down to your project? Eddie Bourdon: There are some drainage ways that come through and it's natural drainage that clearly comes through here. That's what all the floodplain in these areas that we preserved that is directly adjacent to their lots that were created in the floodplain. That's why it is important and critical and that's why we had stayed out of those areas with our development, so that we're not impacting the natural drainage ways with regard to the manmade drainage ways. Yes, they do also traverse our property, and we will be enhancing those to some degree. Primarily, we're going to make sure that we have no negative impact on those in terms of adding in any way to flow in those drainage ways in a storm event. We're also providing a BMP for Nimmo Parkway on some of our high land, right out here at the entrance. Right here were adding a BMP that will be used for Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 22 Nimmo Parkway again, so there isn't any impact on the drain when that road is built. We do have drainage that comes across the property. There's natural drainage that comes across the property that we are not going to impact. Ronald Ripley: Kathy and then Joe. Kathy Katsias: Mr. Bourdon, are you and the developer is willing to reduce the amount of lots depending on the storm water drainage system. Is there a number that would make this economically not feasible by the production? Eddie Bourdon: That whole issue Ms. Katsias is going to be dealt as we go through the engineering, which is in this case and that really is the answer. I believe. I don't want to speak for staff, but I think the staffs comfort level with this proposal was enhanced by face to face meetings with our engineers and our clients, and we understand and have bent over backwards already and will continue to do the same to make sure that there is no impact on drainage on the property surrounding us. We walked into this knowing that the problems that have existed and to some degrees still exist, although I think they have been in a large part been solved, not totally, and we recognize that we may lose some lots in that process. But, that's an expensive process. All that detailed engineering on individual and grades and what have you, it's going to be a process that we're recognizing is going to take some time. And, I said before, we don't expect any of these houses on these lots to be on line or for sale for two years because we know that process isn't going to be a quick one. As far as a number, no, there is no way we can sit here and say it will be 120 versus a 132 and we're not in a position to know that at this point. Ronald Ripley: Joe, did you have a question? Joseph Strange: Yeah. Some of the opposition, they expressed concern that even though your saying that these BMPs are going to be on high property that maybe this isn't going to really work. Who do they go to and get assurances that your plan will work so they could feel comfortable and not feel like when they walk out of here that this gets passed that they're going to be protected. Eddie Bourdon: I think they can walk out of here and walk out of the Council meeting, because they will be hearing the same thing there, knowing that every engineer and Public Works of the City is well aware, and they've been aware for a number of years about the issues that have been brought forth and that these plans are going to be checked, doubled checked, tripled check to make sure that they will in fact they will do what in fact what we said they will do. They will not be adding to their burdens, so to speak, that exist. And, the City has studied this area extensively. We're looking at property that we are only developing on, essentially on the high land, and that's one assurance that I would take out of here. Number two, the fact that everyone is going to be scrutinizing it very carefully to make sure that we alleviate the problem. The problems that have existed, have existed in large measure because of previous errors that aren't going to be repeated again in terms of using incorrect information, in terms of what Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L C. Page 23 the floodplain was back in the 60's with Lake Placid. Our knowledge is so much greater now then it was in the 1960s. Joseph Strange: If you look under Public Facilities and Services it says, "city water is not available to this development. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new pump station off -site of the sewer system." And then if you look at Proffer #7, "when the property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to service the subdivision, including the possible construction of an off -site sewage pump station." How do these two relate to each other? I don't quite understand it myself. Eddie Bourdon: I believe they say the same thing. There is City water, and City water will be extended to the site at our cost. City sewer same thing, will be extended to our site at our cost. The only question there is whether the pump station will be on this site or off —site, and we are now confident that it will be on site. Like I said, it will be at our cost. There is no cost to the taxpayer at all. City water and City sewer have to be extended at the developer's cost to the property and they're available to the property. Joseph Strange: So what plans and bonds are required for the construction of the new pump station? Does the City have to do that? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. When this gets to subdivision approval. It just lets somebody know, if they're a developer and they're naive, that they're going to have bond what they're going to have put that in. Joseph Strange: So the City doesn't have anything to do with that. Eddie Bourdon: No sir. Joseph Strange: I didn't quite understand myself. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Mr. Bourdon, thank you very much. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Let's open this up for discussion. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Well, since everybody else is a drainage engineer, I guess I can be one. A couple of things that were said today that need to be clanfied. Number one is that West Neck Creek is a creek that drains a large part of our city, but it is also connected to both, ironically, the Chesapeake Bay and to Back Bay and it is effective in both directions. It's very unique in that sense. It's a great waterway. It's a longitudinal to the park, as we all know. It's a wonderful place to go and spend some time. There are some issues that come up, and that is trying to maintain it and make sure that it stays clear of debris. Public Works, I think, has done a very good job, but over the years, it's difficult to either Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 24 stop a tree from growing, or if one fell down, to know that it fell and go out and clean that tree up. I think that's been part of the issues that have dealt with West Neck Creek. The creek, itself, carves a large amount of water during a rainfall event. The drainage in Castleton, the drainage in this subdivision, to some extent, the drainage in Lake Placid are being, what I called "detained" which means it's being slowed down and let lose after the storm event has passed. That's the way things are engineered during computer models, and I can assure you there have been any number of, literally hundreds of models done on this particular creek to make sure that what is being done in this area is going to be done correctly and done with conscience towards not only the development that's going on but the other developments around it. Just saying that means that the storm drainage systems have presented every confidence that the City engineers are going to make sure and the developer's engineers together with those items that were talked about today from yard drainage to canal system that's not quite working to worrying about how it's going to flow into West Neck Creek. This water is already going into West Neck Creek, and the water that will be drained from this property will not be in excess of what's already going there. So, there's no net gain. That's part of the rules of the development that has to occur. One lady mentioned, I think Ms. Duffy that there was water under her house. I just want to make sure, and I think she knows this, but that is a builder's problem. That's not related to the development. There are duct valves on the Castleton outfall system at the primary outdoor fall for the Buckingham Village. A duct valve actually opens when the water in the creek is lower and stays closed when the water in the creek goes up. That was done supposedly to stop water from coming back into the subdivision. If in fact, the water is staying in the subdivision in that storm water management facility too long, then it may be that valve is not working. I would suggest that Public Works get involved to make sure that they get that straight. The BMP that was supposed to be dry, but remains wet and the month of May, I think we had 20 days of rain. We've probably had the wettest summer we've had that I could remember. And, even though the events may look like they are not that severe, the continual rain causes the ground to be saturated and all of us, with any sense to my yard, to your yard to anybody else's yard know that after this summer. That would also lead to the fact that the BMP was built dry, otherwise it wouldn't have been built. It was built and it was dry. So, it was dry at some point. And the last thing is the canal system, I would suggest that is on the eastern part of this property next to the Hunt Club, and it goes across the southern portion of the property. I have walked that canal and I know that canal is heavily encumbered with existing trees and growth and other things. And maintenance probably does need to be run on that; so, I would ask that Public Works do that. And stating all of that, I think the developer has done a very unique job of backing off the previous proposals that we've seen. I believe staff believes the same, and the proposed development is one that I personally feel has achieved what all of us were asking for, and that is the honoring of the environmental situation, the honoring of the drainage situation. I do like the idea of putting in the additional condition of an easement for the buffered trees. I think that assures the people that have been here that are worried about that. Let me tell you that's a "Catch 22" when you talk about the drainage issues, because if we save the trees you can't change the grade around the trees so that may be a little bit of a drainage issue which needs to be balanced like Mr. Bourdon indicated I think with good Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 25 engineering while we're environmentally sensitive to saving these trees. And, the last thing I want to say is I personally very glad that the Navy put the additional F-18As here and I hope they fly over my house everyday and every night. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Bob said it pretty well. I would like to comment on the plan itself also because I was on the Commission when it carve through the first time. When you flip that board over and you flip it over to this side, it's like a world of difference. Looking at the density, and if you take the developable acres and you divide it to what was proposed you probably get four to the acre. I think the original plan got to three and a half because there was a lot of variances required in order to create more land within the floodplain in order to achieve the number of the density. This case, the developer is not asking for any variance. The variances that we're working with is the land that's there for the most part with the exception of some of the roadways that have to get through there, and I appreciate, quite frankly, this type of exhibit because you get to see the whole floodplain in a much broader sense than some time the way it's presented, which is very hard to see the whole picture. And this is a very helpful way to view what's going on. I think Bob probably covered most everything that I was interested in talking about probably and then some. I think the fact that the developer has recognized the fact that in working with Mr. Scott, his department, there may be more adjustments. That's very appreciative from the Planning Commission's point of view, because I'm sure there's going to be some nips, picks and tucks, and once you get down on the ground with the engineers and actually measure the inches you're going to find some differences. You may just find, and hopefully that works out well for the developer, if that's the case. But, when it comes down for a motion, I'm going to support this. I think it's a good plan. I think it's very creative, and it as Mr. Miller said "it's environmentally sensitive to this piece of land" and this land is a developable piece of land and you have to recognize that. It's 72 acres. Is that correct? Yes Barry. Barry Knight: I agree with what Ron and Bob both say. We have a unique waterway in West Neck, and by being in the Southern Watershed Management Area, I would assume that the largest majority of the water is towards Back Bay And with the trees over West Neck Creek, we're subjected to a wind tide, which means when wind blows out of the north, we get a low tide. When the wind blows out of the south, we get a high tide. And, if you have a south wind, it backs the water up here, and then if you have a rain event, which is usually associated with a south wind, then the water can't get away. So, I know the residents may not have the exact answer that they're looking for but their voice was heard today because Public Works will get a message that they need to go out there and see about these trees that are over West Neck Creek or some of the tributaries of West Neck to try and get them out of here so the water will flow out of this area a little better. I have a good comfort level with that done that this site will actually improve the drainage on the surrounding neighborhoods so I'll be supporting this project also. I wouldn't mind putting that in a way of a motion also. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to make that a motion at this point? Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 26 Barry Knight: If you have more discussion. Ronald Ripley: Okay. William Din: I'd just like to make a comment also. I think this development is a environmentally sensitive development, and I know the speakers that came up here in opposition of this may feel that they don't see how this is being environmentally safe to their area, but if you look at the map, the Castleton area, the Pine Ridge area is built right up to the property line. If those areas were developed with the same environmental concerns of these wetlands, you probably wouldn't have the houses butted right up against this property level. A lot of these houses wouldn't be there, because they are built in the flood areas or the wetlands that this development is trying to avoid. And, that's why those areas are lower. You see the line. You see the development of Castleton and Pine Ridge, come right up to that line. Well, wetlands just didn't stop there. And, so there is a lot of thought to the environment and the concerns and how this development is built around the wetland areas and I agree with the comments with the drainage. I think it will improve the drainage overall in this area and I to will be supporting this. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: I feel compelled to say one thing. You have our staff report. My comment has to do with tree preservation. Our staff has got a lot of experience in recent times by dealing with very difficult issues like this. I must say that I would not encourage anybody to very optimistic about tree preservation on this property for two reasons. Number one, you have no tree preservation proffer. A note on the plat isn't going to do any good. By the time this is put to record most of the trees will be gone anyway. Number two, even with a tree preservation proffer, tree preservation and drainage are sort of development opposites of one another. There's going to have to be some significant adjustment to grades in this area, and to adjust grades, you've got to clear trees. I don't want to labor the point by identifying properties for you that you've dealt with and we've dealt with recently where we've had significant tree preservations proffers on them. They're not that effective in preserving trees. The development will sometime necessitate that the trees be cleared out, and this is a piece of property, with the size of the lots that are there and with the necessity to put drainage as a top priority, same degree of manipulation I suspect is going to have to take place. I think that I would not be that optimistic about the ability to preserve trees. In the interest of fairness, I just need to say that. Ronald Ripley: I think that's a very practical statement. Charlie Salle': I have a comment. Ronald Ripley: Charlie. Charlie Salle' • Bob, having brought that up, I often observed, that it seems to me that's Item #19&20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 27 actually what happens. You have to grade lots even where there's not even a particular drainage problem, but you grade them to meet City standards even if the drainage is not an issue, and as a result of that, the trees have to go. And, I often thought that as a property owner that I would rather have the trees on the lot and drainage problems and puddling on my property then see the trees go, but it seems to me that's just the opposite than most people. We've heard a lot of comments about standing water on people's lots and people just don't tolerate it. And, I think that message comes across so loudly for the City that they set the standards so that you have to create these standards to deal with the drainage. And, I think probably we're our worst enemy when it comes to these issues. Ronald Ripley: I don't disagree. Okay, Barry, did you want to make a motion here. Barry Knight: I'll make a motion on agenda Items #19 & 20, Alcar, LLC, that we approve the application as proffered. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kathy Katsias. Is there any further discussion? Then, we would like to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carves. ABSENT We, the undersigned, homeowners of Chartwell of Castleton and Buckingham of Castleton are petitioning in opposition of the proposed rezoning on the Planning; Commission Agenda for September 10, 2003 items 19 and 20 for the following: 19 & 20. ALCAR, L.L.C. 19. (# J 11-210-CRZ-2002) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the site as a Conservation Area where land -disturbing activities should be avoided, mitigated, or under certain conditions prohibited. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 20. (# J I 1-210-CUP-2002) Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE We oppose this rezoning based on our neighborhoods' flooding problems and remedies thereof by the City of Virginia Beach. Castleton, as a whole, has always been inundated with drainage and flooding issues. We do not think it would be prudent for the Commission to approve this rezoning and ultimate subdivision development of the above referenced property. The flooding and drainage issues of Castleton would escalate as a new development in that location would permit considerably more drainage into our already overburdened and troublesome "dry" BMP and drainage system. Buckingham of Castleton Signatures n .�'� 1. jj1► �' , �.�.I �� "�fflj.17RWAM-OWIMM, =,M"A' OWES p-P-M -- .. LW-, ON I WASNOW "W'r, W_WjRC4dEW NO pild / _=/ IVr_.. ti. SL am WA� r'/..WFAll • r/�__ .. WN,�� H Q D _% _X.1 N,.w,,w2jjA- Y` 1 i a Page 1 Chartwell of Castleton Signatures z---) / Z"07 ,� 'l7�, 9A1�� J lei con.IAPAYlli • iiA �`L�ON 1 4 WA Mpp'p' .1 Ji W9 "-�AL WIOWIWIAA WVMII'IL I 6. NO fir . I L/ !� I rAh-'-.�.�■ • I .. r ilia_., .. ,_ �IV,EJOVIATI)WKRkWN01.'__ 7MMMONA ffA r � I �i Page 1 -..�• _... _ . mow. - �'ClAi/ i `1 — _ J t .1 _' l..l til l\ . % \ > N-. fi 5cptember S, 2003 Cunent Planning Division Municipal Center Buildin.- 2, Room 1 1 2405 Courthouse Dri%e irginia Beach % A 2 456-9040 Dear Planning Commission We strongly oppose applications :'Jl 1-210-CRZ-2002 and=J11-210-CUP-2002 listed on the September 10"' agenda Anv additional floodplatn variance «ould further aggravate the eatensr�e flooding problems experienced by the Pine Ridge, Castleton and Hunt Club neighborhoods In addition w ercrowdina of schools, opposition from the united States \a%•y and disruption of the conservation area (as mentioned in the staff recommendation) are , alid reasons for denying these applications We respectfully request that the applications for rezoning from AG-1 & aG-2 to Residential (R-10) be denied Sincerely, Joanne T Brooks August 25, 2003 Current Planning Division Municipal Center Building 2, Room 115 2405 Courthouse Drive N' irginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Dear Planning Commission V4 a understand that applications =J 11-210-CRZ-2002 and 'J 1 1-210-CL: P-2002, which appeared as items four and fi,,e on the Planning Commission agenda for the August 13 2003, were deferred for thirty days We would like to reiterate that we strongly oppose these requests, as disruption of the land would be detrimental to the birds and wildlife li,,ing and nesting there In addition, other issues were brought to our attention in the Commission's Staff Report (8/13/03) such as the flood plain variance, overcrowding of schools, and the opposition from the united States Navy We are not opposed to growth in surrounding areas of Virginia Beach as long as existing roads, schools and public utilities are in place to support this growth As stated in the Commission's Staff Report (8/13/03), Kellam High is already over capacity by 286 (which does NOT take into account other projects already approved and under construction) Roads in our area (London Bridge Road, General Booth Bltid , etc) are already congested, and we don't believe the current roads and schools are sufficient to support the growth that we've seen here and else where in the area We respectfully request that the applications be denied as further development of the land between the neighborhoods of South Gate, Pine Ridge and Castleton would be a negative impact on the community and the wetlands and wildlife contained therein In the event that these applications are approved despite strong community and Government opposition, we request that a fifty to seventy-five foot buffer, which contains mature trees and vegetation, be left between the new development and the neighborhoods of Pine Ridge and Castleton If property lines are made to connect to our property lines, drainage toward our properties will cause further flooding problems As it is now, we have quite a problem keeping standing water away from our rear property lines Thank you for your consideration i Angela and John Snyder 2404 Windy Pines Bend Va Beach, VA 23456 1 ' r FORM NO P S IS Uri F [� 9,prs 0�G OF DUR NWOl1S City Of Virginia Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5676 TO: Leslie L. Lilley —\ FROM: B. Kay Wilso ;kyl INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE RE: Conditional Zoning Application ALCAR, L.L.C., et als DATE: October 16, 2003 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 28, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated December 12, 2002, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY ��: SYKES BOURDON, li7L�! . ERN & LB Y. P C ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company T. WAYNE MOSTILER and BARBARA C MOSTILER, Trustees FALSE CAPE ASSOCIATES, a Virginia limited partnership TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of December, 2002, by and between ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; T WAYNE MOSTILER and BARBARA C. MOSTILER, Trustees for the T. Wayne Mostiler, D.D.S., Ltd. Employees Pension Plan and Trustees for the T. Wayne Mostaler, D.D.S., Ltd. Employees Profit-Shanng Plan, Grantor, party of the second part; FALSE CAPE ASSOCIATES, a Virginia limited partnership, Grantor, party of the third part, and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the fourth part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 48.27 acres and described as "Parcel One" in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with Parcel "Two" and "Three" is herein referred to as the "Property", and WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of two (2) certain parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 64.05 acres and described as "Parcel Two" and "Parcel Three" in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcels, along with "Parcel One" is herein referred to as the "Property", and GPIN• 2404-37-1633 2404-57-3796 2404-56-4943 1 PREPARED BY 701H SUES. POURDON. AHERN & LEVY. PC WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia i Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-10 Residential j District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation, and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning j j application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-10 j Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to i the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, ` rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the j followingdeclaration of conditions and restriction which shall restrict and govern s t the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, j which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming 2 PREPARED BY SYKES B011RDON AHERN & LEVY P C under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title and which will not be required of the Grantors until the Property is developed. 