The URL can be used to link to this page

MARCH 23, 2004 AGENDACITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 23March 2004 CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS: A. - Conference Room - 1:30 P.M. RETAIL STUDY ECONOMIC STRATEGY Donald Maxwell, Director, Department of Economic Development A1CUZ DEVELOPMENT INTERIM GUIDELINES Robert J. Scott, Director, Department of Planning JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS) SCOPE OF WORK Robert J. Scott, Director, Department of Planning CITY WATERSHEDS H. Clayton Bemick Environmental Management Programs Administrator, Department of Planning REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS [1I. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf 4:30 P.M. B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. 6:00 P.M. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend David Howard Pastor, Brook Baptist 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 MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION March 9, 2004 MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION VIRG1NIA ARCHITECTURE WEEK - April 2-9, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENT 1. ATLANTIC AVENUE CAF]~ PILOT PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS Elbow Road Extended and Dozier's Bridge 2. LEASES OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY a. Caf6 Franchise Agreements b. Timberlake Community Association, Inc. Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Boulevard c. Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC North Great Neck and West Plantation Roads 3. EXCESS CITY-OWNED PROPERTY Nimmo Parkway and George Mason Drive K. CONSENT AGENDA L. ORDINANCES Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN § 36-99 of the City Code for Taxi Cabs by revising financial reporting requirements Ordinance to DECLARE EXCESS PROPERTY at Nimmo Parkway and George Mason Drive; and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Land Exchange Agreement and any other related document(s) with Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD). Ordinance to AUTHORIZE and APPROVE the Development Authority's use of $4,000,000 of the Economic Development Investment Program ("EDIP") funding for construction of the Town Center Phase II public infrastructure and the use of ED1P funds to hire the Authority's Construction Manager, conditioned on reimbursement of EDIP funds from Phase II Bonds. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute Leases on certain city- owned property: Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC at North Great Neck and West Plantation Roads for easements to allow vehicular and pedestrian access; installation and maintenance with replacement of necessary utilities; and, to construct and operate an accessory building for wireless telecommunications (See Planning Item 8) Timberlake Community Association, Inc. for storage of major recreational equipment at Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Boulevard 5. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into: Grayson Road by VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH to install a wooden pedestal bridge Pleasure House Road, Lake Drive and Machen Avenue by BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC to construct and maintain a vinyl fence Kempsville and Providence Roads by KEMPSVILLE CORNER ASSOCIATES to maintain an existing business identification sign at 904 Kempsville Road Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $132,891 from the State Compensation Board and TRANSFER $130,000 from Reserve Contingencies to the Sheriff's D~artment FY 2003-04 operating budget re employing fifteen additional Deputies. RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution to ENDORSE a proposed transportation enhancement project to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for steel-backed timber guardrails (Phase I) and ACKNOWLEDGE the requirement for a local match. 2. Resolutions REFERRING to the Planning Commission a. Proposed amendments to §§ 250, 251,252 and 253 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to REPEAL the Open Space Promotion option. DEFERRED: MARCH 2, 2004 b. Alternate Version: Proposed amendments to §§ 251,252 and 253 and 506 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to allow Open Space Promotion option. c. AMEND and REAFFIRM Interim Guidelines governing applications for land use development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). DEFERRED: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Resolutions re Open Air Cafes: a. RENEW existing franchises (9) b. GRANT new franchises (2) c. ESTABLISH a pilot program for open air cafes on Atlantic Avenue between 20th and 23rd Streets Resolutions REQUESTING the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to: a. ACCEPT 40.18 lane miles of additional streets b. ACCEPT corrections and deletions to the revised road inventory for urban maintenance PLANNING - NO ACTION Petition of RONALD C. and DONNA G. RIPLEY for a Variance to § 4.4(b) that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at 4101 White Acres Road. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) O. PLANNING RECONSIDERATION: Applications ofF. DONALD REID at 3592 Indian River Road: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and allow a forty-five-foot (45') lot subdivision with open space and walking trails in the Transition Area Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R20 Residential District c. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space DEFERRED: DEFERRED INDEFINITELY: APPROVED: SCHEDULED ADVERTISING FOR RECONSIDERATION: APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO: RECOMMENDATION: December 2, 2003 for Sixty (60) days September 23, 2003 February 10, 2004 February 17, 2004 March 23, 2004 APPROVAL Application of OCEAN BAY HOMES, L.L.C. for a nonconforming use to replace two (2) existing multifamily structures with two (2) single family residential structures at 305 26th Street. (BEACH DISTRICT 6) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of ROBERT W. and MARIA L. KANIA re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an Alley adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, Croatan, at South Atlantic Avenue and Croatan Road to incorporate this area into Lot 15. (BEACH - DISTRICT 6) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Applications of VA-CAR DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., at Salem and North Landstown Roads. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and to subdivide the property into twenty-eight (28) single-family home lots with wooded open space and trails (two (2) flag lots proposed do not meet the lot width requirement). Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-20 Residential c. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 10. Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for JOHN L. WILLIAMS and ELLEN LANE WADSWORTH to subdivide an additional lot (Parcel F) at Princess Anne and Pleasant Ridge Roads. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER, INC., a Virginia Corporation T/A BEACH FC for a Conditional Use Permit re a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer fields) at Shipps Comer and Holland Roads. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) DEFERRED: RECOMMENDATION: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 APPROVAL Application of JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re an off-site parking lot at 2149 Vista Cimle. (LYNNHAVEN - DISTRICT 5) RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO APRIL 27, 2004 Application of OMNIPOINT (T-Mobile) for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications antenna on top of an existing tower at North Great Neck and Plantation Roads. (LYNNHAVEN - DISTRICT 5) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of KRAMER RED MILL #20 L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit re automobile repair at Nimmo Parkway and Upton Drive. (DISTRICT 7 PRINCESS ANNE) DEFERRED re Sunday operation: RECOMMENDATION: MARCH 9,2004 APPROVAL Applications ofALCAR, L.L.C. at Nimmo Parkway and Rockingchair Lane: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-I and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District b. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space DEFERRED: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 DECEMBER 9, 2003 OCTOBER 28, 2003 DEFERRAL APPROVAL APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF BUILDiNG CODE APPEALS - (a)Plumbing/Mechanical (b)Building Maintenance HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE - HREDA HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD MiNORITY BUSiNESS COUNCIL OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION PUBLIC LiBRARY BOARD 1. Amend Virginia Beach Code Section 17-3 2. Change Membership to reflect two (2) Students 3. Add a Representative of the Schools to the membership RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION TOWING ADVISORY BOARD Q. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. Consider RESCHEDULING the regular meetings of City Council a. April 6, 2004 Passover b. May 4, 2004 Councilmanic Election S. ADJOURNMENT 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) Agenda 03/23/04\blb\gw wwwvbgov.com CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain § 36-99 of the City Code Pertaining to Taxicabs By Revising Financial Reporting Requirements March 23, 2004 Background: The City Code's provisions regulating taxicabs were substantially revised in April 2000. The application process was simplified, but a requirement for a detailed financial report as a prerequisite for issuance of a certificate of public necessity was retained. This requirement for extensive financial reporting by applicants has not been useful in the initial decision process of issuing certificates, since no objective financial requirements taxi cab companies are contained in the ordinance. However, such information is useful in considering the necessity for rate increases. Considerations: The Police Department recommends that the existing financial disclosure requirement be amended to provide for the disclosure of financial data when rate increases are requested. This would be consistent with Virginia Code § 46.2- 2062, which authorizes localities to request financial information from taxi cab operators for this purpose. Attachment: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adoption of ordinance. Submitting DepartmentJAgency: City Attorney City Manager~j~/~-. ~ ~h~_ F:~Data\ATY\Ordin~NO~DE\36-99.ar f. doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE VIRGINIA BEACH CITY CODE PERTAINING TO TAXI CABS BY REVISING FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS SECTION AMENDED: § 36-99 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 36-99 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 36-99. Financial information to be submitted b~m~p~-ea~ for rate increases. (a) ~ ...... pcrscn ~"~ ~ a c ........................ , with and a ~at ........ ^~ ~ ..... statemcnt c~ ~ ..... ~ ~' ---~ ~^~ .... ~ entity ..................................... ~.~ca..~, ~ ~ ~'+; has ~+ ~ in ..... +~ for a full~, year, thc~..~~+ must~"~+~.,,~ a statement of 1' m~ .... ~ .... ~ of ~ ....... ~..~ ........... ~ a statemcnt of fiscal year ~ .... ~nt has ~ ~ ...... +~^~ ~ thc ..... ~ '~ ~+~ has not ..... ~ .... ~" ~^~ ~ ~+ at the time cf ~ ......... , 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 For use in considering requested increases in taxi rates or charges, operator necessary, the City Manager or his designee may require any owner or to submit such supporting financial data as may be including federal or state income tax returns for the two years preceding; provided, however, that income tax returns submitted shall be used only for consideration of such rates or charges and shall be kept confidential. ................. at ......... rcquircd COMMENT The proposed amendment eliminates requirement for taxicab companies to submit detailed financialinformation as part of applying for a certificate. Financialinformation from taxi companies will only be requested when taxicab companies seek rate increases. This follows the language of Virginia Code § 46.2-2062, which permits localities to regulate rate increases and request financial information to consider the necessity of increases. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9099 Ordin%NONCODE\ 36-99ord. doc March 17, 2004 R-4 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Police Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: it'y Attorney'/s OffiCe CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Declare Certain City Property Excess and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Land Exchange Agreement with the Hampton Roads Sanitation District MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: For purposes of constructing a Pressure Reducing Station for its Lake Ridge Interceptor Force Main, the Hampton Roads Sanitation Distdct ("HRSD") purchased a site consisting of 0.227 acres in 1975 on the north side of Pdncess Anne Road adjacent to Kellam High School (the "HRSD Site"). However, the HRSD Site is now too small for the pump station and has a number of conflicts that make construction infeasible. The conflicts include a City water main, several private utilities, and wetlands. A site better suited for the station is located on City property consisting of 0.97459 acres at the Nimmo Parkway and George Mason Ddve intersection (the "City Site"). HRSD desires to exchange the HRSD Site for the City Site. In addition to acquiring the HRSD Site, the City will receive an equalization payment in the amount of $6,400 as compensation for the difference in the appraised value of the City Site and the HRSD Site. Considerations: The properties are located in the Pdncess Anne District. Construction of the Pressure Reducing Station is part of the Lake Ridge Interceptor Force Main project. This station is needed by HRSD to meet future pressure and flow requirements in its system. The City Site has not been identified for any other City use or purpose. City staff has determined that the City Site is suitable for HRSD's purposes. The attached location map shows the locations of each of the properties. Public Information: As required by Virginia Code Section 15.2-1800, a Public Headng regarding the disposition of the City Site has been advertised. Alternatives: The HRSD system requires a pressure reducing station near the Municipal Center. The alternative to not build the station would result in sanitary sewer overflows in the RRSD system and limit development citywide because HRSD would not have capacity in its system for anticipated flows. Recommendations: Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance that declares the City Site excess and authorizes the City Manager to execute the land exchange agreement with HRSD in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto. Attachmants: Ordinance, Exhibits A & B, Summary of Terms, Location Map Recommended Action: Approval ~/~ Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Public Utilities ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO DECLARE CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY EXCESS, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH THE HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, in 1975, the Hampton Roads Sanitation District ("HRSD") purchased a parcel of real property consisting of 0.227 acres on the north side of Princess Anne Road adjacent to Kellam High School in the City of Virginia Beach ( the "HRSD Property") for purposes of constructing a Pressure Reducing Station ("pump station") for its Lake Ridge Interceptor Force Main; WHEREAS, HRSD has determined that the HRSD Property is now too small for the pump station and there are a number of conflicts that make construction infeasible; WHEREAS, HRSD has determined that a better site for the pump station is located on City property consisting of 0.97459 acres at the Nimmo Parkway and George Mason Drive intersection (the "City Property"), and desires to exchange the HRSD Property for the City Property to construct the pump station; WHEREAS, HRSD requires a pump station near the Municipal Center in order to accommodate a sufficient capacity in its system for anticipated flows resulting from development in the area; WHEREAS, in addition to acquiring the HRSD Property, the City will receive an equalization payment from HRSD in the amount of $6,400 as compensation for the difference in the appraised value of the City Property and the HRSD Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that a public necessity exists for the construction of the pump station, that the improvements will provide adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer system for future development citywide for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort and convenience, and for the welfare of the people of the City of Virginia Beach and to that end, the City Property is in excess of the needs of the City of Virginia Beach and should be exchanged with the HRSD Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the City Property described as "Parcel D (Pump Station) GP~N:1494-62- 0718 Area= 42,453 SQ. FT.; 0.97459 Acres", as shown on the survey attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby declared to be in excess of the needs of the City, and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to utilize said City Property for a land exchange with the Hampton Roads Sanitation District for the acquisition of the HRSD Property shown on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit 13. 2. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute a Land Exchange Agreement with the Hampton Roads Sanitation District in accordance with the attached Summary of Terms. 3. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute a~ documents that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the land exchange, so long as such documents are acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~ day of ,2004. CA-9118 PREPARED: 02/26/04 Approved as to Content I~partment of Public Works/ Real Estate Approved as to Content .ep,rt.,~/) o~.~b[,c Utilities Approved as to Content City Attorney 0 SUMMARY OF TERMS AGREEMENT FOR THE EXCHANGE OF EXCESS CITY PROPERTY WITH HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT PARCEL CITY PARCEL: HRSD PARCEl,: SALE PRICE: GPIN 1494-62-0718; Parcel D; 42,453 Sq. Ft.;0.97459 Acres 0.227 Acre as shown on the Physical survey of Pump Station Site for Hampton Roads Sanitation District This is a land exchange. CLOSING DATE: Ninety (90) days after the Exchange Agreement is fully executed. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: · HRSD shall pay to the City of Virginia Beach the sum of $6,400 as compensation for the difference between the appraised value of the City parcel and the HRSD parcel · HRSD shall submit for approval by the City's Historical Review Board all architectural renderings and plans for any proposed structures and other improvements. Approval of said renderings shall be in addition to the customary approval process for the issuance of building permits. · HRSD's proposed landscaping for any improvements on the City parcel shall comply with the City's landscaping ordinances and regulations. · HRSD shall develop the City parcel in compliance with all applicable City ordinances, regulations and requirements. C:~Documents and Settings\clarue\Local Settings\Temp~-IRSD.sum,wpd PI~OPOSED INDIAN RIVER-COURTHOUSE ROADI~) Properly et' the SCHOOL BOARD OF THE _CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA PHYSICAL sURVEY OF PUMPING STATION 'sITE - ~ FOR HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT PRINCESS ~NNE BOi~OUGH . VIRGINIA BF_ACH, VIRGINIA ,/ / ,/ 0 / / / / //' / / / / / ,/ © 0 LOCATION MAP PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AND HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION SCALE:I' = 400' DISTRICT · ' PREPARED BY p/W ENG. CADD DEPT, APRIL 28~ 20~1 s HRSD.DGN CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Authorizing the use of Economic Development Investment Program (EDIP) funds for the Infrastructure in Phase II of Town Center and Hiring of Authority's Construction Manager. MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: On the recommendation and approval of City Council, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority and Town Center Associates, L.L.C entered into a Development Agreement for the development of Phase II of the Town Center, a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, activity center with mid to high-rise structures containing numerous types of uses. The Development Agreement contemplates the construction of the Phase Il Public Infrastructure for Phase II of the Project including, a public plaza, streets, streetscapes and landscaping for an amount not to exceed $7,600,000. The Authority will fund $4,000,000 of the expenditures from the Economic Development Investment Program (EDIP), while the remaining $3,600,000 will be funded from Capital Project # 9-016, Town Center Infrastructure. As in the development of Phase I, a Construction Manager has been hired for a period of twenty-five (25) months, at a cost not to exceed $310,830. Considerations: The Authority adopted a Resolution at its June 17, 2003 meeting approving documents for Phase II of the Town Center Project, authorizing execution and delivery by the Virginia Beach Development Authority and authorizing funding for certain Authority obligations. In addition, the Authority adopted a Resolution at its August 19, 2003 meeting authorizing an advance of EDIP funds for hiring the Authority's Construction Manager for Phase II of the Town Center Project, subject to approval by City Council and conditioned on the reimbursement of the actual amount of EDIP expended from the proceeds of the Phase II bonds. The Construction Manager will receive a maximum of $297,300 for services for Blocks 10 and 12 in addition to traditional reimbursement costs. Public Information: Due to the nature of this unique public/private investment partnership, the Project has already received a substantial amount of media coverage in the local newspaper and local television stations. The City conducted an open house providing information on the project, presented information to local civic leagues, and aired a television program on VBTV providing additional information on the Project. City Council conducted public hearings on the adoption of the TIF district, Memorandums of Understanding, Development Agreements, zoning ordinances, and street closure ordinances. Alternatives: Approval is necessary to continue the timely implementation of the Project. Recommendations: Approval by City Council allowing the use of $4 million in EDIP funds for the development of infrastructure in Phase II and the hiring of the Authority's Construction Manager with ultimate reimbursement of the EDIP funds from the proceeds of the Phase II bonds. · Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of attached ordinance Submitting DepartmentJAgency: Economic Development~ Cit Manaoer:~'v''~ '~'~)~ y ~! · F:\Data\ATY~JF~r' s~r~mercial Projects~'own Center\Town Center EDIP Agenda Request.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S USE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM FUNDS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND HIRING OF A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER wHEREAS, upon the recommendation and approval of City Council, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority ("Authority") and Town Center Associates, L. L. C. are parties to the Phase I! Development Agreement for the Town Center of Virginia Beach ("Phase I1 Development Agreement"), for development of Phase II of the Town Center, a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, activity center with mid to high-rise structures containing numerous types of uses (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the Development Agreement contemplates the design and construction of the public infrastructure for Phase l I of the Project including, but not limited to, the public plaza, public streets, streetscapes and landscaping (the "Phase I1 Public Infrastructure") for an amount not to exceed $7,600,000, and the hiring by the Authority of a construction manager (the "Authority' s Construction Manager"); WHEREAS, $4,000,000 of the $7,600,000 is contemplated to be funded by the Authority through the Economic Development Investment Program ("EDIP") and the remaining $3,600,000 is contemplated to be funded from Capital Project #9-016, Town Center Infrastructure; WHEREAS, the cost of the Authority's Construction Manager 25 months is not expected to exceed $310,830; WHEREAS, there are available funds in the EDIP for the purpose of hiring a construction manager, subject to approval of the City Council, which would be reimbursed from 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 the proceeds of the debt instruments used to finance Phase II of the Project (the "Phase I1 Bonds"); and WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted August 19, 2003, the Authority approved the use of EDIP funds as an advance for the hiring of the Authority's Construction Manager, subject to the approval of the City Council and conditioned on the reimbursement of the actual amount of EDIP funds used for such purposes from the proceeds of the Phase I1 Bonds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE coUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: /. That City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority' s ("Authority' s") use of $4,000,000 of Economic Development Investment Program ("EDIP") funding for the construction of the public infrastructure for Phase I1 of the Project as outlined in the Phase li Development Agreement. 2. That City Council hereby approves and authorizes the use o¢ EDIP funds for the hiring by the Authority of a construction manager, conditioned on the reimbursement of the actual amount of ED1P funds used for such purposes from the proceeds of the Phase I1 Bonds. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the .__-- day of March, 2004. APPROVED AS TO 52ONTENT: Economic Development APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney F:\Data\ATY\Forms\Commercial Projects\Town Ccnter\EDIP Ordinance for Phase Il.doc ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Ordinance Authorizing The City Manager To Execute a Lease Between Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC and the City MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC ("Omnipoint") has expressed a desire to lease from the City a small area on the east side of Great Neck Road, north of West Plantation Road in order to construct an accessory building housing equipment to be used in conjunction with certain personal wireless telecommunication facilities to be placed on an existing VEPCO electric transmission tower located adjacent to the area to be leased. Omnipoint has also applied for a conditional use permit for the proposed use. The Planning Commission recommended approval, by consent, of the conditional use permit application on February 11, and the application will also be heard by the City Council on March 23rd. · Considerations: The proposed lease is for a 25' X 25' area, together with necessary access and maintenance easements, on which the building housing the necessary equipment associated with the wireless antenna is to be located. Because the antenna itself will be located on an existing VEPCO transmission tower, no lease is needed for the antenna itself. The existing tower is 70 feet high, and Omnipoint's proposed antenna would extend seven (7) feet above the transmission tower. The proposed lease is for a term of five (5) years and contains no right of renewal; hence, the proposed lease does not have to be the subject of a bid process. The proposed rent is $12,000 per year with annual increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. Other of the material terms are set forth in the attached Summary of Material Terms. One of those terms requires the lessee to comply with all terms and conditions of the conditional use permit authorizing the use. · Public Information: The public hearing on the proposed lease has been advertised one time, on March 14, 2004, in accordance with applicable requirements of law. · Alternatives: The City Council may either approve or disapprove the proposed lease. Given that (1) the proposed leased area, outbuilding and antenna are very small; (2) the operation of the facilities will have no impact on City operations; (3) the use will be stdctly controlled by the conditional use permit as well as the lease; and (4) there will be no other detrimental impacts, however, the Staff recommends approval of the lease. · Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance. · Attachments: Ordinance, Summary of Material Terms, Proposed Tower Elevation. A full copy of the lease is available in the City Attorney's Office. Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate City Manager:~:~ ~--, 1 2 3 4 5 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE BETWEEN OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP OPERATIONS, LLC AND THE CITY FOR APPROXIMATELY 625 SQ. FT. OF CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO NORTH GREAT NECK ROAD NORTH OF WEST PLANTATION ROAD 6 7 8 9 10 11 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the 12 owner of certain property located on the east side of North Great 13 Neck Road, approximately 240 feet north of West Plantation Road, 14 consisting of approximately 625 square feet (the "Property"; and 15 WHEREAS, Omnipoint Communications Cap Operations, LLC 16 ("Omnipoint"), desires to lease the aforesaid property, together 17 with easements for vehicular and pedestrian access and the 18 installation, maintenance and replacement of necessary utilities, 19 wiring, cables and other conduits, for purposes of constructing, 20 maintaining and operating an accessory building housing equipment 21 to be used in conjunction with certain personal wireless 22 telecommunications facilities; and 23 WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the Property is 24 suitable for such purposes; and 25 WHEREAS, subject to the approval of the City Council, 26 Omnipoint and City staff have agreed upon the terms of a proposed 27 lease setting forth the responsibilities and obligations of the 28 parties; 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 3o OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 31 That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed 32 to execute, on behalf of the City, the lease entitled GROUND LEASE 33 AGREEMENT (GREAT NECK DOMINION TOWER), CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 34 LESSOR AND OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP OPERATIONS, LLC, LESSEE, 35 23rd Day of March, 2004," a summary of the material terms of which 36 is hereto attached and a copy of which is on file in the Office of 37 the City Attorney. 38 39 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia 40 Virginia, on the day of , 2004. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Beach, CA-9192 OID\Land Use~omnipointordin. doc R-1 March 12, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~partment o~ Public ~orks APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City ~-t~orney's Office Location: Lessee: Leased Area: Rent: Escalator: Other: OMNIPOINT LEASE AGREEMENT Summary of Material Terms East side of Great Neck Road, approx. 240 feet north of West Plantation Road Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC 25' x 25' site, with access and maintenance easements, for accessory outbuilding housing telecommunications equipment Five years with no right of renewal $12,000 per year (first year) Yearly increase equal to rise in Consumer Price Index, with maximum of 7% Lessee's operation not to interfere with City functions; Lessee must correct within reasonable time or cease use to extent necessary to remedy interference Lessee required to comply with all terms of conditional use permit Lessee required to carry $1,000,000 comprehensive insurance, plus other insurances Lessee required to indemnify City for injuries, etc., caused'by Lessee's negligence, etc. Lessee must remove antennas and building and restore premises to original condition within 90 days of expiration or termination of lease Ii (N) ~(N) OMNIP01NT MOUNT (N) COAX CABLES TO RUN INSlOE OF (N) CONDUIT T((N) CONOUrr TO (O POLE f(D 70'-~ TRANSMIS,~ON POLE Exhibit C Proposed Tower Elevation OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 11 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Proposed lease of City owned property to the Timberlake Community Association, Inc. MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: The Timberlake Community Association, Inc. ("Timberlake") currently utilizizes a parcel of City-owned property as a storage lot for major recreational equipment for its residents who are members of the Community Association. The property is located at Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Boulevard and contains 24,858.83 sq. ft. (0.5707 acres). The City acquired this property in 1982 from Dominion Virginia Power (formerly Virginia Electric and Power Company) ("Virginia Power"). At the time of acquisition, Timberlake was leasing the property from Virginia Power for the same purpose. There has been negotiations in the past between the City and Timberlake for the purchase of the property or a possible exchange of the property in association with a pump station site acquisition. However, Timberlake's Association documents prohibit the purchase of additional property. Accordingly, a lease agreement has been drafted by the City Attorney's Office for the use of the property as a storage lot for major recreational equipment for Timberlake's residents. Considerations: The Timberlake Community Association, Inc. will pay rent to the City in the amount of $620.00 annually for the first two years of a five year lease. The remaining three years of the lease, the rent will be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index in an amount not to go below 2% nor more than 5% of the current rent. The amount of the rent represents approximately 10% of the market value of the property which is appraised at $6,200. The property is currently being used for major recreational equipment storage and City staff has determined that the property is suitable to be used for this purpose. A Summary of Terms is attached. Public Information: Advertisement for public hearing as required by §15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia and advertisement of City Council agenda. Alternatives: Adopt the ordinance as presented, change any conditions or terms of the lease agreement or disapprove the ordinance. Recommendations: Adopt the ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the lease. Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Exhibit A (Location Map) Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works ~ ~//~ ~ City Manager./~/~-~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE BETWEEN TIMBERLAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. AND THE CITY FOR 24,858.83 SQ. FT. OF CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD AT FOXWOOD DRIVE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of that certain parcel of land located at Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Boulevard in Virginia Beach, Virginia and consisting of approximately 24,858.83 square feet (the "Property")as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto; WHEREAS, under a prior arrangement with Dominion Virginia Power, Timberlake Community Association, Inc. ("Timberlake")has been using the Property for the storage of major recreational equipment for its association members, and desires to lease the Property from the City for the same purposes; WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the Propertyis suitable for use as a storage lot for major recreational equipment; and WHEREAS, Timberlake and City staff worked with the City Attorney to draft a lease which sets forth the responsibilities and obligations of the parties upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to all parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 24 25 26 27 That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease between Timberlake Community Association, Inc. and the City for the Property in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of ·2004. CA-9115 F:\ U sers\V V alldej\WP\BZA\Timberlakelse.ord.wpd R-1 02/22/04 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL surm mNCY:/--,,,' Department of Law /} SUMMARY OF TERMS LEASE FOR THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY LESSOR: City of Virginia Beach. LESSEE: Timberlake Community Association, Inc. (Phil Massa, Manager) PREMISES: Approximately 24,858.83 square feet of City property located at Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Boulevard. TERM: April 1, 2004 - March 3 l, 2009. RENT: Six Hundred Twenty Dollars ($620.00) annually for the first two years. For the third and each remaining year, rent will be adjusted using the Consumer Price Index, but in no event shall the rent be adjusted to an amount below 2% nor more than 5% of the current rent. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TIMBERLAKE: · Will use the Premises for storage of major recreational equipment for Timberlake's residents who are members of the association and for no other purpose. Will maintain and perform any and all necessary repairs and replacements to the Premises including, but not limited to, (i) performing routine maintenance, and (ii) maintaining the fencing, landscaping and the grounds of the premises in a clean and orderly condition, and shall not permit undue accumulation of garbage, trash, rubbish and other refuse. Will maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 CSL naming the City as an additional insured, and will indemnify the City for any and all claims arising from Lessee's use and occupation of the Premises, including any and all adverse environmental conditions caused by Lessee. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY: · Will inspect the Premises for compliance with the terms of the Lease and all state, local and federal laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations. TERMINATION: The City may terminate if Lessee falls to cure a default within 30days after receipt of written notice of default. F:\Users\VValldej\WP~BZA\Timberlakelse.sum.wpd OVERFLOW PARKING 204 GRAYSON RD. (STROUD & PENCE ASSOC )DEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATION MAP ,.fit, SHOWING PROPOSED WOODEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE "~-'~~ ~.~ ENCROACHMENT INTO .3~~ GRAYSON ROAD c FOR VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST...-.- FREEWILLDGN M.J.S. CH ,U, RCH PREPARED BY PAN ENG. CADD DEPT. FEB.2004 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment Request - Grayson Road Wooden Pedestrian Bridge for Virginia Beach Free Will Baptist Church GPIN 1467-72-9262 MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: Virginia Beach Free Will Baptist Church installed a wooden pedestrian bridge across a roadside ditch within the City's dght of way of Grayson Road which lies adjacent to its site. The purpose of the bddge is to provide easier access to the Church for its members utilizing overflow parking across the street at 204 Grayson Road (per agreement with Stroud & Pence Associates). The installation and location of this bridge was never reviewed or approved by the City of Virginia Beach and was brought to the attention of the Church by the Planning Department/Civil Inspections Division. Considerations: During the encroachment review process, the Church removed the bridge from the dght of way of Grayson Road and has taken steps to have same redesigned in order to be more structurally sound. The Church has indicated that, if the encroachment is approved, the new bridge would be the same size as its predecessor and would be installed in the same location as its predecessor as indicated on the attached exhibit drawing. This matter has been reviewed by all of the appropriate City agencies. Public Information: Advertisement of Council Agenda for encroachment approval. Alternatives: Deny the Encroachment. Recommendations: City staff have reviewed this matter and recommend approval of the encroachment. Attachments: Location Map Ordinance Exhibit Plat Agreement Recommended Action: Approve the Encroachment Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GRAYSON ROAD BY JAMES E. JONES, DAVID BUNDY AND RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, TRUSTEES OF VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, JAMES E. JONES, DAVID BUNDY AND RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, TRUSTEES OF VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, desire to construct and maintain a wooden pedestrian bridge into the City's right-of-way known as Grayson Road. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2- 2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDA1NED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended JAMES E. JONES, DAVID BUNDY AND RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, TRUSTEES OF VIRG1NIA BEACH FREE 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, its heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a wooden pedestrian bridge in the City's right-of-way as shown on the map entitled: "EXHIBIT A" a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and JAMES E. JONES, DAVID BUNDY AND RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, TRUSTEES OF VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as JAMES E. JONES, DAVID BUNDY AND RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, TRUSTEES OF VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the __ day of _, 2004. 42 CA- ~l~l 43 PREPARED: 02/25/04 2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND ~ CITY ATTORNEY 3 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 fa)(3) AND 58. 1-811 (e)(4) REIMBLrRSEMENT AU'I~ORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 15th day of September, 2003, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and, JAMES E. JONES, DAVID BUNDY AND RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, TRUSTEES OF VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WlTNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Parcel A-I" and being further designated and described as 210 S. Witchduck Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 · GPIN 1467-72-9262; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a wooden pedestrian bridge, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City fight of way known as Grayson Road, "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN 1467-72-9262 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing orto accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1 .00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "EXI-1IBIT A," a copy of which is attached hereto to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any 2 encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and ail insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined singlelimits ofsuchinsurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such 3 removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JAMES E. JONES, DAVID BUNDY AND RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, TRUSTEES OF VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature and seal duly affixed. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (SEe) ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk 4 VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH (i~S ~.-JONES, ~stee DAVID BUNDY, Tru~[ee RICHAP-~D ALLEN SHANDY, Trustge STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ._ day of _ ~ , 2003, by , City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on its behal£ He/She is either personally known to me or has produced a as identification. My commission expires; ,~. Notary Public 5 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of , 2003, by Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on its behalf. She is either personally known to me or has produced a as identification. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day 2003, by JAMES E. JONES, as Trustee of VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH. He is ::.t~ personally known to me ¢~ ~: ~^~ .... ~ .... t [ My commission : Notary Public 6 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/,.) day of 2003, by DAV1D BUNDY, as Trustee of VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH. He is ~ personally known to me ~ as Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/D"'~day of~M~'~L~( 2003, by RICHARD ALLEN SHANDY, as Trustee of VIRGINIABEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH. He is ~ personally known to me or My commission expires:~ I~/~/,~_L ~,~ ~q~?~ 7 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY ATTORN~y~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Rev. 07-24-02 PREVENTING SETTLEMENT ~HEN APPROVED BY 2' PLASllC HARDWARE iR 0.03 INCH, NUMDER q- }1 ANCHORED FIRMLY 11JRE, AT LEAST ONE PROVIDED ON ALL FOUR NY SIDE FACING A IE NUMBER, THE DIMEN- IONS OF l~lE WEEP ECAST Sll~UCTURE VER, WEEP BOLES SHALL ~ASE ON ALL DRAINAGE DS OF ANCHORABE SED WHEN V.D.O.T. ~ED THEN I'FPIDAL · SJbECIFIED AND CAST ITS ORDERED, THE NUMBER, ]'HE LOCAllONS OF THE £CASF S1RUCTURE SPECIFI- ]EP HOLES SHALL BE INAGE STRUCIURES. PRECAS )NS A-~O- 50, S LBS. 54 LBS. 5 LBS. GOOD GRADE OF GREY IRON. {GINiA BEACH NDARD OLE SHOWING D,L PASSING THROUGH C WORKS I B-14 16. 