1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA"', dated December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, approximately 22.7 acres of parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open Space" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. When the Property is developed, playground equipment and neighborhood park improvements meeting the City's Department of Parks and Recreation Standards shall be installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the Concept Plan. 3. When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres of land designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park. 4. When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Homeowners Association which shall, among other things maintain the Open Space areas. S. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall incorporate architectural features, design elements and high quality building materials substantially similar in quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs labeled "Typical Home Elevations AT NIMMOS QUAY" dated December 12, 2002 which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. 3 PREPARED BY SYKES BOURDON A14£RN & LEVY PC 6. When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part shall construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP 2-121 in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's engineering standards for the roadway, within the existing Nimmo Parkway public right of way extending east approximately 2560± feet from the entrance to the subdivision to connect with the existing improved Ninmo Parkway road section. 7. When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to serve the subdivision, including possible construction of an off -site sewage pump station. 8. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-10 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said Gd PREPARED BY M SYK£S ROURDON. ,AII£I2N & UNT P C instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrict -tons, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding, (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings to court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. 61 PREPARED BY • SYKES. ROURDON. A14£RN & LEVY. PC WITNESS the following signature and seal: j GRANTOR. I i ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: SEAL) an S Resh, Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit. I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of December, 2002, by Alan S. Resh, Member of ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited i liability company. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 0 WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: V / (SEAL) T. Wayn Mostiler, Trustee SEAL) Barbara C. Mostiler, Trustee STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ber, 2002, by T. Wayne Mostiler, Trustee. Notary Public 1 My Commission Expires STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: day of j The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _jr of g g g Y ber, 2002, by Barbara C. Mostiler, Trustee. Zia& Notary Publi i My Commission Expires. ��✓ �o PREPARED BY SUIS. POURDON. A149ZN & Lam'. PC 7 PREPARED BY • • SYK£S. ROUPOON. AJURN & LEVY, PC WITNESS the following signature and seal GRANTOR: FALSE CAPE ASSOCIATES, a Virgini limited partnership �v.r- By: �� s:.L� %.�� ',. � (SEAL) Dougla iTalbot, General Partner STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20th day of December, 2002, by Douglas Talbot, General Partner of False Cape Associates, a Virginia limited partnership. 4 "err Notary Public I My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 8 PREPARED BY SUES. BOURDON, AHERN & LEW, P C EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL ONE: That certain tract or parcel of land containing 50.955 acres, more or less, being bounded on the North by the property now or formerly belonging to the Marie E Bratten Estate and T.C.C. Development Co., on the East by the property now or formerly belonging to Harry L. Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, and being bounded j on the South by the property now or formerly belonging to Willis Brown and being bounded on the West by the property now or formerly belonging to Maury F. Riganto j and Grace T. Riganto, and being further described as follows BEGINNING at a 21-inch cypress located at a common corner between the property now or formerly belonging to the Mane E. Bratten Estate and Maury F. Riganto and Grace T. Riganto, and running thence North 74 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East 293.92 feet to a pipe, North 74 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds East 199.08 feet to an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 28 seconds East 460.48 feet to an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds East 618.23 feet to a pipe, North 75 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds East 1,900.72 feet to a pipe, and North 74 degrees 06 minutes 46 seconds East 135 60 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence turning and running South 47 degrees 11 minutes 44 seconds East 86.92 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 05 degrees 54 minutes 06 seconds East 113.50 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 36 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West 131.95 feet, thence South 20 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds West 91.11 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 48 degrees 29 minutes 10 seconds West 223.72 feet to a point in the Eastern edge of Brown Town Road, thence South 11 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds West 324.92 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch located in the Eastern edge of the Brown Town Road, thence turning and running South 75 degrees 23 minutes 42 seconds West 1,128 71 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 74 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West 1,250 65 feet to an 18-inch maple, thence turning and running North 59 degrees 18 minutes 31 seconds West 734.65 feet to a 7-inch cypress, thence North 39 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West 37 22 feet to a 12-inch cypress, thence North 67 degrees 54 minutes 01 second West 281.79 feet to a 21-inch cypress, the Point of Beginning. GPIN: 2404-37-1633 PARCEL TWO: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying, being and situate in Princess Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County) City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and bounded and described as follows - Beginning at a pine located at the corner of property now or formerly belonging to Brown, Roper and Wright's heirs and running thence N 11 3/4 degrees W. 2 64 chains 9 PREPARED BY SYKES, BOURDON. AHERN & LEVY. PC to a pine stump; thence N 43 degrees W 1.10 chains to a pine; thence N 73 1/2 degrees W 2 87 chains to a pine stump; thence N 82 1/2 degrees W 2.45 chains to a pine stump; thence N 73 degrees W 4 06 chains to a pine, thence N 62 1/2 degrees W 2.81 chains to a pine stump hole; thence N 31 1/2 degrees W 3 44 chains to a station j on the south side of a ditch at the Browntown Bridge; thence N 56 degrees E 1 44 chains to a station on the south side of a lead ditch, thence N 70 3/4 degrees E 1 54 chains to an unmarked cypress on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 79 1/2 degrees E 2.30 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch, thence N 57 1/2 degrees E 4.37 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch, thence N 55 1/2 degrees E 1.74 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 81 1/4 degrees E 3.53 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 67 3/4 degrees E 1.50 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 57 degrees E 1.16 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence S 72 1/2 degrees E 2 42 chains to a stone at the corner of property now or formerly belonging to Roper's Rail Road and the property of Lamb in the line of property now or formerly belonging to Brown; thence S 14 3/4 degrees W 3 22 chains to a station in the line of said railroad, thence S 1/4 degree W 12 69 chains to a stone in the line of said railroad at the corner of property belonging to Lamb, thence S 87 1/2 degrees W .47 chains to a sweet gum; thence S 87 1/2 degrees W 1 62 chains to the point of beginning and containing 16 acres and 37 poles more or less Excepting from the above is a parcel conveying by deed to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia from Harry L Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, husband and wife, for a roadway, said Deed being recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 1098, at Page 545, containing 2.690 acres, more or less, known and designated as Parcel 008 (Courthouse -Indian River Road Extended) . GPIN: 2404-56-4943 PARCEL THREE: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying in "Brown Town" in Princess Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District) City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a cypress at Brown Town Bridge, and running North 44 degrees W 2.33 chains to a pine; thence N 29 degrees W 2 67 chains to a post, thence N 10 degrees W 1.89 chains to a pine; thence N 9 3/4 degrees W 2.19 chains to a pine stump; thence 6 1/4 degrees W 4.61 chains to a pine; thence N 1 1/4 degrees E 2.06 chains to a pine; thence N 34 degrees E 4.46 chains to a pine; thence N 38 1/4 degrees E 4.82 chains to an oak; thence N 58 degrees E 3.18 chains to a beech; thence N 46 1/2 degrees E 2.13 chains to a gum stump; thence N 86 3/4 degrees E 18.31 chains to a post; thence S 6 3/4 degrees E 5.81 chains on line ditch; thence S 7 3/4 W 12.17 chains to a stone on line ditch; thence along said ditch S 73 1/4 degrees W 1.43 chains; thence S 47 degrees W 2.08 chains; thence N 78 1/2 degrees W 1.33 chains; thence S 58 1/4 degrees W 1 23 chains; thence N 74 3/4 degrees W 2 01 chains, 10 thence S 60 1/4 degrees W 2.06 chains; thence S 71 1/4 degrees W .76 chain; thence S 89 degrees W 3.43 chains, thence S 55 degrees W 3.86 chains; thence S 63 1/4 degrees W 2.53 chains, thence S 81 degrees W 2.65 chains; thence S 70 degrees W 12.13 chains; thence S 57 degrees W 1.07 chains to beginning, containing fifty-six acres and one rod, more or less and bounded by the lands now or formerly belonging to Willis Brown, and Boston Brown and Jno L. Brown. i GPIN: 2404-57-3796 CONDREZONE/ALCAR/PROFFER PREPARED BY SYKES, DOURD01 AHERN & LEVY. P 11 -38- Item IV-12.c. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 36742 PLANNING Attorney R. Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One, Fifth Floor, represented the applicant The following registered in OPPOSITION. Glenn Tainter, 2140Kenwood Drive, Phone• 427=1929, represented the Courthouse/Sandbridge coalition of Civic Organisations Lou Pace, 1908 Hunts Neck Court, Phone. 468-0925 A motion was made by Councilman Dean, seconded by Councilman Moss to DENY Ordinances upon application of EIGHT D CORP. for a Change of Zoning District Classification and a Conditional Use Permit Upon SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Councilman Branch, seconded by Councilman Lanteigne, City Council ADOPTED Ordinances upon application of EIGHT D CORP. for a Change of Zoning District Classification and a Conditional Use Permit ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICATION OF EIGHT D CORP., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-2 TO B-2 Z04931385 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY T UE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1,IRGINL4 BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Eight D Corp., a Ytrginia Corporation for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District on certain property located at the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane. The proposed zoning classification change to B-2 Community Business District is for community -wide commercial land use. 77ze Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for medium density single-family residential land use at densities that are compatible with single-family use ut accordance with other plan policies The Plan also allows for neighborhood office land use if standards outlined in the Courthouse- Sandbridge chapter of the Plan are adhered to Said parcel contains 2.2 acres PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH A ND, ORDINANCES UPON APPLICATION OF EIGHT D CORP., A VIRGEVM CORPORA77ON FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION R04931817 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINM BEACH, 11IRGINL4 Ordinance upon application of Eight D Corp., a Virgzn a Corporation for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station and car wash on certain property located at the northeast corner of General Booth boulevard and Culver Lane Said parcel contains 2.2 acres. PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH The following condition shall be required. 1 Prior to detailed site plan approva4 the applicant shall meet with the Design Advisory Group for consultation to ensure architectural and aesthetical compatibility with the surrounding community April 27, 1993 Map L-ll Mao Not to Scale Brothers Petroleum Ff, L013 A-18 / Gpin 241, ZONING HISTORY I O/ 1. 11/28/00 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-1A Neighborhood Business District - Denied CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Mini -Warehouses) — Denied 8/22/88 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District - Withdrawn 2. 7/5/00 — ZONING CHANGE from R-7.5 Residential District to B-1A Limited Business District — Granted 3. 9/13/94 — RECONSIDERATION OF PROFFERS — Granted 4/27/93 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District — Granted 4/27/93 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Automobile Service Station/Car Wash)— Granted 9/24/91 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Gas Sales and Store) — Denied 9/24/91 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District — Denied 12/19/88 — CONDITIONAL ZONING from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District — Denied 4 6/25/96 — MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS — Granted 8/14/89 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to B-2 — Granted 3/27/89 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to B-2 — Withdrawn qC r 7 \, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification (AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District); Conditional Use Permit (car wash); Modification of Conditions (Eight D Corp.) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of Malbon Bros Petroleum, L L C for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District on property located on the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane (GPIN 2415316485). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE (b) An Ordinance upon Application of Malbon Bros Petroleum, L L C for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash on property located on the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane (GPIN 2415316485) DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE (c) An Ordinance upon Application of Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L L C for a Modification of Conditions to applications of Eight D Corp for a Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on April 27, 1993 Property is located at 1896 General Booth Boulevard (GPIN 2415315378, 2415313399, 2415314208) DISTRICT 7 —PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of the requests is for the development of an automated and self- service car wash facility in conjunction with an existing convenience store, fuel, and car wash business. The proposed changes would also add one fuel dispenser to the existing operation and relocate and expand the existing car wash The expansion is contained on the existing Conditional B-2 zoned parcel and the AG-2 Agricultural zoned parcel to the north. ■ Considerations: The existing convenience store and fuel pumps and canopy will remain, however, one (1) additional fueling island is proposed One (1) fuel dispenser will be added (providing two (2) more fuel stations) and the canopy above will also be extended An additional trash dumpster and three (3) more parking spaces in front of the convenience store are also proposed Malbon Brothers Page 2 of 3 The existing single -vehicle automated car wash will be removed and replaced with a dual -car wash In addition, the applicant is proposing eight (8) bays for motor vehicle self-service washing. In an effort to reduce noise and eliminate any potential negative impacts to the residential properties to the east, the automatic car wash is proposed as close to General Booth Boulevard as possible. The applicant has noted that all driers will be located within the structure Staff recommends approval There was no opposition to the requests ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve the requests with the following conditions: 1 No more than eight (8) self -serve car wash bays and no more than two (2) automated car wash bays shall be permitted on the site 2 An elevation of the proposed automated and self wash structure shall be submitted to the Planning Department during final site plan review The color of the metal standing seam roof, all visible interior supports and any other accent features depicted as red 3 Streetscape landscaping shall be installed along the General Booth Boulevard frontage for the parcel identified on the conceptual site plan as GPIN 2415-31-6485. This landscaping shall utilize the same species as that on the existing commercial site to the south 4 All interior property lines shall be vacated prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5 The final Landscape Plan shall include the species, caliper (measured a breast height), number and location of all existing trees greater than 10 inches in diameter to remain as well as the species, caliper, number and location of all proposed trees within the area identified as "wooded area on the Conceptual Site Plan Trees within the wooded area shall be at least 50 percent evergreen, 2 '/2 inches in caliper at the time of planting and shall be of a species and at a spacing acceptable to the Planning Department. 6 In addition to the plant material depicted on the site plan within the "landscape area" to the west of the proposed car wash structure, Category I landscaping shall be installed along the entire northern foundation of the automated wash structure 7 A Lighting Plan and/or a Photometric Diagram Plan shall be submitted during final site plan review Said plan shall include the location of all pole mounted and building mounted lighting fixtures, direction of light, and the listing of lamp type, wattage, and type of fixture. Where lighting fixtures Malbon Brothers Page 3of3 are installed along streets, in parking areas, or on the building for illumination purposes, all fixtures shall be of appropriate height and design to prevent any direct reflection and/or glare toward adjacent uses and city streets Said lighting fixtures shall be consistent with the recommendations for the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard as described in the Comprehensive Plan and a depiction of the proposed fixtures shall be included within the Lighting Plan. Lighting shall be directed down at the ground, and not out horizontally or up in the air. Any lighting located on the back of the building(s) must use appropriate shielding/screening in order to direct light downward at the ground and not toward the adjacent properties ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency. Planning Department IL City Manager: � E MALBON BROS. PETRO, / # 219 229 & 23 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION L11-212-CRZ-2003 NUMBER: L11-212-CUP-2003 L11-212-MOD-2003 REQUEST: 21) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-2 Community Business District. 22) Conditional Use Permit for a car wash. 23) Modification of Existing Conditions on property Conditionally Zoned B-2 Community Business District. ADDRESS: Property located on the east side of General Booth Boulevard, north of Culver Lane Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23 Page 1 ,GNU B& ` :moo GPIN: 24153164850000; 24153153780000; 24153133990000; 24153142080000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 2.724 acres STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith PURPOSE: For the development of an automated and self-service car wash facility in conjunction with an existing convenience store, fuel, and car wash business. The proposed changes would also add one fuel dispenser to the existing operation and relocate and expand the existing car wash. APPLICATION This application was deferred at the August public hearing to provide HISTORY: the applicant time to revise the submitted plans to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposed use can be situated on the site and adequately screened so as to not adversely impact the surrounding properties, particularly the existing dwellings to the east. • Consistency with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly regarding the General Booth Boulevard Corridor. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: . �;: B&4C Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23 Page 2 Existing Land Use and Zoning The property under consideration for the rezoning and the new Conditional Use Permit for the car wash is currently zoned AG-2 Agricultural District. There is an existing single-family dwelling on this site that will be removed. The remaining portions of the site are currently zoned Conditional B-2 with a recorded Conditional Zoning Agreement that describes the permitted activity on the site. A modification to that agreement is required as the applicant wishes to expand the fuel sales and alter the approved configuration of the car wash structure. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Single-family dwelling / AG-2 Agricultural District South: • Vacant lot / B-1 A Neighborhood Business District • Culver Lane • Single-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residential District, AG-2 Agricultural District East: • Single-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residential District West: • General Booth Boulevard • Corporate Landing Office Park / 1-1 Light Industrial District Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing On the area zoned B-2, the current convenience store Zoning: and fueling operation with the single automated car wash could continue to operate as proffered. The following uses are also allowed under this agreement: business studios, offices and clinics; financial institutions; greenhouses and plant nurseries; medical and dental offices; public buildings and grounds. The parcel zoned AG-2 Agricultural District could continue to support any agricultural use allowed under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including the existing single-family dwelling. With Under the new Conditional Zoning Agreement, which Proposed will replace the current Agreement, the existing Zoning: convenience store with fuel pumps will continue to Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23 Page 3 operate with the addition of one (1) fuel dispenser. The single automatic car wash will be relocated and expanded to a double car wash. Lastly, eight (8) self- service wash bays will be constructed on the northern parcel in the same structure as the two (2) automatic wash bays. Zoning History Pertinent activity on this site includes the following: On B-2 zoned portion ---- 12/19/88 — CONDITIONAL ZONING for several adjacent parcels (totaling 5.38 acres), from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District, including these lots, was denied in 1988. 9/24/91 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District and a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for fuel sales and a convenience store was denied. 4/27/93 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District and a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for fuel sales, convenience store, and car wash for the parcel at the corner of Culver Lane and General Booth Boulevard was approved. 9/13/94 — RECONSIDERATION OF PROFFERS attached to the 1993 zoning change was approved by the City Council. On AG-2 zoned portion 11/28/00 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-1A Neighborhood Business District and a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for mini - warehouses was denied. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 223 & 23 Page 4 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 20-inch City water line in General Booth Boulevard and a ten (10) inch City water line in Culver Lane. If these requests are approved, the existing 5/8-inch meter must be abandoned and a new connection made from the adjoining lot when the parcels are merged. There is an eight (8) inch City sanitary sewer in Culver Lane. There is no gravity sewer in General Booth Boulevard If these requests are approved, the site must connect from the adjoining lot when the parcels are combined. A sewer and pump station analysis of Station 605 will be required to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the new flows. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): General Booth Boulevard in the vicinity of this application is a four (4) lane arterial roadway. Culver Lane is a four (4) lane collector street. No improvements are proposed to either of these roadways in the existing CIP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity General Booth Boulevard 35,008 ADT 27,400 ADT Existing Land Use — 1,223 ADT Proposed Land Use 3- 2,608 ADT Culver Lane 10,580 ADT' 13,100 ADT' 'Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by fuel sales, convenience store and automated car wash 3 as defined by fuel sales, convenience store and 10 bay self-service car wash Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21,229 & 23 Page 5 Fire and All Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code requirements will Rescue: be enforced. Any required Fire Code permits and Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Department of Planning / Permits & Inspections Division. Storage of hazardous, flammable or combustible materials on -site must be within the scope of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and NFPA. Operator must supply on -site and hazard mitigation kit for fuel spills. Any car wash bay area that involves the shutting of doors with a vehicle and occupant inside must have a fail- safe operation to allow opening of door/doors or a clearly marked side hinged door for emergency use. In addition adequate ventilation must be provided to remove vehicle exhaust. Comprehensive Plan Within the Comprehensive Plan, this property is discussed under the Courthouse/Sandbridge Issues and Policy Section and in the Site Specific Planning Issues, General Booth Boulevard Corridor Area. The General Booth Boulevard / Map 2 indicates this property is suitable for neighborhood office uses. The current use is not consistent with the Plan's recommendations. This property is located within the Corporate Landing node of the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard. The landscape design and other design attributes, as well as the land use of Corporate Landing will have an effect on surrounding design. Highest Consideration should be given to proposals that go beyond the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard. • The Site Design Guidelines require existing natural characteristics of the site be identified and considered during design and building placement. • The Guidelines also recommend that specific attention be given to buffering to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood from objectionable noise from the proposed use. • Site lighting within the Corporate Landing node should be complementary to the style of lighting fixtures to be used at Corporate Landing. Any additional lighting should reflect this recommendation in the Plan, as the submitted photographs do not Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21, 223 & 23 Page 6 depict acceptable lighting fixtures. • Signs within the Corporate Landing Node should be externally illuminated and as described with the design standards. • Colors should be less intense, blending in with the surrounding landscape and not obtrusive. The appropriate design and color of the building should be sufficient; color should be used as an accent. Summary of Proposal Proposal • The applicant proposes to change the zoning from Agriculture to Business on a 32,294 square foot parcel (located north of the existing B-2 zoned parcel), and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the development of an automated and self- service car wash facility in conjunction with an existing convenience store, fuel, and car wash business. • The applicant also requests to modify the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement that was approved by City Council in 1994 for the expansion of fuel sales by adding one (1) fuel dispenser to the existing operation and to relocate and expand the existing car wash operation. Site Design • The existing convenience store and fuel pumps and canopy will remain, however, one (1) additional fueling island is proposed. One (1) fuel dispenser will be added (providing two (2) more fuel stations) and the canopy above will also be extended. An additional trash dumpster and three (3) more parking spaces in front of the convenience store are also proposed. -na..vcrr Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23 Page 7 mmu�w.. no..a r.r.n.cws �a • The existing single -vehicle automated car wash will be removed and replaced with a dual -car wash. In addition, the applicant is proposing eight (8) bays for motor vehicle self-service washing. • In an effort to reduce noise and eliminate any potential negative impacts to the residential properties to the east, the automatic car wash is proposed as close to General Booth Boulevard as possible. The applicant has noted that all driers will be located within the structure. • The existing vacuum stations will be relocated in front of the self-service building and four (4) addition vacuum stations are proposed on the north side of the building. • A note on the plan indicates that the stormwater runoff will be treated with a subsurface facility. Details of this system are not provided. • The revised site plan depicts additional distance between the edge of pavement for the drive aisles serving the car wash facility and the property line. The original plan depicted improvements at 15 feet from the eastern property line, the property line adjacent to residential parcels. The revision includes a wooded area (approximately 40 feet by 160 feet) that will remain intact along with the installation of a Category IV buffer. This moves the edge of pavement from 15 feet to approximately 55 feet from the property line. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The existing vehicular entrances along Culver Lane and General Booth Boulevard are proposed to remain and to be utilized by the expanded car wash facility. • An office is proposed within the car wash structure so pedestrians will not have to traverse the fuel sales area to obtain assistance from the existing convenience store. • Pedestrian access throughout the site appears to be adequate. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21, 227 & 23 Page 8 Architectural Design • The new car wash elevation depicts a structure with ten (10) drive through bays for self wash and a two (2) bay automatic wash building located at the western end of the building, although the applicant has agreed to limit the number of self service bays to eight (8). • Transparent walls and roof panels are proposed. A red metal standing seam roof with red metal supports, visible within the transparent structure, is also depicted. The mechanical rooms are shown with a beige brick exterior to match that of the existing convenience store. The submitted elevation (shown below) depicts the building elevation. The actual elevation on the site, however, will be reversed with the automatic wash bays located on the west side of the site (as indicated on the site plan). 4 a, v y �I a !p t ,�„ `a >�'a_ *��4 ' '.:L/ ` a .�1:. � ` •, =RUK L;7: i --M�GHptrICC1— '=CC.`M :'TAP) • The addition to the canopy will reflect the design of the existing canopy. Landscape and Open Space • The submitted plan depicts a 15 foot wide, Category IV Landscape Buffer (voluntary) along the northern property line and along the eastern property line (required), adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Although not required, the applicant is providing a screen for the currently agriculturally zoned parcel to the north as a means of eliminating any negative visual impacts that this use might have on the existing dwelling on the site or potential redevelopment of that site. • Extensive foundation landscaping is depicted along the fagade of the car wash facing General Booth Boulevard. • Staff has recommended a condition for the use permit requiring that streetscape landscaping on General Booth Boulevard for the parcel proposed for addition to the existing commercial site continue the streetscape landscaping that exists on the Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23 Page 9 commercial site. The dumpsters will require screening and landscaping. This must be shown on the final site plan. • The revised site plan depicts a "wooded area," approximately 50 feet wide and 160 feet long, along the eastern property line. This area will be planted and maintained as a 50 foot wide landscaped and treed buffer. Details of the species and sizes of the plant material to installed were not provided. Within this 50 foot wide wooded area and adjacent to the vehicular drive aisles that will serve the car wash, Category IV landscaping (Leyland cypress and ligustrum) is proposed. This area is adjacent to the existing stormwater management facility to the east and provides increased distance and screening for the existing residences. Proffers PROFFER # 1 All exterior lighting on the Property shall be directed downward and shielded to direct light and glare from adjoining properties. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. PROFFER # 2 When the Property is redeveloped, it will be substantially in accordance with the "Conceptual Site Plan of Conditional Rezoning and Use Permit for Malbon Bros. Citgo Expansion...," dated 12/13/02, rev. 4/30/03, rev 7/9/03, rev 8/19/03 prepared by John E. Sirine & Associates, Ltd., has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (the "Concept Plans") Staff Evaluation: The addition to the gasoline canopy and the relocation and addition of a second dumpster is acceptable. Staff is concerned, however, that the scope of the car wash operation will negatively impact the surrounding properties and that the open bay design is not consistent with the design objectives for General Booth Boulevard as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Modifications to the plan have addressed some of these concerns as the Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALSON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 22, & 23 Page 10 scope of the project has been scaled back from ten (10) self-service bays to eight (8). In addition, Proffer 8 has been modified to ►ncrease the distance of the car wash operation from the existing residential parcels to the east. PROFFER # 3 The exterior design, materials and colors of the Existing Convenience Store and Existing (expanded) Canopy depicted on the Concept Plans will remain unchanged. The canopy will be expanded to accommodate one additional petroleum dispensing station as depicted on the Concept Plans. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. PROFFER # 4 In accordance with the Concept Plans, the only businesses permitted to operate on the property are gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store and a car wash facility. Staff Evaluation: The proffer is acceptable as all of these uses are currently on the site. PROFFER # 5 Building materials used to construct visible exterior surfaces of the structures depicted on the Concept Plans shall be primarily brick, metal, glass, plexiglass, stucco or wood. Staff Evaluation: The use of these matenals is acceptable. It is the design and the scope of the proposal that is deemed somewhat excessive for this site; however, the applicant has reduced the number of self-service bays from ten (10) to eight (8), which slightly reduces the scale of the project. Staff is recommending a condition for the Use Permit that requires the applicant to incorporate a similar architectural element between the convenience store and the proposed car wash structure. PROFFER # 6 When the Property is redeveloped, the architectural features of the Car Wash depicted on the Concept Plan shall be substantially in accordance with the "ELEVATION OF MALBON BROTHERS CITGO EXPANSION," dated April 30, 2003, prepared by Porterfield Design Center, Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. I # 21, 22, & 23 Page 11 which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is one file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (the "Car Wash Elevation"). Staff Evaluation: Staff is concerned that the open bay design, necessitated by the desire for a self -wash facility, will be aesthetically inconsistent with the design objectives for the General Booth Boulevard as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. The transition from an automated car wash to a predominately hand -wash facility detracts from the applicant's ability to provide an attractive structure that will blend with the existing, attractive convenience store. Staff has recommended to the applicant and in the conditions below that a means of tying the architecture of the proposed car wash facility to the existing convenience store be incorporated into the final building design. PROFFER # 7 Other than signage, which may contain "trademark" colors and the accent colors on the car wash facility depicted on the car wash elevation, all other structures depicted on the Concept Plans shall utilize earth tone color schemes. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. PROFFER #8 In addition to maintaining the abundance of existing landscaping along the Property's frontage on General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane, a 15 foot wide Category IV Landscape Buffer will be planted and maintained along the northern boundary and a 50 foot wide landscaped and treed buffer will be planted and maintained along the eastern boundary of the property as depicted on the Concept Plan. Staff Evaluation: This proffer aids in reducing the negative visual impacts that this project will have on adjacent property. However, the noise associated with the car wash facility may not be fully or even sufficiently buffered by the addition of this landscaping. The revised plan does increase the distance between the edge of pavement for the drive aisles and the eastern property line from 15 feet to approximately 55 feet. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 22, & 23 Page 12 Evaluation of Request The request to add one fueling station and to extend the fuel pump canopy (including the relocation and addition of a second trash dumpster) is acceptable. Staff is still concerned, however, that the scope of the car wash operation will negatively impact the surrounding properties and that the open bay design that is necessitated by the desire to operate a self-service, hand wash facility will be aesthetically inconsistent with the design objectives for this corridor as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan The transition from an automated car wash to a predominately hand wash facility detracts from the applicant's ability to provide an attractive structure, as it will not fully compliment the architecture of the existing convenience store. Staff has recommended a condition that at a minimum the visible red columns throughout the structure be wrapped or constructed with block that matches that of the existing convenience store. The site is located within the Corporate Landing node of the General Booth Boulevard Corridor. The Plan recommends that highest consideration be given to proposals that go beyond the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard. • The Site Design Guidelines require existing natural characteristics of the site be identified and considered during design and building placement. Unfortunately, due to the size of the proposed facility, tree preservation was not considered, however, a 50 foot wide landscaped and treed buffer will be planted and maintained along the eastern boundary of the property. This increases the distance between the edge of pavement for the drive aisles and the eastern property line from 15 feet to approximately 55 feet. • The Guidelines also recommend that specific attention be given to buffering to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood from objectionable noise from the proposed use. The existing stormwater facility and wooded area to the east does provide a visual buffer but it is uncertain as to how effective this vegetation will be in muffling noise associated with the proposed car wash Again, additional plantings are proposed which will aid in buffering the noise. • Site lighting within the Corporate Landing node should be complementary to the style of lighting fixtures to be used at Corporate Landing. The lighting as shown in the submitted photographs does not depict acceptable lighting fixtures. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23 Page 13 • Signs within the Corporate Landing Node should be externally illuminated and as described with the design standards. • Colors should be less intense than those shown on the proposed elevation and photographs. An attempt should be made to better blend the design with the convenience store. A condition to this use permit is recommended to, at least in part, accomplish this recommendation. It should be noted that the current use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this site and is inconsistent with the objectives for the General Booth Boulevard Corridor as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. The General Booth Boulevard Corridor section of the Plan indicates on Map 2 that this property is suitable for neighborhood office. The site, however, was rezoned in 1993, and the use does exist. The business has proved to be, at its current scope and architectural and site design, a good neighborhood -oriented use. The previous 1993 change of zoning even included a multi -bay car wash, but at a smaller scale and different design. That multi - bay wash was reconsidered and the single -bay automated facility now in place was constructed instead. Staff notes that the applicant has scaled back the scope of the operation from ten (10) bays to eight (8), but staff remains concerned that the proposed replacement of the existing single -bay car wash with an eight (8) bay self -serve car wash and a dual automated car wash create an overall use for this site that goes beyond that associated with neigh borhood-onented uses. It is also probable that the addition of this operation to the existing commercial uses at this corner could contribute to additional commercialization of the properties to the north, resulting in the strip commercial land use that the General Booth Boulevard Corridor policies of the Comprehensive Plan are intended to prevent. As previously noted, Staff finds the addition of one (1) fuel pump and the extension of the canopy over the gas pumps to be acceptable. While Staff concludes that the proposed car wash facility is not the Comprehensive Plan's desired use of this property, modifications to the size and improvements to the architecture (as suggested in the conditions below) to tie the two buildings together significantly improve the application. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this Change of Zoning, Modification of Conditions, and Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions. Conditions Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21, 22, & 23 Page 14 1. No more than eight (8) self -serve car wash bays and no more than two (2) automated car wash bays shall be permitted on the site. 2. An elevation of the proposed automated and self wash structure shall be submitted to the Planning Department during final site plan review. The color of the metal standing seam roof, all visible interior supports and any other accent features depicted as red, shall be changed to an earth tone color approved by the Planning Director. 3. Streetscape landscaping shall be installed along the General Booth Boulevard frontage for the parcel identified on the conceptual site plan as GPIN 2415-31- 6485. This landscaping shall utilize the same species as that on the existing commercial site to the south. 4. All interior property lines shall be vacated prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The final Landscape Plan shall include the species, caliper (measured a breast height), number and location of all existing trees greater than 10 inches in diameter to remain as well as the species, caliper, number and location of all proposed trees within the area identified as "wooded area" on the Conceptual Site Plan. Trees within the wooded area shall be at least 50 percent evergreen, 2 '/2 inches in caliper at the time of planting and shall be of a species and at a spacing acceptable to the Planning Department. 6. In addition to the plant material depicted on the site plan within the "landscape area" to the west of the proposed car wash structure, Category I landscaping shall be installed along the entire northern foundation of the automated wash structure. 7. A Lighting Plan and/or a Photometric Diagram Plan shall be submitted during final site plan review. Said plan shall include the location of all pole mounted and building mounted lighting fixtures, direction of light, and the listing of lamp type, wattage, and type of fixture. Where lighting fixtures are installed along streets, in parking areas, or on the building for illumination purposes, all fixtures shall be of appropriate height and design to prevent any direct reflection and/or glare toward adjacent uses and city streets. Said lighting fixtures shall be consistent with the recommendations for the Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard as described in the Comprehensive Plan and a depiction of the proposed fixtures shall be included within the Lighting Plan. Lighting shall be directed down at the ground, and not out horizontally or up in the air. Any lighting located on the back of the building(s) must use appropriate shielding/screening in order to direct light Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21, 229 & 23 Page 15 �Nu 8�C, C40'G�W' 41 A iy :.1 downward at the ground and not toward the adjacent properties. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21, 229 & 23 Page 16 U L- i or n M ok .� s h .�NNY OD C� to J IR 1+� rf 1�1 H P4 TCq" 4 Q x z G ? ~ •+ C. w WVwtiw Planning Commission Agenda �Ku sic °:�►� �s September 10 20 p 03 =� ' t MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21,229 & 23 Page 17 N.: �} Mm- • N5. S M 'lit `� � � --t., � f,• � � � s �.