21. SUB TOTAL 96 SPACI:~ NEW PARKING 25 SPACES TOTAL 121 SPACES REGULAR 116 SPACES HANDICAP § SPACES GREEN AREA: REQUIRED 750 S.F, PROVIDED 1019 S.F. PARKING LOT TREES: REQUIRED § EA, PROV1DED 5 EA. SEWER FLOWS: AVERAGE = 2.97 GPM PEAK = 7,41 GPM SW~,I,/BMP DATA SUMMARY: 10 YR. STORAGE REQUIRED: 3,810 C.F. 10 YR. PEAK ELEVATION: 11.84 BMP STORAGE REQUIRED: 2,795 C.F. B-1 S--14.0 MOUNT HC T\VO ~TOWf D~K STORAGE AREA 647' EXHIBIT A VIRGINIA: IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITy OF VIRGINIA BEACH I~/W ~ 7 2003 IN RE: Appointment of Trustees for the Congregation of the Virginia Beach Free Will Baptist Church C" CERV No: 03- I qa,{5 ORDER THIS DAY carae James E. Jones, David Bundy ~d ~c~ ~tcn S~dy. T~t~s of V~G~ BEACH F~E ~LL B~TIST C~CH ~ the M~emtor of the MeetMg ~d ~h Clerk who we~ in a~e~ee at ~a ~id el~fi~ ~d Bled ~eff no~d petition helm to ~eh is ~ex~ a not.zed copy of the Resolution of~e M~t~g of~e Congregation ofs~d Ch~h olecfion l~es E. Jo~s. David Bundy ~d ~ch~d Allen S~dy ~ T~t~s of s~d ~hmch, with ~e Con~egafion of the Chinch el~ted s~d T~s; ~d it ~pe~ng thru ~e Con~e~tion is the pro~r au~o~ to act in tMs ca~i~; and B is O~E~D that J~es E. Jones, David B~dy ~d ~ch~d All~ S~dy ~ hereby ap~t~ ~ ~e tm~ ~d la~l Trusts of V~gi~a Beth Free Will Baptist Ch~h ~d ~at th~e T~mes ~ll hold legfl tiflc m ~y ~d ~1 Ch~h pro~ ~til ~e CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment Request for Bay Reflections Building, LLC at 2400 Pleasure House Road MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: A.R. Gregor, Jr., Manager for Bay Reflections Building, LLC has requested permission to encroach into the rights-of-way at Pleasure House Road, Lake Drive, and Machen Avenue. The purpose of this encroachment is for an existing four (4') foot decorative vinyl fence, which is located within the rights-of-way for all three (3) of the aforementioned streets. The subject development is on the west side of Pleasure House Road across the street from the Fire Station. Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended denial of same. Planning/Zoning recommended denial because the approved site plan called for the fence to be on the property line and it was extended approximately five (5') feet beyond the property line in City rights-of-way. Therefore the fence along Pleasure House Road is too close to the sidewalk. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as requested by applicant, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Based on the preceding comment, staff recommends denial of this request. However, if Council decides to approve the encroachment, then authorize City Manager to sign the agreement. Encroachment Request-Bay Refle~ions Building, LLC Februa~ 2004 Page 2 Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat, and Pictures. Recommended Action: Denial of the encroachment Public Works / Real Estate Submitting Department/Agency: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY'S RIGHTS-OF WAY OF PLEASURE HOUSE ROAD, LAKE DRIVE AND MACHEN AVENUE BY BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC, desires to construct and maintain a vinyl fence upon the City's rights-of-way known as Pleasure House Road, Lake Drive, and Machen Avenue. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2- 2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachment upon the City's rights-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC, its heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a vinyl fence upon the City's rights-of-way of Pleasure House Road, Lake Drive, and Machen Avenue as shown on that certain plat entitled "FENCELINE ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT PLAN OF COASTAL VIEW (A PRIVATE BEACH COMMUNITY) INTO CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH RAN FOR BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA ", a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the __ day of ,2003. CA-8939 PREPARED: November 24, 2003 H:\WP8\KEN N EDY\ENCS\bayreflections.ord.wpd AS TO CONTENTS [/ S I GNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIE~A~D FORM PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 (a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 j~C,r~.,~ THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ ' day of - ~ , 20 O~ , by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, L.L.C., a Virginia HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS more than one. limited liability company, ITS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though W I TN E S SETH: THAT, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as: "Parcel A, containing 38,828_+ Sq. Ft., or 0.891 Acres, as shown on the plat recorded in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court Clerk's Office in M.B. 286, PG. 46. Said property is a Re-subdivision of Lots 1-12 & Lots 37-40, Blk. 2, Map of Bradford Terrace (M.B. 9, PG. 55)", and being further designated and described as 2400 Courtyard Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23455; and WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain an existing 4' vinyl fence, a "Temporary Encroachment" in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of existing City rights-of-way known as Pleasure House Road, Lake Drive and Machen Avenue, the "Encroachment Area"; and GPIN: 1570-40-9882 the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the city's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to- wit: A Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "FENCELINE ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT PLAN OF COASTAL VIEW (A PRIVATE BEACH COMMUNITY) INTO CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH R/W FOR BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, L.L.C., VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "a" to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee, and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within the Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to the issuance of a permit the Grantee must post a performance bond or other form of surety, approved by the Development Services Center of the Planning Department, in accordance with its engineer's cost estimate. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability insurance, or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the city as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setback requirements as established by the City Traffic Engineer's Office. Grantee It is further expressly understood and agreed that the must submit, for review and approval, a survey of the Encroachment Area certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Utilities. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may 4 require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and, pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of the Encroachment Area the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and, if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, L.L.C., has caused this Agreement to be executed on its behalf by A.R. Gregor, Jr., Manager of BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited liability company. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager 5 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, L.L.C. a Virginia limited liability company A.R. Gregor, Sr., Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: this The foregoing instrument was day of Designee of the City Manager, BEACH. acknowledged before me , 20 , by , City Manager/Authorized on behalf of the CITY OF VIRGINIA He/She is personally known to me. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this RUTH HEDGES BEACH. day of , 20 , by SMITH, City Clerk, on behalf of the CITY OF VIRGINIA My Commission Expires: Notary Public 6 STATE OF ~/,' CITY/C0UNTY , to-wit: this The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me /'7~ day of ~/c~¢~ , 20 ~ , by A.R. Gregor, Jr., Manager, on behalf of BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability c~om~any. My Commission Expires: ~' b [~' ~,.~' APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY AT--TORN~EY 7 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ~ITY REAL ESTATE AGENT LAKE DRIVE 2.9' ,', 50' R/W ~, 2.9' OFF (M,B, 9, P. 55.) OFF I 76' ~----N. ,.,z6 ' .......... ,R4.' ! ~ ' L=J1.42 ~--1.7 ' ~../N ': ON :,~ ,~ R:20. O0' ': I ~ I ~ I -~/ ~ ~ ~ [ 2405 '~ :~ p ~} 2404 ] ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ 0.5 , , :~ -/ ~'~ (TYP) ~~ ~, :: ~ ~p,,,,,~,- .. x FENCING W/ ~ ~ o t~-] ':' ' ~ POST CAPS ~'. I ~ ~u, L ~ J 2400 4.9'~ '" x n~ ' R=20. On' ~/ ~.~ ~'.~ ~" w ~75. oo' _ .... [~ ~... ~, MACHE~ AyENUE ........~ 0.7' ~,..~ GPINs AFFECTE~~ ~ 50~W ~ ~ PUBLIC ~ 1570-40-9882-/%24°8241524°9 (M.B: 9, /P. 55)' SIDEWALK M.B. 286, P. 46 ~2412 VOOO24_addfenceREV. dwg SCALE:l" : 30' 07 JUNE, 2002 (rev 0~/25/05~ TMF/wcg FENCELINE ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT PLAN C°astalView(aPrivateBeachC°mmunity)~~~gg~A~-Gg"~g~[~gg~,Na Z~C. into City of Virginia Beach RfW = [~.,~,~o-~-~.~,~ FOR 500 CENmAL BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, L.L.C ~"'~ '~ VIRGINIA BEACH ~RGINIA (757)340-0828 (I) WEST SIDE OF PLEASURE HOUSE RD. LOOKING NORTH (2) FENCE ALONG LAKE DR. (3) FENCE ALONG MACHEN AVE. (4) FENCE LOOKING WEST ALONG MACHEN AVE. PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION LOCATION MAP /~ SHOWING ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED BY KEMPSVILLE CORNER ASSOCIATES INTO CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY 904 KEMPSVILLE ROAD SCALE: 1" = 200' PREPARED BY P/W ENG, CADD DEPT. JULY 7,2003 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment Request to maintain identification sign for Kempsville Corner Associates MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: Dr. Warren Sachs, Partner in Kempsville Corner Associates requests permission to maintain an existing free standing business identification sign located at 904 Kempsville Road · The sign was constructed in 1984 and placed approximately three (3) feet into City right-of-way due to an error by the applicant's surveyor. Dr. Sachs would like to retain their existing sign for the remaining useful life of the sign. At such time as the sign deteriorates or is damaged and needs to be replaced or repaired the applicant will remove the sign and construct a new sign onto their property. Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended denial of the encroachment. The sign is non conforming, exceeding allowable height and size per the City's Zoning Ordinance. Location of the sign on City property is due to an error made by the applicant's surveyor approximately twenty (20) years ago. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as requested by the applicants, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Deny the requested encroachment. Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat, and Picture. Recommended Action: Deny the requested ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works / Real JEstate~! ~ __ Planning / Zoning 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDiNANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT iNTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT KEMPSVILLE ROAD AND PROVIDENCE ROAD BY KEMPSV1LLE CORNER ASSOCIATES, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Kempsville Comer Associates desires to maintain an existing business identification sign in the City's right-of-way located at 904 Kempsville Road. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachment upon the City's right-of- way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAiNED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in § § 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Kempsville Comer Associates and its assigns and successors in title are authorized to maintain an existing temporary encroachment for a business identification sign in the City's fight-of-way as shown on the survey entitled: "PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS SURVEY OF: PLAT OF PROPERTY OF THE COPPERSMITH PARCEL LOCATED AT PROVIDENCE AND KEMPSVILLE ROADS", a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Kempsville Comer Associates (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as Kempsville Comer Associates and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of ,2004. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 CA-9078 gsalmons&empscomerassoc/ord. R-I PREPARED: 02.03.04 APPRQ3~ED AS TO CONTENTS (-// SIGNATURE ' DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL CITY A~TOR~qEY 2 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1~81 l(a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 27th day of October, 2003, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and CORNER ASSOCIATES, a Virginia general partnership, and its assigns and successors in title, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "NOW OR FORMERLY HELTON, JOHNNIE F. & MACIE REED", as shown on "R/W ACQUISITION PLAT KEMPSVILLE ROAD PHI FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH", as recorded in M.B. 148, at page 29 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being further designated and described as 904 Kempsville Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to maintain an existing identification sign, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in maintaining the existing Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as Kempsville Road / Providence Road, "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN: 1466-63-3836-0000 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain survey entitled: "PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS SURVEY OF: PLAT OF PROPERTY OF THE COPPERSMITH PARCEL LOCATED AT PROVIDENCE AND KEMPSVILLE ROADS MAP BOOK 77 PAGE 51 MAP BOOK 115 PAGE 47 MAP BOOK 121 PAGE 6 MAP BOOK 148 PAGE 29 MAP BOOK 279 PAGE 96." A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. 3 The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Kempsville Comer Associates has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name on its behalf by Warren E. Sachs, a general partner, with due authority to bind said partnership. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. 4 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (SEAL) ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk KEMPSylLLE CORNER ASSOCIATES ~ Vi~in~eneral Partnership Warren E. Sa'r-h~, General Partner STATE OF VIRGiNIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ _ day of , 200~, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: Notary Public 5 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ,20(4, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF V'[~.~&/A/[~l~ CITY/COUNTY OF ~J~J~9/.~/(-- --, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ ~ ~g~ , dayof ~' ~/ , 2003, by Warren E. Sachs, General Partner on behalf of Kempsville Comer Associates. My Commission Expires: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT ~ITY REAL ESTATE AGENT 6 LINE LI FIRE H Y~RA N T'~ PIN FOUND LINE TABLE I LENGTH BEARING 41.16' N64'42'54"E rSIGNAL POLE PROVIDENCE ROAD VARIABLE WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY ~ MAP BOOK 279 PAGE 96 ·., . /L~4.55 100.73' ~,~/ P.=-I 126.00' S 68'48'46" E "-SIGN PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS SURVEY OF: PLAT OF PROPERTY OF THE COPPERSMITH PARCEL LOCATED AT PROVIDENCE AND KEMPSWLLE ROADS MAP BOOK 77 PAGE 51 MAP BOOK 115 PAGE 47 MAP BOOK 121 PAGE 6 MAP BOOK 148 PAGE 29 MAP BOOK 279 PAGE 96 GPIN 1466 63 3836 NOW OR FORMERLY PHILIP D. & GLORIA M. NICOLAI MAP BOOK 147 PAGE 16- GPIN 1466 63 5810 184.42' N 68~8'46" W NOW OR FORMERLY CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH MAP BOOK 115 PAGE 47 GPIN 1466 63 3649 EXCLUSIVELY FOR: KEMPSVILLE CORNER ASSOCIATES SCALE 1"=40' Exhibit "A" WARREN AND ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS ,$933 Indian River Rood Wrginia Beach, ~rginlo 23456 757-471-0572 KEMPSVILLE CORNER ASSOCIATES ENCROACHMENT REQUEST SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KEMPSVILLE ROAD AND PROVIDENCE ROAD CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Additional Deputy Positions for the Sheriff's Office MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: As a Special Revenue Fund, the Sheriff's Office must work within the limits of those funds appropriated by City Council. Any additional funding the Sheriff's Office receives must come before City Council to be appropriated. Occasionally, that funding comes outside the City budget cycle. The State Compensation Board reimburses the Sheriff's Office for deputies' salaries and a portion of fringe benefits. Effective March 1st, 2004, the State Compensation Board allocated funding for 15 additional EC7 Emergency Deputy positions at a starting salary of $23,854. These 15 positions were provided in response to the Sheriff's request to a staffing study. Current average daily population exceeds 1300 inmates with a rated capacity of 590. Considerations: An increase of $132,891 in additional funding to be appropriated from the State Compensation Board to the Sheriff's Office FY 2003-2004 Budget for the purpose of funding the 15 EC7 Deputies positions and a portion of fringes. An increase of $130,000 will be transferred from the General Fund Reserve to the Sheriff's Office to provide the local match for the additional positions and related equipment. Public Information: Public information wilt be handled through the normal Council Agenda notification process. Alternatives: The City has committed to funding deputy salaries at 90% of the related police position, therefore funding for the salary and benefits supplement is provided by the City. There are no other sources of funding available to meet this request. Recommendations: Increase the Sheriff's FY2003-2004 Operating Budget by $262,891 to provide for the additional deputy positions and related equipment. Attachments: Ordinance Letter from the State Compensation Board Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Sheriff City Man ager:~~'9~ ~---- ,~i(~'hd~Z. H:\Policy and Administratl~If~GG\Ordinances & Resolutions Prepared for Council\9193.arf. doc FRANK DREW KENNETH W, THORSON W, J, KUCHARSKI BRUCE W. HAYNES Compensation Board ~ P.O, Box 710 Richmond, Virginia 23218-0710 Februaw 19,2004 The Honorable Paul J. Lanteigne Sheriff, City of Virginia Beach P.O. Box 6098 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9002 Dear Sheriff Lanteigne: The Compensation Board, at its February 18, 2004 meeting, approved, in accordance with the Virginia Department of Corrections staffing study of the Virginia Beach City Jail, dated January 9, 2004, 15 emergency correctional officer positions These positions are approved effective Marc~' 1, 2004 at a starting salary of $23,854. Upon completion of the 312-bed jail addition and upon funding of permanent positions by the General Assembly, the 15 approved emergency positions will become permanent positions and be incorporated in the 83 security positions recommended by the Department of Corrections to staff the new addition. Please call James W. Matthews if you have any questions. Sincerely, Frank Drew Chairman Executive Secretary C: James W. Matthews, Assistant Executive Secretary Pat B. McCoy, Senior. Fiscal Technician ~1 ~ ~ e%e~ Sheriff-approval emerg correctional officer positions FAX (804) 371-0235 ADMINISTRATION (804) 786-0786 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 kN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $132,891 IN ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM THE STATE COMPENSATION BOARD AND TRANSFER $130,000 FROM THE RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FY 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET TO HIRE 15 DEPUTIES WHEREAS, as a result of a Department of Corrections staffing study, the State Compensation Board has approved 15 additional deputy positions for the Virginia Beach Sheriff,s Department, beginning March 1, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia: 1. That $132,891 in estimated revenue from the State Compensation Board is hereby appropriated to the Sheriff's Department FY 2003-04 Operating Budget to fund 15 additional positions. 