�tt --�' t 4 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 V MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23° Page 19 Z DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 11 Applicant's Name _ Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L_L.0. _________�_____ List All Current Property Owners _ Same As Applicant PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Michael S. Malbon, Man�ng_Member Mark M. Malbon, Member ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below. (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. B _ Signature Conditional Rezoning Application Page 14 of 14 Michael S. Malbon, Managing_ Print Name ��ember Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 21, 22, & 23 Page 22 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L. L.C._ List All Current Property Owners. Same As Applicant PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Michael S. Malbon, Managing Member 'dark M. Malbon, Member ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION 1 certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Malbon Bros. Petroleums, L.L.C. gB_t/�_ Michael S. Malbon, Mana�in— Signature Print Name _� Member Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 MALBON BROS. PETRO. / # 219 229 & 23 Page 23 Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.0 Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit Modification of Conditions Northeast corner of General Boulevard and Culver Lane District 7 Princess An August 13, 2003 nr-S-r ?L*r41-.1 1WA e04r- i1 ea614z4 W' AR..1tJ4 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Items #105 11 & 12, Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Eddie Bourdon: I can confirm that Mr. Nutter's clients on that last application were very much gentlemen and worked very diligently to get a good entrance set up that would work for them and would work for the project. I've got handouts for everyone. I've got more than enough. This is an application for Malbon Bros. Petroleum and Mike and Mark Malbon are both here today. The application involves numerous pieces of property actually at the corner of Culver Lane and General Booth Boulevard. The Malbon Brothers a number of years ago assembled three pieces of property and came forward and it was a fairly lengthy process. They went through a lot of iterations and got approval in 1993 and I'm giving you and the staff an evaluation from the application that was initially approved as well as the staff s evaluation of a later modification to that original approved plan. Anyway, the assemblage on the corner of three parcels was approved for the facility that you see there today. The Malbon Bros. Citgo. Now this piece of property to the north, which is zoned agriculture They have acquired that property. Some of you may recall that property along with the piece adjacent to it was the subject of an application for a self -storage facility a number of years ago that was eventually turned down. So, this piece of property, 32,000 plus square feet zoned agriculture has no agricultural use on it. I don't think that Mr. Knight wants to put any hogs there or nor do I think Mr. Horsley plans on cultivating it and raising grain on it. So, what are we going to do with it? The Malbon's have acquired it. One of the Comprehensive Plan recommendations is for this area is that smaller parcels be assembled, which they been diligently doing for a number of years. Just as an aside, this little piece of property is zoned B-1 A, where there is an approved proffered plan for an office building. They've also acquired that piece of property. It's not a part of this in any way and they intend to develop that property in accordance with its proffered zoning. There may be some small modifications to the office building but that had a curb cut on Culver Lane and that curb cut on Culver Lane will be eliminated. They will be using the same internal circulation that they have on this property today, which with this application is not changing. Another significant benefit is the driveway on this AG piece will go away With the assemblage adding this piece of property to their parcel it is not the subject of the proffers that this piece is so we had to modify the proffers that is before as well as rezone the property in order to incorporate it into the project from AG-2 to B-2. In addition, there's a Conditional Use Permit for gasoline sales and car wash. The Conditional Use Permit Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 2 for gasoline sales doesn't affect this piece but the car wash does so we're modifying the conditions to the Conditional Use Permit as well. So, somewhat complicated but really not that complicated this set of circumstances. The Malbon's were born in this community, raised in this community and live in this community. And, I'm talking about this community not the whole City of Virginia Beach. It's a family owned business. They take great pride in the business. I think anyone who has visited the business is certainly sold on the fact that it is an asset to this part of Virginia Beach. The General Booth Boulevard corridor is, I think, one of the more attractive corridors in the City and we have a lot of them, a lot of very attractive commercial businesses in this corridor. And, without fear of contradiction they have by far the nicest gas station in this area of the City of Virginia Beach in terms of its appearance. They have won awards. They have been given an award by Citgo for the best kept station in the State of Virginia and The Virginia Beach Clean Community Commission has awarded them their "Litter Free" award because they police their property so well. Their landscaping is very well maintained. The Malbon's also support the community in which they live and which they were raised. They contribute money to Virginia Beach Little Leagues as well as time and effort, Virginia Beach Soccer Club, Ocean Lakes High School, Kellam High School, their booster clubs and their sports teams. Princess Anne Middle School. The Junior Olympic Volleyball Team from Virginia Beach and numerous other community groups and chanties have benefited by their generosity over the years. They are truly a very successful neighborhood oriented business. At the time this was originally approved there was some neighborhood opposition. Glenn Tanner of the Coalition of Civic Leagues opposed this application way back in the early 90s. We've met with them on this time around and all that we heard was kudos and praise. This facility has been what we said it would be about 11-12 years ago and that is an asset to this part of General Booth Boulevard. The proposal today as I've said involves and if you put the site plan up there. It involves adding this piece of property and in doing so we are seeking to expand the car wash, add one gasoline pump. In 1993, the original approved plan actually had six gasoline pumps. In 1994, we came back with a modification, which you have there with you. We decreased the gasoline pumps and it's interesting and I've got the plan and I need to get this plan back. But, this is the approved plan for 1994 which shows the car wash which at that time was a four bay car wash and it was a split face block and I'll just simply pass it around and let you all take a look at it and you can make your own judgments. Anyway, that wasn't what was actually built and what was actually built is far, far more attractive than what was approved and even though Mr Scott took a little bit of slack if I recall back at the time from a few folks, I think history has borne out that the changes from that plan to what's on the ground now were significant improvements over the plan that was approved. And, that plan was recommended for approval, the one I'm passing around by staff. What we got today are two automated car wash facilities, which are generally in the same location where the current car wash is located. And, we got the bays for the self -serve car wash there. There is with this application and you got a rendering of the building. These bays unlike what you see there is the state of the art. The newest innovation and that there are the heavy hard acrylic that will provide complete visibility. And, that visibility translates into safety and better policing. When you got those solid walls that you see in some of these older self -serve car washes, you have blind Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 3 spots on a lot of them. And, they tend to discourage some members of society from using these and would otherwise do so because they feel somewhat unsafe. These are safe and that's why they are very popular and that's why they have been well received in the marketplace because there is that visibility that is not present with the old block style of car wash. Relocate this automated car wash towards General Booth Boulevard and away from any residential. Culver Quay to our east was developed after the original facility that's there now was developed and you see homes along here. The closest home to this facility will be located over 200 feet from our proposed facility. Most of the landscaping that is there now and all the landscaping along the northern boundary was all put in by my clients. They will do the same excellent landscaping of this property as well. We've got a lot of interior onsite landscaping. The car wash is setback from General Booth Boulevard. There is very little visibility for the car wash from General Booth Boulevard. One of the issues that is not even addressed that I think is important is that we requested no signage for this car wash. The signage that we'll use is the same signage that is on the site today. On page 10 of the evaluation where they review our proffers, I found it interesting that on proffer number two, the third line from the bottom of the staff evaluation says that "the open bay design is not consistent with the design directives for General Booth Boulevard as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan." It's the four -open bay car wash that was approved. It was not recommended for denial by the staff back in 1994, which in fact, it was recommended for approval. So, I found that somewhat inconsistent. Ronald Ripley: You've run out of time. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. I'll be happy to answer any questions Ronald Ripley: I'm sure were going to have questions. Questions? I think you point out a pretty good point about the safety. I've never really thought about that. That's something that's a positive for sure. Can you address and staff is suggesting in their write up and it says basically by adding the additional gas station seems to be appropriate but going along with the size of the car wash is a little bit over powering. And, that's what we would like for you to address. That's the objection here as I see it. And, along with that it's expanding the site. The project right now is a very nice looking project, a real asset to the area. I don't disagree at all with the quality of your developers. You've got a really good package here. The problem is the size and that's what you need to address. Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate the acknowledgement of the safety issue because it truly is something that's appropriate for ladies. In the market analysis, they intend to be concerned more so with safety and that is a big segment of the car wash market. And, that's why these are very popular. As far as the size, the parcel that exists today, the assemblage that exists today is 2 acres in size. In the original write up it's 2.2 but with dedications and all it's actually 2 acres We're adding basically three quarters of an acre to it. And, all that were gaining by that is the car wash facility. And, when you look at it in that light there's not a great deal of utilization that is being gained for that significant T Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 4 piece of property. There will be an office building here and that's already approved. It would be proffered B-1A zoning and we will be eliminating a curb cut but there will be an office building here. We've got the convenience store out here and the gas pumps. If you just look at the relationships there is very little visibility that this facility is going to have, in terms of that, is the concern that fairly my clients aren't desirous of doing anything to detract from a very attractive facility It would be inconsistent with all they have done over the course of the last twelve years. We believe it's an attractive facility. We've gone and looked at them. We've invited Glen Tanner and some of the people who came to that meeting to go and look at the facility up in Fredericksburg. Again, we've heard nothing back from them of the negative comments. Everything that we've heard was positive. I do understand that there's opposition from some of the residents on Culver Quay. We have their letter and will be happy to address some of those concerns. We don't agree with the staff in terms of their concern that it is too large. However, we're not intransient on that. We will, and I heard you all this morning and I've communicated to my clients some of your concerns and we're not sitting up here with blinders on and with our hands on our ears. But, we don't agree with that part of the staffs evaluation. I intend to agree with your analysis Mr. Ripley. I think the staff's concern is with the number of bays or the size of the car wash. We're not in agreement but we will listen to the comments that we hear today. And, we want to hear from the people who come. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Din has a question. William Din: There were several things that staff wrote up in the evaluation of a request. I guess the design. I didn't here you address any of those. The tree preservation not considered, the noise situation. I guess the acceptable lighting fixtures. Eddie Bourdon: Which one do you want to start with? William Din: Tree preservation. Eddie Bourdon: Well, the trees that are on the site. There are trees all along here that we planted. There are some trees where our BMP is and those trees will be taken out with this project. That's going to happen. We will plant additional trees and maintain them as we planted trees throughout the site when it was originally developed. And we did plant trees in the area around the BMP. We will do the same here. We have no aversion to planting large trees, relatively larges trees and to maintaining those. We've got landscaping here. More than what you normally see. We've got a significant landscaped area here adjacent to General Booth Boulevard where we would be planting trees as well as bushes and shrubs. There will be some trees that will go the entire road that we plant them along here to make this assemblage work. That obvious row of trees is going to go but they will be replaced by a row of trees over here on the north. William Din: So your buffer zone there is a minimum buffer9 Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros Petroleum L.L.0 Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. Fifteen feet here that's required here Here it's not required but were planting it anyway We see this property to the north being part of an assemblage with the AA Team that's north of us. What we have here is a buffer that exists in that BMP for Culver Quay, is located right here, which is also a buffer that exists and so it is not as if we're sitting up against someone's backyard and their back fence. It is part of the property but its encumbered by the easement for the storm water management facility and that's a natural buffer. As far as plantings in here and if you look what's there and that's all stuff that we planted. And, I think it's an absolutely fantastic screen and will do the same thing here and another one up here on the north. It isn't from day one what's going to be there today but it doesn't take long. That kind of material grows very quickly. I think that you asked about the design of the car wash itself or the style of the car wash itself. You approved the same car wash in terms of its design. I do understand that it's a different part of the City, Independence Boulevard versus General Booth Boulevard but it is an attractive car wash. We have matched the color and it matches the color on the canopy of the gas pumps. We are using the same material where we obviously don't have the acrylic glass on the convenience store but we are matching the brick that matches the convenience store. So, it's our intent and clearly from the history on what we would do we will make sure it is an attractive addition to the site and one that matches one that is already there. But, the design of the car wash versus doing a split face block car wash with brick is something that is not current in the market place and frankly, it does have negative connotations to some people because of the blind spots in the lack of visibility. Was there another question? William Din: It talks about muffling of the noise associated with the car wash. Eddie Bourdon: The principal noise generator is the automated car wash, which we have flipped and moved closest to General Booth Boulevard. The trees and the existing vegetation all will muffle noise but these facilities don't really generate noise unless you let somebody play their boom box at high decibel levels and they're not going to let that take place. They haven't allowed that to take place to date and there will be someone on site 24-7 and there is management and it is community management. This isn't something that the corporation in Texas hired. It's a family run business. They survive and they thrive off of the business from the people in the community. William Din: Yeah, I think what you currently have there is a smaller size car wash and a convenience store. Right now you're expanding it? Eddie Bourdon. The car wash. William Din: Right, the car wash expands the entire site. One other thing that I would like to address is the light around the existing gas canopies. I noted on the van trip that when you look at that there is a lot of glare coming off of there When you add this new pump island to it and you're going to add additional canopy to it, there is a possibility that you could take a look at maybe restricting the lighting so that it just goes down instead of going out. Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L L.0 Page 6 Eddie Bourdon- That was brought up by staff from day one and it was brought to me by clients from day one and Glen Tanner and his group and my clients are well aware that their lighting is going to have to be modified. William Din: Do you think? Eddie Bourdon: I think its proffer number one. William Din: Is that proffer number one? Eddie Bourdon: I believe that it is if I'm not mistaken. Eugene Crabtree: Yes. William Din: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: It's a point and I didn't mean to be dismissive. It's one that we all understand that the lighting will be changed. Ronald Ripley: So, you'll recess the lights up into the canopy so it's not glaring out? Eddie Bourdon: The glare is really from the lights that are mounted on the building that actually go sideways. Ronald Ripley: Charlie Salle', do you have a question? Charles Salle': Yes. I had a question about the light too. And, I understand that you proffered and I saw that it was a standard proffer although and I'm not sure the architectural feature of this facility. The one's that we have pictures of show the roof being open and the light penetration. Eddie Bourdon: The lighting inside is all pointed downward. Charlie Salle': If you look at the picture of the facility that was given to us it shows what looks like the roof is also made of acrylic so that the light shines through the roof. Eddie Bourdon: But the lights aren't pointed up to the roof The lights are directed downward. You will see some light but it's not like it's going to spill over. And, I know we have some pictures on this one on Kempshire of the facility at night. Now what your seeing there and what you may be seeing, these are the lights on the vacuums. If you look at the lighting on the roof, there's no spillage or glare there. These are the lights on the vacuums. You may believe that's light coming through the roof but it is not. This is the light on top of the vacuum. This one for some reason and I don't know why that picture and maybe that light is not directed properly but the lighting coming from the roof is very, very little Item #10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 7 Charlie Salle': I've never seen one of these facilities. And, I guess with all those clear walls and you know with the light inside and how that lighting is actually going to be directed, I'm not quite sure how you do that Eddie Bourdon: On top of the light there is basically a muffle so that light is directed downward. I'm going to have Chris Giroux if you don't mind come up and he can speak a little bit about that. He's the gentleman doing the one that was on consent for Kempshire. Chris Giroux: My name is Chris Giroux. And, I represent the product. I'm also a resident of Virginia Beach. And, I'm also one of the managing partners of Kempshire LLC that we're going to be doing a project on S. Independence. On this particular project the lighting on the vacuum islands, the owner actually has three 1,000-watt lights on each one of his vacuum islands. That is probably what's showing a lot of extra light there. That's over kill on their facility. On my facility were not planning on putting that type of lighting on back of the island to that extent. And, that's probably where you're seeing a lot of that extra light. The glass walls, in having the lights in the car wash bay, is very important to the consumers feeling of safety. The majority of self-service throughout Tidewater and most other communities, they're all brick buildings and if you ever get a chance to drive by these facilities at night, you will typically not see a woman at this facility and typically you won't see anyone over maybe the age of 25. These people typically just stay away at night. The type of facility that we're trying to develop and bring to develop and bring to Virginia Beach by having the glass walls when someone is at their car and look to their left and look to their right, they know who's four or five bays away from them. They are not concerned about someone coming around the wall and causing a problem or anything of that sort. And, the light in each one of the bays is very important to giving that safety feature and feeling safe There's also on their facility and on my facility, there is a visibility of surveillance around the facility, like there is a camera there and on every one of the vacuum hoses, there are cameras that face the self-service bays. And, most of the self-service car washes even here in Virginia Beach don't do that and that's something we want the people of Virginia Beach that want to wash their cars to feel free to wash their cars when it's more convenient for them and that typically isn't during the days when most everyone's working but in the evening times. Ronald Ripley Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Giroux, you mentioned that the building was glass. I'm sorry. Charlie Salle': I guess you sort of touched on that. I had another question. Has there been any consideration to limiting the hours of business. That would be a question for Eddie. Eddie Bourdon The facility is opened 24-7 as it is today. And, there will be somebody there 24-7 managing the facility. But, we have not given consideration to that We don't Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros Petroleum L L.0 Page 8 feel that it's necessary because we're convinced that there would be no interruption or noise or nuisance but we don't have problem if you wanted to put someone to monitor that or have it reviewed for a specific period of time to make sure that is not the case. We're willing to look at something like that. We don't foresee it to be an issue there with regard to hours of operation. Charlie Salle': I guess you somewhat addressed it and I guess some of us or maybe with all of us, the project is viewed to us in the size that you've shown it gives me some concern. I know the traffic count goes up from 1200 to 2600. It appears to be a rather large impact based on that. Is there any consideration for maybe eliminating some of the bays? Eddie Bourdon: I note that the traffic numbers and I found those somewhat high and from a business standpoint that would be great. We don't think that is going to be quite that good. But on a Saturday, the line has extended to Culver Lane to get a car wash there after a storm event in the winter. That car wash that is there now is very, very, very well utilized. There are lines cued up to that car wash on a regular basis. So, it is well utilized and we expect this will produce additional utilization but it is principally from people in that area. A lot of the traffic is generated from all of the thousands of homes east of General Booth Boulevard, not all traffic that is going to be on General Booth Boulevard. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Giroux, I noticed that you didn't mention it was a glass building. Is this glass or is it acrylic? Chris Giroux: It's part acrylic and its tempered glass on the walls between the self- service bays and on the automatic. Dorothy Wood: Yes, that's what I meant right there. Is that glass or acrylic? Chris Giroux: Here is glass, its tempered glass. Then up here its acrylic and roof is acrylic as well. And, the reason for having it up there is because if you had glass up there, where the lights are would cause too much of a glare outside the building. So, having acrylic there will help defuse the light and keep it in the building. Dorothy Wood: Is this an acrylic with scratches Chris Giroux: No. Dorothy Wood: Because I've noticed a lot of acrylic buildings that you see have a lot of scratches there Chris Giroux: I mean, up on the topside of the buildings there's nothing that's going to be touching the side. Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 9 Dorothy Wood: Thank you so much. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: The acrylics on the top there's nothing there to cause them to get scratches. Acrylics will scratch but that is why you have the glass on the lower levels. Dorothy Wood: Your clients have a wonderful reputation and it's a very attractive building but some of us have a concern with the size and the number of bays. Would you be willing to defer this and come back at another time to work on the number from going from 10 to some lesser number? Eddie Bourdon: We would be willing to consider that but I think there are some other speakers here. I don't want to get out in front. Dorothy Wood: Would you think about that while we have other speakers9 Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Robert Miller: We have speakers in opposition. Robert Griffin. Brian Teabout- He went to the bathroom. Robert Miller: Okay. Brian Teabout. Bryan Teabout: Hi. I'm Brian Teabout. I live at 1825 Culver Quay, which is right there. Basically, I was contacted by Mr. Malbon and he gave me a set of plans with some pictures I showed them to the neighbors. Mr. Griffin and his wife and myself kind of put together a letter and took it around to all the neighbors just on my street. I showed them this letter. I showed them the plans and almost every house was in opposition to it. There's one house that's being rented out and I don't know where the owners are currently but I was not able to get a hold of the renters so there signature is not on here. I believe you guys probably a copy of this. I've got two more signatures since then and basically I don't want this in my backyard. It's pretty much right up on the property line. There is a buffer in the BMP area I guess but it's got trees and stuff in there now but you I can imagine that can be cleaned out at any time Anybody could come through and take the trees out and if they decided that it needed to be cleaned out. I lived here all my life also in this City. I just think this thing is kind of big and it's a little much and there's going to be a lot of noise. Basically, the same thing that we have in the letter here that we really like to ask for is would be limited hours of operation, attendant on duty for all hours of operation not to include the attendant at the gas station or the store. Someone separate so they are keeping an eye on the car wash. Like I said, we don't want it but if it has to come about this is what we would like. We also would like to have signs posted concerning the noise and things like that. Downsizing the amount of the car wash bays, larger set back from property lines, installing a sound barrier type wall and maximizing Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 10 the sizes of the Leyland Cypress trees at the time of planting. And, I've got nine signatures out of the 11 people on the streets and I only talked to ten of the 11. And one said they would think about it after they read it and I didn't speak to them until probably about 6:00 p.m. last night. So, I don't think they knew that I needed the signature right away. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Barry Knight: I have one. Mr. Teabout, when did you move into your property? Bryan Teabout: I believe it was 1998. Barry Knight: 1998. Was the gas station and car wash already there? Bryan Teabout: Yes. Barry Knight: You checked it out and checked the noise and checked the buffer zone as it is right now, you knew what you were getting into? Bryan Teabout: Yes, as it is right now. Yes I did. And, they're not bad neighbors. There is noise that comes out of there but I knew what I was getting into when I got there There wasn't a ten bay self-service car wash. Are there any more questions? Donald Horsley: I have a question. If you were to limit the hours what time would you limit them? Bryan Teabout: I don't know. None of them are good. He mentioned there's a 200-foot set back from the closest house and I come out of the house sometimes to go into the backyard. Noise is our biggest concern. As far as the hours, I don't know. I couldn't say, 8:00 a.m. — 8:00 p.m. I don't know. I just don't want it. I'm just here to speak my opinion. Like I said, I have two more signatures other than what you guys have. If you guys would like to see it, I have the original here. Would you like for me to pass it around? Ronald Ripley: You can hang on to the original. Bryan Teabout: This is the only one that has the other two signatures, is what I'm saying. I could pass it to you. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Robert Miller: Robert Griffin is the next speaker Ronald Ripley: We'll get this back too. Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 11 Robert Griffin: Excuse my appearance. My name is Robert Griffin. I live at 1821, which if you can change that to show my property. Right here. I have the closest house to what he said was 200 feet from the house, which is actually about 90 feet from my backyard is where his bays would go. Last night at 11:30 my six year -old daughter was woken up by the thumping of music, because it's her window that faces right there in her bedroom. And, I totally oppose it and I have nothing against these guys are in business and I'm a businessman myself. It's too large and I would like to see it move completely near General Booth Boulevard instead of backing up to my house. When I moved in there, no, I didn't check out that noise level that would be something that would hit me later. I looked at the house during the day, bought the house the same day I looked at it and I was hit with that later on. Now to get hit with this would probably force me to move and that is not what I'm looking to do. I chose that neighborhood because it was a quite neighborhood dead end street. One of the other things to and that is cars spin out of there. I been made aware that going through car washes but they come spinning out there. They have the wet tires. The guy mentioned people using it under the age of 25 is usually what you see going through there and they will come spinning out of there because their tires are wet. And, there's nobody that can control the noise decibel level and the base stomping of the cars and the radios. When I'm having dinner and hearing this and I'm about ready to move behind it. That's where I stand if anybody has any questions. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions? Thank you very much. Robert Griffin: Thank you. Robert Miller. That's all the speakers. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, that's it. Would you like to come back? Eddie Bourdon: The list that Mr. Bryan passed out that's in their letter We do have someone duty 24-7 now and take issue the assertion that we're allowing people to play their radios loud. People talk about the City of Virginia Beach with their radios playing loud but we do monitor that very, very carefully and do tell people to turn it off or leave if they do have their radios on at any decibel level at all. With this facility as Chris has already indicated to you, there will be video cameras and those will be monitored the by the manager on duty when the car wash is operating. It will be totally monitored but to say that you want to send somebody to sit out there by the car wash as to opposed across the parking lot with the cameras. They will be going out to policing but they will not be sitting out there 24-7 but there will be an attendant on duty. Signs posted concerning loud music is not a problem at all The 4 & 5 1 will address. We certainly believe that putting up a buffer that exists today on our northern boundary will be sufficient as far as a sound barrier. Given the ambient noise over from General Booth Boulevard traffic anyway, a wall seems to me to be very much overkill. As far four and five downsizing and larger set back. We are amenable at looking at possibly reducing the number of bays to eight from ten. That would produce an additional 32 feet of buffer, I guess, which Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L C Page 12 _ would address number five and bring the car wash at its closest point to 230 something feet from the back of the nearest house behind our screening and the screening that already exits If you've been to the site and seen it, you can't see it from these people's backyard and you won't be able to see it from the yard. But if we were to do that, reduce the number of bays, that unfortunately would necessitate a deferral or I guess we can go forward and change it at Council, the proffers would have to be changed. The plan would have to be changed. But, that's the best that we can really do. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Don. Donald Horsley: Can you put the site plan back up there? What is that block right above those, that dark block? Right there. Eddie Bourdon: That's just where the gas tanks are. Donald Horsley: They're buried under that. The buffered area you got between the car wash and the General Booth. You got a little question mark there, do you see any reason why that couldn't be narrowed up a little bit to get a little bit further out? Just trying to find ways to get it further away from those people. Eddie Bourdon: The gas tank and the delivery of gas is an issue. We will look at that and if there is any way, engineering wise to move this little a closer but I don't believe there is. We were conscientiously looking to trying to do that already so I don't know if there is anything that we can do in that respect. But we will certainly revisit that to see if there is any way to push it forward an additional amount. But, if we would be talking now if we do what we would agree to, we got 15 feet of buffer here now and actually over here it's larger. And, we would be adding another 32 to that so you're talking 47-50 feet of buffer on top of the significant buffer that already exists. Donald Horsley: So, what you're saying is you and your client would be amenable to a 30 day deferral to look at this with staff and cutting your number down and try to make some concession there. Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. We were willing to reduce by two the number of bays. You have to have even numbers. So, we wind up having eight bays as opposed to ten bays and that would produce additional buffer and enough to make a difference I guess. Donald Horsley: I look at things different than some people. I looked at acreage this morning. When you're adding three quarters of an acre with the expanding of this amount compared to what already had there it really didn't seem that much out of whack to me but there seems to be some concerns. I guess that would probably be our best bet to get a consensus Eddie Bourdon: My clients want to be good neighbors but at the same time there is a significant investment here and it's an investment that is again, I think helping to remove Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L L.0 Page 13 an issue and a problem long term as far as the utilization of this property on General Booth Boulevard in this particular section. I made this observation before but this being some property that we're adding here to the north of us is property zoned A-18 and another piece of property. One way or another it is going to be developed and I think eventually it's going to be multi -family with the multi -family that's to the north of that. This takes this piece out of that puzzle. But going beyond that to trying to acquire that one last piece and it is a larger piece and it just doesn't make any real sense unless you changed and came with a more commercial use retail or something like that so it really doesn't make sense to my clients to go in that direction. But, it helps to again, to assemble it into a larger parcel everything on that corner which makes a longer term solution the best for the long term planning scenario instead of having this long narrow piece of property that certainly is not agricultural. No reason to be used for agriculture. Donald Horsley: I guess I'm probably the only person up here when this application when it was first approved. I don't know if that says I'm good or bad about me, does it Mr. Reed? He might have been here too. I'm not sure. But, I think the decision made at that time was a good one and it's proven itself. I'd like to make sure we made the right decision on this one. Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate that. Ronald Ripley: Barry Knight, then Charlie and then Dot. Barry Knight: Eddie, Mr. Teabout had some concerns about the buffer zone on the eastern side and the car bays and his house. He was saying that he had a concern that maybe somebody could cut that buffer down at some time. Would you address that please? Eddie Bourdon: On our property it could not be cut down. It's proffered. It's part of the Use Permit. We couldn't cut it down. Unless there was a disease situation and we had to work with the City's Arbonst and the trees become diseased and to stop that from spreading. I actually believe and maybe I misunderstood that he may have been talking about the vegetation that already exists in this area here on their properties that are subject to that easement and we don't have any control over what they do with that. Barry Knight: I am sure they wouldn't cut their own buffer down. Eddie Bourdon: We wouldn't be cutting ours down. We've spent a lot of money planting these trees. It's a big expense and you certainly don't want to see them having to be replaced. Barry Knight. I just wanted to get that clear I had a few comments and I was trying to insinuate some of the positives that I saw here today. And, I noted that probably you're going to eliminate a curb cut if the Malbon's develop their office, which the City has a hold on and I'm sure it would be glad if they didn't put another curb cut in and they used Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 14 their own entrance that they're using now. Also, there are numerous comments when we went on the van trip to tour this on how the landscaping is so great around there and how they take so much pride in their facility. And, you've gone on record as saying that you've won numerous awards there too so it wasn't just a one day event and it's ongoing that they are trying to keep up with the litter and try to keep landscaping up. And, I certainly know that they contribute a lot of time and money to the community and when we were in there I couldn't address the sound banner but we certainly looked towards Culver Quay and it certainly is a good site barrier. And, I don't think anyone has any concerns about the site barrier. The site barrier is good and you could possibly put up some additional site barriers there. It looks like it has limited visibility, the car wash with the buffer, and it's screened from General Booth Boulevard. And, I'm certainly happy with that. I think that falls in just fine. You've addressed concern about design as far as the tempered glass and the acrylic. And, as far as the safety issue and we won't get any more glare than what we would be accustomed to with your acrylic and the shrouds on the lights coming down and the safety issue for the blind spots for some people. I understand that. I also understand business and I know they have acquired three quarters of an acre more property and they have to add value to the site they have to justify spending the money for this extra three quarters of an acre. I don't have any problem with that extra gas pump there or the car wash. I'm probably going to go out on a limb and guess that the self -serve car wash won't create as much noise possibly as the car that is there now that's located closer to the houses. Because I know that if you have moved the two automatic car washes closer to the west of General Booth and I agree with you and I have been by there many times and seen where the line is out to it's almost a traffic hazard. There are so many people wanting to get in there to those automatic car washes. So, I don't have a problem with that either. I do know they were approved for one automatic and they want to add another automatic. That doesn't seem like a problem to me. They were approved for four self -serve washes at one time and now with the addition of this property they want to increase that by six more spaces I understand that and I seem to think that probably it's going to be the consensus of this Commission to downsize those extra six spaces. I hope that we can probably come to an agreement of eight spaces moving those eight away from the property owners. Also, at the same time look at moving all of the car washes to the west closer and I'm sure you will look at that at the same time. I would be in support of this project based on that and I have a little heartburn on the way it is now with the bays especially hearing my fellow Commissioners. But, I would support it with the eight bays and looking at moving everything a little bit closer to the west if it could be done. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Barry. Charlie. Charles Salle': Eddie, I had one question for you As far as the attendant goes I just wanted clarify that is the attendant really the person in the food shop? Eddie Bourdon- We have managers on duty and people working here 24-7 now. And, that would continue to be the case. They have a lot that they monitor but we never have just one person there. There are multiple people there when the store is open. I'm just Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L L.0 Page 15 making clear that we will have someone there 24-7. I understood and I think his name is Bryan and I don't know the details but he wants us to have somebody sitting out here I guess. We're not going to have a separate attendant here versus here although the people who are working there will be out depending on weather, etc and volume of business at that particular hour they will be out policing. They will go out there and issue a problem. So, there will be someone there. Charlie Salle' Is it usually open 24 hours a day. There is usually more than one person working there? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. You don't leave one person by themselves at night, it's just for safety purposes to have multiple people. Charlie Salle': Okay. And, the other thing looks like that this probably be deferred. Eddie Bourdon: It will have to be because of the proffers. Charlie Salle' • At that point, I'd like to see as part of the next conditions or proffers or however you want to handle it probably as a condition that there would be a one year review as to the hours of operation. Ronald Ripley: Is that a motion? Charlie Salle': I'll certainly make that motion. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, will that do if we could go to a deferral at this point? Eddie Bourdon: Oh yes. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Charlie, do you want to conclude whatever you need in that deferral? Charlie Salle'. I would just move that it be deferred and I think that the items that we talked about would be brought back in terms of how the application comes back to us the next time Ronald Ripley: Is that agreeable to everybody? Dorothy Wood- I'll second that. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Charlie Salle' to defer and seconded by Dot Wood. Any discussions We'll call for the vote Item # 10, 11 & 12 Malbon Bros. Petroleum L.L.0 Page 16 AYE 11 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion caries. Thank you very much. FIM 11. ABUU I 75? 563 8151 M 4U jo t� Up C,2 To whom It may concern, We the residents of Culver Quay are In strong opposition of the proposed carwash facility on the corner of General Booth Blvd. and Culver Lane. We are greatly concerned about the amount of litter, crime, and noise that this type of buisness will generate. The noise from the existing buisness Is already bad, especially the loud music from those using the existing carwash. The proposed carwash backs right up to our property line. A much larger carwash, that will triple the amount of buisness will surely decrease our quality of life. Most of the homeowners on this street have small children and this type of buisness so close to our property will surely Impact the safety of our otherwise quiet, safe neighborhood. In the event that this plan is approved, we would like to see the following things considered for the preservation of our neighborhood and quality of life. 1) Limited hours of operation. 2) Attendant on duty for all hours of operation not to Include the attendant at the gas station or the store. 3) Signs posted concerning the loud music generally played at this type of buisness. 4) Downsizing the amount of carwash bays. 5) Larger setback from our property line and proposed facility. 6) Installing a sound barrier type wall and maximizing the size of the Leland Cypress trees at time of planting. Names and addresses of those in agreement: I <7a (Gwlve Gu►��K.. QwA� mrl Divef QUII-Ul � pq AtjVW 17 FL 12- Ctz, k vW 04 ver OuaCvGvcti Q�V^ Cv 1 0,,e. O."OY P. 01 Item #21, 22 & 23 Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit Modification of Conditions 1896 General Booth Boulevard District 7 Princess Anne September 10, 20031 !;VZ440 'pt4g4 , I" 404H "104 N od;L" dQ REGULAR Robert Miller: The next items are Items #21, 22 & 23, Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Ronald Ripley: Does anybody need a break here? Mr. Bourdon, I don't know how much you want to go over this but you know that we were talking about this being on consent. We do have any opposition here. Eddie Bourdon: He spoke last month here. Ronald Ripley: I think the issue that the Planning Commission had and we've heard this pretty thoroughly last month and we were concerned about condition #2. I'm not telling you not to but if you want to go through this thing again? Eddie Bourdon: I wasn't planning on it. I was planning on being brief. Ronald Ripley: Let's see what we can do to work that out. Eddie Bourdon: Are you going to wait until everyone else gets back? Ronald Ripley: That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, if you want to take a second? Don't leave. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not going to go anywhere. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to get started? Eddie Bourdon: Since last month, my clients, who are here this afternoon, made modifications to the plan discussed this morning in your informal session that are consistent with what we spoke of last month. What was the topic of discussion was eliminating a couple of bays and in addition to that moving the car wash further to the west, further away from our eastern boundary that we share the residential subdivision and their BMP. As you were told this morning, the car wash facility is now 240 feet from the nearest home and all that heavy vegetation on our property as well as that which is associated with the BMP on the residential property is now totally being retained and not going to be impacted at all so, I appreciate the willingness of the Commission to have this Item #21, 22 & 23 Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Page 2 matter placed on the consent agenda. We unfortunately are not in a position to agree with the one condition of the seven recommended by the staff that presents a problem, which is condition #2. That condition involves and if you recall, this is the elevation and I know these are pictures but frankly the pictures shows what the building itself looks like but it's not what this one will look like because that's a different place. There were no mechanical rooms and it's a different setup but it is the basic construction type. What you've got here is a building that is mostly open. The portion that is not open is mostly glass. The area that is not glass that you see is brick. That's the sides of the mechanical rooms. There is a very small percentage of the total overall building that is the structure itself. The makeup of the pillars that hold the building up and the metal roof sections, again that is holding together the glass partitions that are in this case a red color that match the Citgo color that is on the canopy. That represents, if you take the open area into consideration where there would normally be a side of the building, you're talking about 2-3 percent of the surface of the building and if you take out the openness and the parts that's solid it maybe is as much as close as five percent. The vast majority of the building is not anything other than beige or clear. We have no signage proposed for this facility at all. The only ability to attract any attention to this facility is the small amount and it is very small of red and it's not a fluorescent or bright red that is depicted. It is what you see in the picture but again you have to picture that on this elevation and it's a different building type in terms of its broken up by the architectural element that will be again, tied in the same brick that exists on our convenience store. So, that's the only issue. Correctly, what's in the write up, there's no way to wrap anything and I did see the second proposed condition and I discussed that with my clients and they are not accepting of that condition. They would like to build it as we have depicted it here. All the elevations and put that together with the building type you see and that is what their proposal is and that's the only area of disagreement that we have. And, it is set back from General Booth Boulevard, back from Culver Lane. It's not right out on any road and there is a significant amount of landscaping that surrounds that facility. Ronald Ripley: Questions? Charlie. Charlie Salle': Maybe I didn't understand exactly what you said. But are you saying that you need the red element to be able draw attention to it? Eddie Bourdon: I believe that element along with the tie in with the red on the canopy, people will see it and that it is there. It's not like jumping out at anybody but at least if you didn't have that their perspective is that you wouldn't even know it was even back there. Charlie Salle' It seems to me that this is more of a destination that people will know about and that they just won't be riding by and they happen to see something catch their eye Eddie Bourdon: I don't totally disagree with that Charlie and your observation before about drainage, I totally agree with but in this case there is a significant amount of traffic --...�...�.�...�--- 1 ----1- - -- Item #21, 22 & 23 Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Page 3 on General Booth Boulevard that passes the site and this is set back from General Booth Boulevard and well landscaped and that will be the only way that someone will see that it was back there on General Booth Boulevard. It's not like its jumping out at anybody because it's just really accent when you get right down to it in terms of the building itself. The amount that has the red on it is just the metal support items, which is a very small percentage of the building itself in terms of the service area. Ronald Ripley: Is the framing painted specialty or they just come in one or two colors? Eddie Bourdon: My understanding and Mr. Giroux is not here, he would be the best person to answer that question. My understanding is this is the way they are manufactured. It's not painted on. It's manufactured. I do believe, because we don't want it in blue and they said they can't manufacture it without knowing what color it would be. They can do it in different colors. It's not only in red but it's not a situation where you put up metal and paint it. Ronald Ripley: Right. It comes baked on. Eddie Bourdon: That's the correct term. Ronald Ripley: And then it is an assembly type building. Eddie Bourdon: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Will. William Din: I don't object so much to the red color. I think more objectionable to me was the lights underneath the canopy. When you drive by, there is so much glare coming underneath those lights and I'll mention it again. I mentioned it before. I think when you go and add these new fuel pumps in there, I think you ought to take a look at how you shield those lights from glare from the roadway. When you drive down General Booth, there is a lot of glare from those lights. Whether these column are red or not, I don't think I have too much objection to that but I would rather you look at those lights and do something with those. If anything, that would attract their attention. Eddie Bourdon: Will, I think we agreed that's in the proffers and it's in condition #7 does the same thing. Staffs condition #7, I think that issue and I know my clients are aware because I told them from day one that issue was going to be addressed and I am absolutely certain that it is being addressed and they are aware that it is being addressed with not only with the tentative proffers but also with condition #7 William Din: Does that address the lights under the canopy? Eddie Bourdon: Yes, because this application is on the whole piece of property. Item #21, 22 & 23 Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Page 4 William Din: Yes, I understand. Eddie Bourdon: So, yes sir. I tried to make that clear last month and I certainly agree with your point. We are well aware that the lighting situation is objectionable and will be and must be addressed and corrected and we do think that is what's going on. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? We have a speaker. Robert Miller: Bryan Teabout. Bryan Teabout: Hi, how you doing? I'm Bryan Teabout. I live right behind these guys. Ronald Ripley: We know where you live. Bryan Teabout: I went around, like I told you last month, around to the neighbors and got signatures and things like that. We necessarily don't want this but if we have to have it then we still would like limited hours of operation with an attendant on duty for all hours of operation not to include an attendant at the gas station or the store. Signs posted concerning loud music. And, there are a few other concerns on here. I kind of agree with the paint thing. I would prefer it to and I hadn't really thought about it before but red is a little bright and I would rather be in earth tone type color. This is going to create a lot of traffic or a lot more business up there. More cars. According to this piece of paper here about 1415 cars per day, which are about 60-70 cars an hour. And this probably will be quite busy at night. In these pictures here that are in here these were obviously taken at night. The lights are on and there's a car in every bay, which is definitely going to create noise and noise is probably one of the largest concerns that we have. Lights and some crime would be secondary, I guess. I guess that's probably about it. Ronald Ripley: Questions? Dorothy Wood: Where did you come up with the number? I think Mr. Malbon would be very happy if had 70 people an hour going into his car wash. Bryan Teabout: This is the traffic. Dorothy Wood: The traffic going by the site? Bryan Teabout: Yeah. Traffic calculations. This says generated traffic. With existing land use it's 11223 a day. Proposed land use would be 2,608 a day average daily trips. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any more questions? Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Item #21, 22 & 23 Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: The gentleman's comment about the traffic generation. I apologize, I hadn't noticed. Somebody sent some miscalculations there because it's incredible that you generate more than double the amount of traffic at the existing car wash, store and gas station generates with a car wash. I think there is some error in that number. If we could generate that kind of volume I hope you would all let me invest I don't think that's going to be the case. The noise issue and where genuinely my client is, are concerned, and are cognizant that we not be a nuisance on our neighbors and I think and being honest and certainly this gentleman is to say that they have been doing that and I did mention that last month. We will post signs. We will have someone there on duty whenever the car wash is open. They will not be standing there at the car wash the whole time. They may well be in the convenience store. If there are any problems we are certain and we invite our neighbors to let us know of those problems. The ambient noise level from General Booth Boulevard is going join or exceed the type of noise that will take place here other than somebody with their boom box going and that is why we will have signage up and we will definitely prohibit any loud playing of the music in this facility. I went through the whole litany last month of the Malbon's connection to this community. This is not a company owned store. This is their store. Their roots are here not only in Virginia Beach but, in this part of Virginia Beach, and that's why the business is so successful and I can assure this Commission and I'll assure City Council that they will bend over backwards to make sure that they run this facility the way they run the facility up to now and that is as a good neighbor and they will not allow it to become a nuisance. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Discussion? Barry. Barry Knight: Lack of other discussion, we went through it all last month. And, the only things that have changed are a couple of positives. And, if they're willing to move it away from the houses, address the noise by signs and by moving it away, and as far as the colors on the structure, it doesn't look like it's that intrusive because we do have so much glass there, which I agree, is for a safety issue. I hadn't thought of it before but because of the ladies and the younger people, you can see what they're doing right and you can see what they're doing wrong. And, it is such a small percentage, maybe 2-3 percent that's going to be red and maybe it may help attract a little bit of business. I certainly don't have a problem supporting this. And if there is no other discussion, I'll make a form of a motion that we approve this subject to proffers and conditions omitting condition #2. Ronald Ripley: Can I ask for clarification? Are you suggesting omitting "shall be changed to earth tone colors approved by the Planning Director at the end of the sentence?" Barry Knight: Yes Ronald Ripley: Is that what you meant? Barry Knight: Yes Item #21, 22 & 23 Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. Page 6 Ronald Ripley: Do I have a second? Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Discussion? Let's call for the question. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON ABSENT CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: In favor vote aye. By a vote of 9-0, the motion carries as amended. That's it. The meeting is adjourned. 5. 3/22/94 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to R-7.5 — Granted 10/13/92 — ZONING CHANGE from R-7 5 to P-1 — Granted 1/4/88 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to A-2 — Withdrawn 10/8/84 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to A-2 — Withdrawn 6. 1119/93 — RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS — Granted 8/14/89 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to 1-1 — Granted 3/ 27/89 ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to H-1 — Withdrawn 9/26/88 — ZONING CHANGE from AG-2 to B-2 — Withdrawn 9/26/88 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Auto Sales and Service) — Withdrawn 7. 4/27/93 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Automobile Service Station/Car Wash) — Granted 8. 9/21/87 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Day Care) — Denied FORM NO R 5 18 G1Z•11A BFgc �ti4 �L O ' O ell 5 - va s Op OUR NAi�ON City of Virgirliek Beach Beach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5749 TO: Leslie L. Lilley r� FROM: B. Kay Wilson' RE: Conditional Zoning Application Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C. CCRRFSPONUFNCF DATE: October 16, 2003 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 28, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated April 24, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY SYKES. BOURDON, • AH£RN & LEVY, PC SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS MALBON BROS. PETROLEUM, L.L C , a Virginia limited liability company bile] CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 24th day of April, 2003, by and between MALBON BROS. PETROLEUM, L.L C., a Virginia limited liability company, Property Owner, herein referred to as Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the second part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 32,294 square feet, designated "New Parcel" and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said New Parcel together with Parcels I, II and III are hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of three (3) parcels of property ("Existing Developed Property") located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, which together contain approximately 1.8 acres, being designated and described as Parcels I, II and III in Exhibit "A". The Existing Developed Property together with the New Parcel are hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and GPIN: 2415-31-6485 2415-31-5378 2415-31-3399 2415-31-4208 1 PREPARED BY SYK£S. ROURDON. ARPRN & LEVY, PC WHEREAS, the Existing Developed Property is subject to "Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions" dated March 16, 1993 accepted by the Grantee and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 3208, at Page 1607, as previously modified by "Amendment of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions ... ", dated May 31, 1994, 1 accepted by Grantee and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 3435, I at Page 0802; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the zoning classification of the New Parcel from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so I as to modify, in part, the previously proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions governing development of the Existing Developed Property; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has requested that the Grantee accept this Second Amendment To Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions which modifies and restates certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, the following amended and restated conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation and use of the Property, to be incorporated as a part of the previously adopted amendment to the Zoning Map. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without j any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following amended and modified declaration of conditions, covenants, restrictions as to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this I r1 PREPARED BY . • SYKES. ROURDON, N A14E2N & LEVY P C. declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. All exterior lighting on the Property shall be directed downward and shielded to direct light and glare away from all adjoining property. 2. When the Property is redeveloped, it will be substantially in accordance with the "Conceptual Site Plan of Conditional Rezoning and Use Permit For Malbon Bros. Citgo Expansion ...," dated 12/ 13/02, rev. 4/30/03, rev. 7/9/03, rev 8/ 19/03 prepared by John E. Sirme & Associates, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (the "Concept Plan"). 3. The exterior design, materials and colors of the Existing Convenience Store and Existing (expanded) Canopy depicted on the Concept Plan will remain unchanged. The canopy will be expanded to accommodate one additional petroleum dispensing station as depicted on the Concept Plan. 4. In accordance with the Concept Plan, the only businesses permitted to operate on the Property are gasoline sales in conjunction with a convenience store and a car wash facility. 5. Building materials used to construct visible exterior surfaces of the structures depicted on the Concept Plan shall be primarily brick, metal, glass, plex- glass, stucco or wood. 6. When the Property is redeveloped, the architectural features of the Car Wash depicted on the Concept Plan shall be substantially in accordance with the "ELEVATION OF MALBON BROTHERS CITGO EXPANSION", dated April 30, 2003, prepared by Porterfield Design Center, which elevation has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (the "Car Wash Elevation"). 7. Other than signage which may contain "trademark" colors and the accent colors on the car wash facility depicted on the Car Wash Elevation, all other structures depicted on the Concept Plan shall utilize earth tone color schemes M PREPARED BY MH SYK£S, BOURDON. M AH£RN & LEVY, P.0 8. In addition to maintaining the abundance of existing landscaping along the Property's frontage on General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane, a 15 foot wide Category IV Landscape Buffer will be planted and maintained along the northern boundary and a 50 foot wide landscaped and treed buffer will be planted and maintained along of the eastern boundary of the property as depicted on the Concept Plan. 9. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the B-2 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by wntten instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time or recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument 1s consented to by the Grantee in wasting as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: al PREPARED BY SYKKS. SOUR®ON FERN & LWY. P C (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantors and the Grantee. 5 PREPARED BY • SYK£S BOURDON. A14£RN & LEVY, P C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: (SEAL) Michael S. Malbon, Managing Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3Oth day of April, 2003, by Michael S. Malbon, Managing Member of Malbon Bros. Petroleum, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. _j Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 0 PREPARED BY .28 SYKES, BOURDON, M FERN & LEVY. P C EXHIBIT "A" "NEW PARCEL" All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land and the appurtenances thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, State of Virginia, known, numbered and designated as Parcel "B" of that property known as the Property of B. G. White, Sr., said property being situated on the eastern side of Oceana Boulevard and bounded and described as indicated on a plat made by W. B. Gallup, County Surveyor, dated January 24, 1958, which plat is duly recorded in Deed Book 530, at Page 101 and reference to same is hereby made for a more particular description. GPIN• 2415-31-6485 "PARCEL I" ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known and designated as "R.H. Owens," as shown on plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 23, at page 83, and being more particularly described as follows- Beginning at a pin on the Southern side of the Courthouse Road, which pin is North 54 degrees and 50 minutes East 165 feet from a pipe in the dividing line between the property hereby conveyed and the property of E.C. Culver (formerly Sheppard) and proceeding thence South 69 degrees and 30 minutes East 86.2 feet to a pin; thence along the same course 291.9 feet to a pin; thence turning and running South 20 degrees and 30 minutes West 106.23 feet to a pipe on the Northern line of a 30 foot right of way between the property hereby conveyed and the property of E.C. Culver, thence running along the 30 foot right of way North 69 degrees and 30 minutes West 356.9 feet to the Southern line of Courthouse Road; thence North 54 degrees and 51 minutes East 135 feet, more or less, to a pin at point of beginning, SAVE AND EXCEPT AND EXPRESSLY EXCLUDING that portion of the property heretofore conveyed and/or dedicated for the widening of General Booth Boulevard by instruments recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid in Deed Book 2263, at page 99, and in Deed Book 2255, at page 1530, reference being made to the plat recorded in Map Book 164, at page 49, in the Clerk's Office aforesaid, for a more particular description of the said excepted and excluded land. GPIN. 2415-31-4208 "PARCEL II" ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, being known, numbered and designated as Parcel "A" on the plat of Property of H. C. White, Sr , Located near Dam Neck in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, formerly the County of Princess Anne, made by W B Gallup, County Surveyor, said plat being duly recorded in the Clerk's 7 PREPARED BY • SYKES, ROURDON. AHRRN & L£VY. R C Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, in Deed Book 530 at page 101 (erroneously referred to in previous deed as Map Book 16 at page 25. LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the above described property, which is now known as Parcel 034, designated and described as "TAKE AREA = 2,130.335 SQ FT. - 0.04891 AC." as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT OF PARCEL 034 - GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD - PROPERTY OF WILLIAM D. & ANN M OSBORNE, D. B 856, PG. 52, D.B. 530, PG 101 (PLAT), T/W ACQUISITION PLAT FOR PARCEL - GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD - PHASE I - FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, SCALE 1"=50', TALBOT & ASSOCIATES, LTD., ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS, P. O BOX 2224, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23452." Said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, in Map Book 116 at Page 37 GPIN: 2415-31-5378 "PARCEL III" ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, located in Seaboard Magisterial District, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located on the south side of State Highway No. 615, which point marks the common boundary of the property hereby conveyed and the property of Reggie Capps, and from the point thus established running N 57" 08' E and along the south side of said highway a distance of 150 feet to a point; running thence S 32° 52' E a distance of 200 feet to a point; thence running south 57' 08' W a distance of 16.95 feet to a point; thence running N 66' 30' W a distance of 240.21 feet to the point or place of beginning. The property hereby conveyed being shown on a plat of the same entitled, "Survey of site on Route No. 615, Princess Anne County Virginia, for H. C. White, Jr.," recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map book 41 at Page 45. LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the above described property now known as Parcel 035, designated and described as- "TAKE AREA = 4654.367 SQ. FT. - 0.107 AC." as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT OF PARCEL 035 - GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD - PROPERTY OF WILLIAM D 8s ANN M. OSBORNE, D.B. 1728, PG 577, M.B. 41, PG 45, R/W ACQUISITION PLAT FOR PARCEL - GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD - PHASE I - FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, SCALE. 1"=50', TALBOT & ASSOCIATES, LTD., ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS, P. O. BOX 2224, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452 " Said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Map Book 166, at page 37. GPIN• 2415-31-3399 I ,pMafpto Scale Frank Blocker r ,�AI�...tff• r" , CUP — Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental ZONING HISTORY 1. 4-11-95 - Conditional Use Permit (Automobile Storage) — Approved 12-12-66 - Rezoning (R-S 3 Residence Suburban with a T-2 Supplement to C-L 2 Limited Commercial) — Approved 2. 10-24-00 - Conditional Use Permit (Fuel Sales) — Approved 12-17-96 - Conditional Use Permit (Automobile Service Station) — Withdrawn 3. 6-25-02 - Rezoning (1-1 Light Industrial to Conditional B-2 Business) and Conditional Use Permit (Fuel Sales) — Approved 4. 10-26-93 - Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Sales) — Approved �,A 88 JA M' v►4 s J `y*4 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Frank Blocker — Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales and rental) MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Frank Blocker for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and rental on property located at the southeast intersection of Lynnhaven Parkway and Virginia Beach Boulevard (GPIN 1497640855). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH The purpose of this request is to use the site for the display of ten new Subaru vehicles. Identical makes and models will be available for purchase at the RK motor vehicle dealership to the west, across Lynnhaven Parkway. ■ Considerations: The site is undeveloped and severely constrained by Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area limits. A variance to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance was approved for the site on May 28, 2003 for the proposed use. The applicant has received approval from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board to install 10 parking pads, 6 foot by 16 foot, adjacent to the property lines parallel to Virginia Beach Boulevard and Lynnhaven Parkway. The intent of the applicant is to use the site for display of ten new motor vehicles in a natural setting using the environmental features of the site. The applicant notes that the vehicles are marketed to consumers with active outdoor lives. The intent of the proposal for this site, according to the applicant, is to display vehicles on the site as if they are "emerging from the woodland area." The vehicles will be displayed on the site up to a month. Vehicular maneuvering on and off the site will be accomplished through the use of an engineered ramp designed to protect the City's curb and green space. The vehicles will be moved on and off the site during the hours of 8:00 p.m. and Midnight. This use was previously proposed for this site in 1995 and was granted approval, but only on a temporary (seven months) basis while an auto sales facility on Laskin Road was extensively redeveloped. Staff believes that such temporary use is acceptable, but believes the permanent display of motor vehicles on this site is not appropriate. - --- I . -7- __ Frank Blocker Page 2 of 3 Staff recommended denial. There was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-3 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted "Conceptual Site Layout Plan Of RK CHEVROLET", Lynnhaven Parkway and Virginia Beach Boulevard, prepared by MSA. PC, and dated 06/27/03, except only seven (7) Subaru vehicles shall be displayed on the site. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. The applicant shall adhere to all the conditions attached to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance variance that was approved by the City of Virginia Beach Chesapeake Bay Board for the site on May 28, 2003, except only seven (7) Subaru vehicles shall be displayed on the site. 3. The applicant shall install decorative fencing along the perimeter of the site adjacent to Virginia Beach Boulevard and Lynnhaven Parkway. The proposed fencing shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 201(e). 4. The applicant shall submit detailed engineering plans for the proposed temporary (engineered) ramp to be used to move the vehicles on and off the site to the Planning Director for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for repair of any damage to the City of Virginia Beach curbing, green space and sidewalk in the areas to be used for moving the vehicles on and off the site. 6. The vehicles shall only be moved on and off the site during the hours of 9:30 p.m. to midnight, and shall not be moved more than one (1) day per month. 7 The applicant shall install or enhance, if necessary, any existing pedestrian signalization at the intersection of Virginia Beach Boulevard and Lynnhaven Parkway, subject to the approval of the City of Virginia Beach Public Works Department / Traffic Engineering Division. 8. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed administratively on annual basis. Frank Blocker Page 3 of 3 9. The only signage permitted for the site shall be a monument style freestanding sign to be approved by the Planning Director. There shall be no pennants, streamers, banners or balloons displayed on the site. 10. Loudspeakers shall not be installed on the site. 11. Vehicles shall not be displayed on ramps. 12. Salespersons shall not bring customers on the site. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: 107-213-CUP-2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental ADDRESS: Southeast corner of Virginia Beach Boulevard and Lynnhaven Parkway Map I-7 Jvw"» b R %,,e% h q LN ■ ■ �� ROL a M, 1.. GPIN: 14976408550000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 6 - BEACH CUP - Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental ._NIA BFi,. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 '' �•�•• ° Page 1 SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 0.675 acre Faith Christie PURPOSE: To use the site for the display of ten new Subaru vehicles. Identical makes and models will be available for purchase on the RK Chevrolet site to the west, across Lynnhaven Parkway Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The site is undeveloped and severely constrained by Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area limits The site is zoned B-2 Business District Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Virginia Beach Boulevard • Across Virginia Beach Boulevard are apartments / A-18 Apartment South: • Woods / B-2 Business • Monarch Bank / 1-1 Light Industrial East: • Woods and a retail and small service center / B-2 Business Planning Commission Agenda s September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 °' �•�•• ' `` Page 2 West: . Lynnhaven Parkway • Across Lynnhaven Parkway is RK Chevrolet / B-2 Business Zoning History In 1966, the site was rezoned from R-S 3 Residence Suburban with a T-2 Supplement to C-L 2 Limited Commercial The site has been zoned B-2 Business since 1973. A variance to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance was approved for the site in February 1995. The following conditions applied 1 No filling of the subject site is permitted; 2 An acceptable access plan must be submitted to the Department of Planning for review and approval; 3 No more than 5 automobiles shall be parked on grass pavers and the grass pavers shall be the limits of land disturbance within the Resource Protection Area, 4 If the parking of automobiles is abandoned, the grass pavers shall be removed, elevations restored to match existing grades, erosion and sediment control measures installed and the site be stabilized with vegetative cover, 5. A revised site plan incorporating the above conditions must be submitted to the Planning Department Development Services Center for a plan of development review; and 6. Within 18 months the property will be returned to its' natural state A Conditional Use Permit was approved for the site for Automobile Storage in April 1995. The following conditions were attached to the permit* 1. All cars will be parked on grass pavers. 2. This Use Permit shall expire 1 January 1996 A variance to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance was approved for the site on May 28, 2003 The following conditions applied: 1 A pre -construction meeting shall be convened with Civil Inspections prior to any land disturbance. 2 A 36" erosion and sedimentation control measure (silt fence) shall be installed prior to any land disturbance and shall remain in place until such time as vegetative cover is established 3 Construction limits shall lie a maximum of 10' seaward of improvements NSA BF.� Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 Page 3 4. The construction access way shall be noted on the site plan, as well as the stockpile staging area. 5. ** As offered by the applicant, payment shall be made to the Lynnhaven Oyster Heritage Program prior to or concurrent with site plan approval. Payment shall be in the amount of $143.00 and is based on 25% of the proposed impervious cover. Said payment shall provide for the equivalent of an approximate 156 sq ft., 12-inch deep oyster shell plant within the Lynnhaven River Basin 6 All areas outside limits of construction shall be left in a natural state to include the forest floor (leaf litter) left intact Said condition shall be so noted on the site plan. 7. Buffer restoration shall be insubstantial compliance with the submitted site plan prepared by MSA and dated April 28, 2003. 8 One tree shall be installed within each mulched landscape bed. Said trees should be located along the seaward limits of each bed and can be of a small variety. 9. The proposed gravel parking pads shall be constructed of #57 washed aggregate at a minimum depth of 6 inches and shall be utilized for new vehicle display only 10 A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit NOTE If this variance is approved, the 10 conditions listed above will supercede the conditions of the variance granted February 27, 1995. NOTE. The parking and display of automobiles in the B-2 Zoning District will require a Conditional Use Permit from City Council Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of more than 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy did not provide comments on the request. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and city sewer are not required for the proposed use Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Lynnhaven Parkway in front of this site is considered a four lane divided major urban arterial It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 100-foot right -of - Planning Commission Agenda September 109 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 Page 4 way, divided with a multi -use trail. A 12-foot reservation for future improvements will be required during detailed site plan review Virginia Beach Boulevard in front of the site is considered a four lane divided major urban arterial It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 150-foot right- of-way divided Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Ca aci Lynnhaven Parkway 30,000 17,300 ADT Existing Land Use 2- 315 ADT' Virginia Beach Boulevard 43,500 ADT 43,940 ADT Proposed Land Use 3 - 20 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 7,350 square feet of retail space 3 as defined by automobile display Public Safety Police: This area's isolation places the vehicles out of the immediate control, and in the case of the three vehicles along Virginia Beach Boulevard, out of sight of the RK Chevrolet employees It's isolation and lack of natural surveillance will lessen the risk to anyone looking to commit vandalism and / or damage to the vehicles By their presence, these vehicles will draw pedestrians and car shoppers on the RK Chevrolet site to cross Lynnhaven Parkway. This increases the risk of pedestrian / vehicular accidents in an area already with a high number of accidents Fire and Adequate — no further comments Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area suitable for retail, service, office and compatible uses The Comprehensive Plan policies and map recognize that Lynnhaven Parkway and Virginia Beach Boulevard in this vicinity are economically viable commercial corridors that support the expansion of similar uses provided sound land Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 Page 5 use planning principles are applied to the development in order to achieve an attractive, safe, and well -maintained physical environment Summary of Proposal Proposal • The intent of the applicant is to use the site for new vehicle display in a natural setting using the environmental features of the site. The applicant notes that the vehicles are marketed to consumers with active outdoor lives The intent of the proposal for this site, according to the applicant, is to display vehicles on the site as if they are "emerging from the woodland area " • Ten new Subaru vehicles will be displayed on the site. Identical makes and models of the vehicles will be available for purchase on the RK Chevrolet site located to the west across Lynnhaven Parkway. • The vehicles will be displayed on the site up to a month. Vehicular maneuvering on and off the site will be accomplished through the use of an engineered ramp designed to protect the City's curb and green space The vehicles will be moved on and off the site during the hours of 8 00 p m. and Midnight. • The applicant has received approval from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board to install 10 parking pads, 6 foot by 16 foot, adjacent to the property lines parallel to Virginia Beach Boulevard and Lynnhaven Parkway Site Design • The submitted site plan depicts 10 parking pads of 6 foot by 16 foot along the perimeter of the site. Landscaped islands separate the parking pads An identification sign is also depicted on the plan. The majority of the site is to be left in a natural state. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • There is no vehicular access depicted on the plan The applicant states that the vehicles will be moved on and off the site via an engineered ramp that will protect the curb, sidewalk and green space The applicant volunteered a fence around the perimeter of the site to discourage vehicles from entering the site over the curb and sidewalk Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 Page 6 • Pedestrian access is simply gained by walking onto the site. Architectural Design • There are no building proposed with the request Landscape and Open Space • The site is severely constrained by the limits of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board has approved a variance to allow the display of 10 vehicles on gravel parking pads at the outermost limits of the Resource Protection Area. The majority of the site is to be left in a natural state Landscaped islands will be installed adjacent to the parking pads. Evaluation of Request The request for a Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental is not acceptable. This use was previously proposed for this site in 1995 and was granted approval, but only on a temporary (seven months) basis while an auto sales facility on Laskin Road was extensively redeveloped Staff believes that such temporary use is acceptable, but believes the permanent display of motor vehicles on this site is not appropriate, primarily due to safety concerns As noted by the Police Department in their comments on this request, the site will be unattended, leaving it vulnerable to vandalism Also, and of more concern, these vehicles are likely to draw "car shoppers" on the RK Chevrolet site to cross Lynnhaven Parkway as pedestrians, even though the applicant has noted that `identical vehicles' will be located on the auto sales lot. This increases the risk of pedestrian / vehicular accidents in an area which already experiences a high number of accidents. And lastly, positioning a temporary ramp over the curb to move the vehicles on and off the site will cause a traffic problem in an already congested area, regardless of the hour of day Staff, therefore, finds that this use is inappropriate for this site and recommends denial of the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales and Rentals Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 Page 7 �i Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 Page 8 r fi. Eureka Ave. _ 4,A ol 416 r! a 40 seePiffi M i�t F( t . • - �`a MINNOW DISCLOSURE STATEME14T Applicant's Name: Frank Blocker List All Current Property Owners: Frank Blocker APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach fist if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and curate. IL Sig ature Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Print Name Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 FRANK BLOCKER / # 8 Page 11 Item #8 Frank Blocker Conditional Use Permit Southeast intersection of Lynnhaven Parkway and Virginia Beach Boulevard District 6 Beach September 10, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: The next order of our business is items that will be heard in their regular order. We'll begin with Item #8. Mr. Miller will you call this item please. Robert Miller: First item is Item #8, Frank Blocker. Manna Phillips: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Marina Phillips. I represent the applicant Frank Blocker who is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the placement of ten motor vehicles in an actual display on the corner of Virginia Beach Boulevard and Lynnhaven Parkway. The landowner has been diligent in the planned Use, and it is consistent with the property's B-2 zoning, but is the minimum development that still enables him to enjoy the use of this property. It's an innovative and thoughtful proposal, and it has limited impact relative to other commercial properties in that area and in the rest of the City. Rather then propose a large scale project, the use is limited to .02 acres out of .675 total or approximately three percent of the total site. It is much less intrusive than other uses in the area, and also that what could possibly be approved by law. The characteristics of the property have been considered in creating this proposal. The plan is for visual use only, it is not intended for car sales although that is the name of the Conditional Use Permit because that is what complied with your code. There are going to be no curb cuts proposed. There is no vehicular access intended here. In fact, we have some proposals to deter vehicular access such as a fence that is going to be placed between the sidewalk and the vehicles. We're proposing something in the form of a split rail fence or maybe a little picket fence. Something that is consistent with the natural plan of the Subaru display that is going to be placed on this site. The movements of vehicles are going to be limited to no more than one day a month if that, and it will definitely be in the off hours. We propose that it will be between 8:00 pm and midnight, limited traffic times on Lynnhaven Parkway, and we will be using an engineered ramp that will be pre approved by the City before it is used. I'd like you to note that RK Chevrolet will be installing the display and has agreed to be responsible for any damage to either the curb or any green space in the area although none is anticipated, if that should occur, RK will be responsible for the repair. There will be duplicates of every vehicle that is displayed at this corner on the parking lot. That's the prime source of RK's business. That's where they expect the vehicles to be shown and purchased. This is only a display for people to look at as they're driving back. The fact of which, I as an environmental lawyer, is the fact that this property has valuable natural resources in the forms of tidal and non -tidal wetlands, and we are protecting those. We are not going to Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 2 = impact those. We've already been before the Chesapeake Bay Planning Board, and they have approved this Use of the property with a few conditions. They were highly complimentary of the fact that we had limited the use of the property to very fringe of the corner, and that we are actually going to enhance the environment in the area by the surrounding plantings. Each car is going to be surrounded by an extensive native planting and that will not only import with the environmental nature of the display that they're trying to place, but also will increase the filtering of water as it goes into the tributary of the bay there should there any sediment or other contaminates. The cars are going to be placed on gravel, which are pervious little plots. They will not be impervious so they will not increase water runoff in the area. RK is so pleased with this design they're going to promote the fact that there's been a partnership between RK and the City and approving this project for national advertising. Subaru's are geared toward people who are environmentally nature and the fact that we've got an environmentally sensitive project here is something that is up for an award with RK Subaru nationally and will be used in a national advertising. So, it's a way for the City of Virginia Beach to get a little credit for being environmentally conscious as well. In response to some of the comments from staff that I've heard in the course of working with them on this project with the respect to the potential for vandalism. I'd like to point out that there are seven street lights around that corner. Now, we are not planning any additional lighting around the cars, and the reason for that is that we'd like to have it be a natural setting, something that looks like the cars are coming out of the woods and lighting would not be consistent with that. RK does patrol its own parking lot, which is on the other side of Lynnhaven Parkway During business hours as well as off hours, they have a security patrol starting at 9.00 pm when their business closes until it opens again in the morning, and that security will patrol the property on the other side of the street as well. RK also has closed circuit camera system that they have inside where their control booth is, inside their showroom, and they're going to focus one of the cameras on the opposite corner as well so that any potential vandals will be detected as quickly as possible. With respect to the potential for pedestrian vehicular accidents, I will say that the staff report states that these vehicles are likely to draw car shoppers on the RK Chevrolet site to cross Lynnhaven Parkway even though the applicant has noted that identical vehicles will be located on the auto sales lot. I'd like to focus on the word likely. We are discussing "hypothetical" here. I've not heard any information that's substantial enough to, in my opinion give the Commission grounds for denying because we know that accidents are going to be caused with the people more likely to be attracted by the hundred of cars that are located on the parking lot located across the street. That's going to be the main attraction. That is where we want the people to come and park and look at the cars. This corner property that is before you today is for display purposes only. It's not anything different. In fact, I think it's less invasive than things that I've seen on many other comers in Virginia Beach and also around the country. I think with respect to being an attraction or a distraction, I think this project is minimal and it has been designed to be minimal. All corners lend themselves to pedestrian crossings. This particular corner is already used for pedestrians because on the other side of our property, east of the property you're considering today, there is a little strip center and there are restaurants in there. And there is already some crossing that occurs because of people trying to reach the restaurants I know that in the Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 3 report that staff indicates that there have been cars parked there before. RK did have a temporary Conditional Use Permit to park cars there in 1995, and they have informed me that they are aware of no problems either vehicular or pedestrian accidents that were caused by this display during that time. Finally, as described in the package we've gone to great lengths to lend both the pedestrian and vehicular access to the property, the fence, the lack of curb cuts and just attraction for visual rather than people driving up. There's not going to be a whole lot of room for people to park a car between the curb and the fence. In closing, I'd like to just tell you that the applicant has severally limited their use of this property. In consideration of public safety and of the environment, again, the Chesapeake Bay Board was very complimentary of their limit of their use of the property. Your experience tells you, I'm sure that much more aggressive use could have been proposed, and if allowed by law, but this applicant has chosen restraint. I request that you acknowledge these efforts and approve this request and finally between the pre - hearing and this meeting, staff has prepared eight conditions that they propose on this Conditional Use Permit, and we accept all of there. I would just like to make one amendment to number seven which says, "the applicant shall install and enhance any existing pedestrian signalization", I like to insert the words "if necessary." We don't want to encourage the pedestrians and putting the lights there may do that but are willing to let the project go and subject to the Planning Department, Public Works Traffic Engineering whatever section of the City has made comments after it has been in place for awhile. We're willing to consider the placement of the pedestrian signalization. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate staff s efforts to work with us, and the opportunity to present this to you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this time. Ronald Ripley: Before questions Ms. Phillips, the conditions that you're referring to were conditions that staff and you don't have those copies but I do have them. And, they were conditions that were presented in the event that this went to a favorable recommendation which staff sometimes does that if they feel like the Commission might be thinking in terms of an affirmative vote on an approval. I would be happy to hand these out if you would like to see them. I might as well since you've brought it up. These were just handed to be by the way before the meeting started so nobody has really seen them. I just read them one time. Yes. Dorothy Wood: Ms. Phillips, I noticed that you're still having, I think unless it's been changed that you'll be moving the automobiles starting at 8:00 o'clock. As I mentioned this morning, that's pretty early because that traffic is tremendous there until Lynnhaven Mall closes as I'm sure you're aware. I'd like to see, if it is approved, that you'll change that to maybe 9:30 or 9:00, after the mall closes. Manna Phillips: That's perfectly fine. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Do we have questions of Ms. Phillips? Yes Will. Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 4 William Din: Obviously, you have these vehicles out there for display to attract passersby attentions and things. What kind of restrictions will you have to minimize customer requesting to test drive one of those vehicles because the identical vehicle was not available on the other side because of the color, because of the accessories, whatever. Are there any restrictions that you've imposed upon your sales staff to keep those vehicles from being driven off that area during the course of a sale? Manna Phillips: Yes. First of all, RK is going to have duplicates of every single one. They're not going to order any cars that aren't duplicates on their own lot to place over on display. Second of all, they already agreed that they are only going to use the cars one time a month. They are not going to move them at any other time. That's a self-imposed restriction, and we put that in a condition. William Din: Would there be any sign over there? Marina Phillips: There will be a sign on the corner, and it will similar to the one that's on the other corner, the RK sign. It has the time on it, the temperature. William Din: Do we have a drawing or rendering of that, or is that allowed. I haven't seen anything in the write up about a sign there. Marina Phillips: Yes. It says it in the application that there's going to be a sign similar to RKs. William Din- Okay. Marina Phillips: Let me see what the write up says. William Din: Can you describe, I guess, this has been approved by the Chesapeake Bay Board, and it was originally approved for five vehicles out there, and you've requested ten. As the Bay Board gone back and approved ten vehicles to be out there? Marina Phillips: Yes sir. The five vehicles were in 1995. That was a temporary approval. We went before the Bay Board with the ten, and they approved it in the spring of this year. William Din: Can you describe, what kind of disturbance this area is going to require in order to install these cars in this display area itself? Are you going to be removing any of the trees? What's going to happen out there? Manna Phillips: Yes. Three trees are going to be removed for the placement of these cars, but six will be added. In addition to adding the six, I don't know if you can see on that drawing in between the cars there are little green plantings, they are going to be native plants that are going to be added. Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 5 Ronald Ripley: Ms. Phillips, you have a pointer right there, a little laser. You can pick it up. Marina Phillips: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: So the trees are in between the cars? Marina Phillips: Yes. They're going to be low plantings. There are not going to be trees. The trees will be added over here but where the trees have to be lifted, the vegetation is a little bit heavier on this side of the property then on this side. But, nevertheless, between every car, there's going to be additional native plantings added that will enhance the existing vegetation. William Din: So you're going to do some clearing. I guess this display is going to require some clearing brush or wetlands type grass is in there? Manna Phillips: Very little clearing than grass. The major clearing is going to be the three trees and then both by our request and then confirmed by the Chesapeake Bay Board we're going to do the additional wetlands plantings in between the cars. So, we're actually going to increase the vegetation on the property. William Din: What kind of uses can go into this area if you had to other than this? Marina Phillips: What we thought of here was the absolute minimum impact highest and best use. Certainly by right, we have the opportunity to do something that actually has curb cuts, has egress/ingress. Things that we were thinking of that could fit on sixth tenth of an acre would be something like a Coffease or Starbucks, little in and out type thing. And that was something that we absolutely did not want. We wanted something that had no traffic access. It had minimal environmental impact. We were very conscience of the tidal and non -tidal wetlands on the property and didn't want to impact them. What we came up with was something that we thought was a highest and best use with minimal impact. I can't think of anything with less impact. I can think of a lot of things with more impact. William Din: That type of use, I guess would impact that you would have to get permission to go impact the wetlands to do that. Manna Phillips: Right. William Din: Can you tell me what type of high land is in that area that you could use without impacting wetlands? What kind of uses would be in there that would not impact that? Manna Phillips: I really can't think of anything that would be better. The whole corner is in the 100-foot buffer. The whole area is in Chesapeake Bay jurisdictional area so Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 6 pretty much anything there will impact the buffer. I think that something that controls access, controls paving, controls impervious cover is the highest and best use with the minimal impact. I'm open to suggestion if you have something else? William Din: I'm just curious to see if there is an alternate use other than what you're proposing? I don't remember when I went through this thing reading about a sign. Where would you put that sign? Marina Phillips: Can you even see it? It's indicated right there, right above that blue car. It would be right on the corner. William Din: Is that a lighted sign? Marina Phillips: It's a LED. It has the digital numbers like on VCR's, something like that. And, what we're proposing is to do something in keeping with the environmental theme. The humidity perhaps on one side, and the sign on the other side has temperature and time on it already so it won't be either of those things. Like humidity and maybe suntan percentage. Something environmentally oriented. William Din: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Jan, and then, Joe. Janice Anderson: Since you're doing the environmental thing, I mean there won't be any big balloons tied to these cars or any banners or anything? Manna Phillips: Absolutely no. Janice Anderson: So, the display will consistent of just the cars? Marina Phillips: Right. Janice Anderson: Okay, and the one sign? Manna Phillips: At the corner. Janice Anderson: That sign is low to the ground to is that correct? Manna Phillips: Yes. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Manna Phillips- It's within the sign requirements of your ordinance. Ronald Ripley: Joe. Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 7 Joseph Strange: Since this is in that 100-foot buffer, there is no by -right use of this land. Manna Phillips: Well. Joseph Strange: Am I correct in saying that? I'm not saying it, I'm asking you. Manna Phillips: You can apply for exceptions to all these. Joseph Strange: You can apply, but I mean you don't have a by -right use of that land where you can say, "well, I can be using it for something else"? Manna Phillips: Well, that starts a big constitutional question, and I don't think I want to argue at this point, but we do have a balance between personal property rights and the environment and safety, etc. It is a balance. You've heard the "T" word, taking, and that's what arises in cases, where people are totally prohibited from using property, and that is what I was referring to. Joseph Strange: I was referring to the buffer because it is in the 100-foot buffer. That is what I was referring to. Marina Phillips: We do have an opportunity to apply for an exception. Joseph Strange: You have an opportunity to apply for an exception but not a by -right that is what I was trying to say. Marina Phillips: Okay. Joseph Strange: Second question is will the sales people be allowed on this lot at all? Will they be allowed to go over there and take a customer? Marina Phillips: We haven't really talked about that, but if the Commission would like to restrict it that's perfectly acceptable. Joseph Strange: I think that would be a good restriction if the sales people were not allowed to even take a customer over there. Marina Phillips: That's perfectly acceptable. Joseph Strange. Okay. Ronald Ripley: I have a question. And the question has to deal with the product. This is for Subaru. Manna Phillips: Right. Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 8 Ronald Ripley: What happens if Subaru's are discontinued or they stop. We had the Edsel and that's gone. What happens? What do we do here? Marina Phillips: I think RK might be upset. I don't know. That was something that I hadn't considered. That is our proposal. Our proposal is that we're going to put Subaru's there. Ronald Ripley: I understand. Marina Phillips: We didn't make that a condition of the proposal that I understand. I hadn't heard anything about wanting to change it to Chevrolets. Ronald Ripley: It's just a question. Marina Phillips: Sorry. Ronald Ripley: Dot, you have a question? Dorothy Wood: One more question Ms. Phillips. You said there's going to be dual cars, one on the other lot and one here. If you sell the one on the other lot it's really going to be hard for them not to come over there and move the car that is left. I mean, if I wanted this green Subaru with blue leather interior and you sold the one on the lot then are you going to move it? Marina Phillips: Only on the one day a month. Dorothy Wood: Okay, thank you. Marina Phillips: No more frequently. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: So you wouldn't sell it at that point? Marina Phillips: I'm not sure exactly what procedure they would use, but they would not allow the person to physically move the car until the one day of the month. They've committed to that. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Does anybody else have questions? Gene has a question and then Charlie Eugene Crabtree: I don't have any questions but I do have a comment when we get to that point. Ronald Ripley: Okay Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 9 Eugene Crabtree: Being familiar with the corner, and as I said previously, I think if the owners are not allowed to do this, then he's got a dead piece of property with no reasonable way of getting nd of it or using it for anything. This does give a useable use to that. I think the proposed use for it and the restrictions that they're putting on it is reasonable and it I think if it worked and being familiar with the RK Chevrolet operations, I think what they say that they will truly try to hold to. Therefore, from my standpoint, I think I'm going to be for the application. Ronald Ripley: Okay. I think, Charlie, do you have a comment? Charlie Salle': I had a question. I was wondering are there ten models of Subaru's that require you to have ten cars out there, or how did you come up with that number? Marina Phillips: We just spaced them around the property. We did not do it based on the models of Subaru. Charlie Salle': As the conditions are written these spaces are not limited to Subaru's. You can put any car that you wanted to out there. Marina Phillips: We would be happy to accept the condition that it would be Subaru's. That's the intent. As Chairman Ripley said, these conditions were just drafted between the pre meeting, and now, and certainly that restriction is acceptable. That was the intent. Charlie Salle': Would your client have a problem with the limitation of this Use Permit for a period of one year? Manna Phillips: Meaning a temporary permit only? Charlie Salle'. It would be reevaluated at the end of the year if there are issues that staff feels needs to come to the Planning Commission it would be brought up again. Manna Phillips: Yes, in fact, condition number eight does say it shall be reviewed administratively on an annual basis and that's acceptable. We don't anticipate any problems. That's perfectly acceptable. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Joe. Joseph Strange: The only comment that I would make is that I do think that is somewhat of a safety problem over there because I do think there would be pedestrians crossing the street. And, also I think the applicant is willing to take just about any condition we put on it to limit that, and because of their attitude about that I think as long as we put these conditions on there, and I think limiting the sales people off of this would be a major deterrent from being able to cross that street. Based on this and based on the fact that there probably isn't any better use for this piece of property, I'll probably be supporting it Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 10 Ronald Ripley: Does anybody else have any questions? Jan. Janice Anderson: Is there any opposition to this? Ronald Ripley: There is no opposition that I know of. Janice Anderson: Okay. I just wanted to know. I would be in support of the application. They had a temporary use of it before with no problems so far as vandalism or people driving up on the curb or anything like that. So, I don't really think that's a problem. They have addressed it. They are going to have a security look out for that exit also. As she said there's only three percent of the site being used, and the owner is using the site for some purpose, and it doesn't have the impact on the wetland area and I think the proffers with the conditional one year review, I think your protected. I would agree with Dot that I think the transfer of the vehicles should be later at 9:30. I think 8:00 o'clock is still busy out there on Lynnhaven. And, so far as the requirement for pedestrian crossing signal there, I don't know if there is one there or not, but if they're not going to be bringing customers over there if that is going to be a requirement I don't think that needs to be required. If they were going to be bringing customers in I think that would be feasible request for the applicant. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Charlie. Charlie Salle': I guess we got the eight conditions that were submitted, and I suspect we don't have the condition with respect to the sales personnel and the restrictions of Subaru's if that's going to be part of the restriction so I guess between now and Council or at some appropriate time we need to have the conditions revised to reflect all of this. Ronald Ripley: I think we're going to need those if were going to vote on this. We need those revised now. Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I think we should add condition nine that says, "no sales person will be allowed to take customers across the street or on the lot." And, also Ron, a change in item six that vehicles will only be moved and off the site during the hours of between 9:30 pm to midnight." Dorothy Wood: I agree. Charlie Salle': There was a comment that these cars would only be moved once a month. Is that your representation? Manna Phillips: Yes sir. Charlie Salle': Should that be added to number six, only one time per month? Eugene Crabtree: One day a month. Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 11 Manna Phillips. Yes, that's fine. Ronald Ripley: Will. William Din: I'm not really in favor of this application. I probably won't be supporting it but if you do, I think you need to see some rendering of the sign in there. I just want to make sure that we recognize that there is going to be a sign there and what it looks like is I don't know if it's going to make any difference. To me, what we have here is a very busy intersection, probably one of the busiest in the city. And, you're providing an additional distraction that probably is not needed on this comer. You have all these vehicles on the opposite corner already and like I said, this is probably the busiest intersection between Lynnhaven and Virginia Beach Boulevard. Yeah, there is going to be some intrusion to the wetlands, and this does minimize that, but I believe, I don't think it's an intrusive that we need at this point especially with the distractions and safety concerns for the vehicles that are moving through this intersection. To me, you're putting vehicles out there and providing distraction of the moving vehicles, not necessarily for the pedestrians. Pedestrians can cross at this intersection. They can cross at any intersection on their own, and their safety is a concern, but I'm concerned because of the vehicles that are moving through here. So, I probably won't be support this application. Marina Phillips: With respect to the sign Commissioner, it was identified in the application and if you look on Page 6 of the Section number 8 under site design, it does say that the plan takes ten parking pads, landscape vines separate the pads and identification sign is also depicted. We did inform Planning Commission staff that we were putting up a sign. And, in my application package I identified as being identical to the sign across the street at the main RK showroom. William Din: The one over on the other side is a large sign that's on a pole. Is that correct? Manna Phillips It's on a pedestal and it turns. William Din: Yes. Are you going to have a pedestal and a turning sign on this corner also9 Manna Phillips: Yes. William Din: I don't actually remember what that sign looks like, and I'm trying to find it, but I wasn't aware that, there was going to be a sign there like that but that's besides the point. Thank you. Manna Phillips- Thank you. Ronald Ripley- Are there any other comments? I want to make a comment also. This is a tough one, and I'm pretty much a property rights person. But, on the other hand I can't Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 12 get over the safety issue here, and I think you can control your sales people, but I don't think you can control the customer. A customer comes at it all the times during the weekend. He shows up on Sunday to look at cars, and the salesman aren't there, and they crawl all over the lot. My wife just bought a car a couple of days ago. If the color was over there she would have gone over there to see it, and that's what kind of bothers me about this particular application. And, I think it's very innovative on what you've done. I think it's a very well impact as far as three percent of the site. I mean, how can you get any lower than that? I commend you for what you've attempted to do here. I don't think I'm going to be in favor of it. I would urge that we add, if we are going to vote and get an affirmative vote out of here, that you limit this back to the five. You make a lot less impact, a lot less physical on that corner than ten. That's a lot of cars, and that's a lot of cars for his inventory just to be stuck over there for a whole month. I just have a hard time believing and no disrespect to you. I know you were counseled about. You're telling us what the story is, and I'm sure hopefully that would happen and this is an excellent businessman. He's been in the city for a long tune and they're just good corporate citizens, and I have a hard time not supporting this but I can't get by the safety issue. I see this intersection increasing in traffic and I just can't see it. Marina Phillips: The nature of this site, I think all of your concerns are correct. There probably aren't going to be that many people crossing the street because it is a busy street. And, I think my sense is that people basically take the path of least resistance if there is a parking lot on one side which has a 100 cars they're more likely to be attracted by that and go over there and look at the cars on that property. I think were hypothesizing here. It's difficult to say who's correct. Ronald Ripley: I'm not interested in debating you, I'm just telling you what my opinion is. Okay. Are there any other comments? Charlie Salle': I don't think I'm going to be able to support this application either. And, I do agree it's a close case, and I think I can go along, perhaps with ten cars there. It's almost like the old "burma shaves" signs, if you're old enough to remember. Dorothy Wood: They don't know what you're talking about. Charlie Salle': They don't. But anyway, I think that's too many. This is an area too where at that intersection you got a lot of lane changes going on there or just prior to that area and traffic is moving back and forth across those lanes and I just think that is to much distraction at that intersection. I think it is going to induce people to cross over there to look at those cars but, and maybe there is nothing you can do about that but, I still think that is too much distraction at that corner and maybe five would be something that I could accept. But, I just can't go along without five cars. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Yes, Kathy. Kathy Katsias: I agree with Charlie with regard to the number of cars. On the other Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 13 hand, one of the other recommendations that the owner would have is to be a Starbucks did you say? I think that would create more traffic or more vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and out with people picking up their coffee. So, I am in favor of the application, not so much with limiting the number of cars, and I have a little problem with the sign. I mean the sign on the other corner is large, rotating, and the cars are advertising enough. I don't think a sign is needed on this property. If you remove the sign and limited the cars, I would be supportive of the application. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Dot. Dorothy Wood: Do you think maybe we could defer this because we're asking to go from ten to five cars and to have no salesman on the property and only Subaru's and changing the hours. Maybe perhaps you would like to talk to your client because I think they're all valid but we're asking for a lot of changes. Marina Phillips: All of the changes other than the limitation of the number of cars are things that my client has already discussed and I can state. Dorothy Wood: The number of cars and the sign also? Marina Phillips: Not the number of cars. We've not discussed that. Dorothy Wood: What about not having the sign? Marina Phillips: Can we do something like putting a condition in that the sign will be approved by Planning staff, something like that? Ronald Ripley: We can do anything we want to do as far as a recommendation and if they recommend that the recommendation is five versus or six versus ten, you still have opportunity between now and Council. You have to get past Council. We're making a recommendation. So, the application is positioned to move forward I would think. Do you want it to move along? Is that correct? Marina Phillips: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley Okay. Dorothy Wood: Could I make a motion then? Ronald Ripley: I think that would be in order. Dorothy Wood. I make the motion that we approve the application with number six changed to hours of 9:30 — midnight and the cars being moved one day per month. I didn't see that anywhere else on here. The next condition would be no salesman bringing customers on the property, that would be number nine. And, number 10 to try and see Item #8 Frank Blocker Page 14 what we can do about only seven Subaru's on the lot. I'm going with that rather than five or ten, just to compromise, and the sign to be approved by staff. Janice Anderson: I would second the motion. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: So, we have a motion and we have a second. Do we have any discussion on the motion? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from the voting. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Okay, then we'll call for the question. AYE 6 NAY 3 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN NAY HORSLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS R.IPLEY NAY SALLE' NAY STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 6-3 with one abstention, the motion carries. Marina Phillips. Thank you very much for this opportunity. M. APPOINTMENTS MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF YIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L C E S L DATE October 14, 2003 D C M R C A W PAGE 1 I J L A N R H N I E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D 0 E I E S O AGENDA E R E A 0 R V D V O O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D I CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE BRIEFING John T Atkinson, Treasurer A DMV CONTRACT LICENSE AGENT I1 CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS A COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE LAW Robert Matthias, ENFORCEMENT Assistant to the City Manager —DELETE request re tanning facilities/ABC hcenses/ADD funding for Police Firearms Training Center B EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM James K Spore, City Manager III/IV/ MINUTES - October 7, 2003 APPROVED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y VNI/ E/F G/H/I/ Resolution re 2004 COMMUNITY ADOPTED AS 7-0 Y * Y * Y Y * Y Y A Y 1 LEGISLATION to REQUEST General Assembly REVISED TO #4 S #5 Delegation sponsor a /o support this legislation DELETE A TANNING S F A FACILITIES/CUP A E N FOR ABC F T D LICENSES/ADD E Y FUNDING FOR T 14 POLICE Y A FIREARMS D S TRAINING D A CENTER E F N E D T U Y M 2 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE / DIRECT a Police ADOPTED BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Mutual Aid Agreement with Chesapeake / CONSENT Hampton / Newport News/ Norfolk / Williamsburg / Portsmouth / Suffolk / Virginia Beach / James City /York / Smithfield J/1 PLANNING - NO ACTION RAYMOND, SR. NO ACTION AND MARILYN I. CAFFEE COZ from A-12 to R-5D at 5019 Bonney Road (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) CITY OF V7RGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L DATE October 14, 2003 C E S L D C M R C A W PAGE 2 I J L A N R H N I E E O A D D E M U L W Z U N N D O E I E S O AGENDA E R E A O R V D V O O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E S N X F E T A N D K/1 CRAB CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC DEFERRED TO 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Modification of Conditions on CUP community 10/28/03 BY boat dock (approved 10/24/2000) at 2096, 2098, CONSENT 2092, 2094 Tazewell Rd & 3557, 3559, 3561, 3563 Piedmont Circle (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) 2 POTOMAC CONFERENCE CORP OF APPROVED/ 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y SEVENTH -DAY ADVENTIST Modification of CONDITIONED BY CUP church (approved 10/29/2002) at Holland CONSENT Rd / Shipps Comer Rd (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) 3 LESLIE LEEDY CUP for a museum & art APPROVED/ 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y gallery at 2025 Indian River Rd CONDITIONED BY (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) CONSENT 4 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER CUP church at APPROVED/ 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y North Great Neck Rd / Old Donation Pkwy CONDITIONED BY (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) CONSENT 5 JOSEPH G PIPER COZ from AG-2 to APPROVED AS 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Conditional R-10 at 2332 Seaboard Rd PROFFERED BY (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) CONSENT K APPOINTMENTS: MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S PARKS AND RECREATION COMM Unexpired term thru J Michael Fentress (Bayside District) 8/05/2005 plus a 3 year term ending 8/31 /2008 TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S HOME COMM ADD Recess to Closed Session @ 6 10 PM for APPROVED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y ON Personnel/Publicly Held Property/Legal Matters ADD Certify Closed Session @ 8 43 PM CERTIFIED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y ON 0 ADJOURNMENT 8 45 PM