2. That $130,000 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies is hereby transferred to the Sheriff,s Department FY 2003-04 Operating Budget to fund the salary and benefit supplement for these additional 15 positions. 3. That the number of positions in the Sheriff,s Department is increased by 15.0 FTE. 4. That state revenue in the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget is increased by $132,891. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of _ , 2004. CA9193 H:~GG~orders\15 R2 March 12, 2004 Emergency Hire Deputies.ord.doc RESOLUTIONS Resolution to ENDORSE a proposed transportation enhancement project to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for steel-backed timber guardrails (Phase I) and ACKNOWLEDGE the requirement for a local match. Resolutions REFERRING to the Plarming Commission a. Proposed amendments to §3 250, 251,252 and 253 of the City Zoning (CZO) to REPEAL the Open Space Promotion option. DEFERRED: MARCH 2, 2004 b. Alternate Version: Proposed amendments to §§ 251,252 and 253 and 506 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) to allow Open Space Promotion option. c. AMEND and REAFFIRM Interim Guidelines governing applications for land use development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). DEFERRED: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Resolutions re Open Air Cafes: a. RENEW existing franchises (9) b. GRANT new franchises (2) ESTABLISH a pilot program for open air cafes on Atlantic Avenue between 20th and 23rd Streets Resolutions REQUESTING the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to: a. ACCEPT 40.18 lane miles of additional streets b. ACCEPT corrections and deletions to the revised road inventory for urban maintenance ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Resolution to Endorse a Proposed Transportation Enhancement Project for Various Replacement or Installation of Steel-backed Timber Guardrail (Phase I). March 23, 2004 · Background: The Federal Transportation Enhancement Program is a type of funding (80% federal, 20% match) that offers an opportunity for unique and creative actions to integrate transportation facilities into communities and the natural environment. Approximately $18.5 million may be available for statewide Enhancement projects during FY 2003-2004. These funds are awarded on a competitive basis by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and do not count toward the City's urban allocation. The Metropolitan Planning Organization endorsed the City's proposed transportation enhancement project on February 18, 2004. · Considerations: The grant application is for a project to replace or install steel-backed timber guardrail at various locations. These are proposed as aesthetic enhancement projects for these locations at or near the gateways for the Municipal Center and Princess Anne Commons areas. These steel-backed timber guardrails cost considerably more than normal steel guardrails, and as such are reserved for utilization in special treatment areas or locations. During Phase I, 300 feet of new steel-backed timber guardrail will be installed with the Elbow Road Extended Phase IIA project (CIP 2-065) and approximately 1,100 feet of galvanized steel guardrai~ will be replaced with steel-backed timber guardrail at Dozier's Bridge and canoe launch facility adjacent to West Neck Creek. During Phase II, new steel-backed timber guardrail will be installed with the Indian River Road Phase VII project (CIP 2-256) and the Elbow Road Extended Phase II project (CIP 2-152). The total cost of Phase I is $95,300. The 20 percent local match of $19,060 will be programmed from CIP 2-065 Elbow Road Extended Phase JlA and CIP 2-285 Traffic Safety Improvements. · Public Information: The item will be publicized through the normal Council Agenda process, and a public hearing is being advertised. · Alternatives: Do not endorse the proposed transportation enhancement project, in which case the existing galvanized steel guardrail will remain at Dozier's Bridge and canoe launch and corten (weathered) steel guardrail will be installed on the Elbow Road Extended Phase IIA project (CIP 2-065). I Recommendations: The Council must endorse this project by resolution to qualify for possible funding approval. · Attachments: Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Ag.enc,y: Public Works / Engineering,,~,,','~'".'.~. City Manager:(~~ ~ ~j.z~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE A PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FOR VARIOUS REPLACEMENT OR INSTALLATION OF STEEL-BACKED TIMBER GUARDRAIL (PHASE I) WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, along with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, has announced the availability of Transportation Enhancement Funds for qualified projects; WHEREAS, approximately Eighteen and One-Half Million Dollars ($18.5 Million) may be available to Virginia localities for transportation enhancement projects during the 2003-2004 Fiscal Year; WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that projects funded by this program require a local match, either in-kind or cash, of twenty percent (20%); WHEREAS, the City Council has been further advised and acknowledges that in the event the City elects to cancel a project funded by this program prior to its completion, the City shall be required to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for funds expended for such project; WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Planning Organization has endorsed the City's proposed transportation enhancement project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, an endorsement resolution must be received from the City Council before the Virginia Department of 26 Transportation will program an enhancement project in the 27 applicant's locality; 28 WHEREAS, the City Council 29 transportation enhancement projects as a 30 transportation into our community and natural 3] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 32 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 33 That the City Council hereby endorses to the Commonwealth 34 Transportation Board the City's proposed transportation enhancement 35 project, Various Replacement or Installation of Steel-Backed Timber 36 Guardrail (Phase I), and acknowledges the requirement for a local 37 match. recognizes the importance of way of integrating environment. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia 39 Virginia, on the day of , 2004 . 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Beach, CA9146 H:~GGkOrdres\Guardrail grant.Res.wpd R2 March 10, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department o~P~-:W~r'ks APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney' 2 MAYOR OBERNDORF: questions? March 2, 2004 Motion by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Wood and Mrs. Wilson. Are we ready for the CITY CLEP. K: nay Vote on J-3. By a Vote of 10 to 0 you have approved the Items with the exception of Mrs. McClanan's 4 March 2, 2004 Committee's letter that they are not sure. COUNCILMAN SC~IDT: MAYOR OBERNDORF: Otherwise, consent? Yeah, I guess so. If everybody else comfortable. feels VICE MAYOR JONES: We're just deferring it to the Planning Comraission. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Right. sir. They are going to take it up, yes, MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. FORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: Under Resolutions, Item K-2, Resolutions referring to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance, Item A is for consent approval Paragraph 401 re bulk storage of earthen minerals a conditional use in AG-1 and AG-2, Agricultural Zoning Districts. Consent to defer until March 23rd, Item B, 251, 252 and 253 to repeal the Open Space moved, Madam Mayor. which is Paragraph 250, Promotion option. So as MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCILMAN WOOD: Is there a second? Second. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Second. March 2, 2004 INFORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: Okay. Resolutions. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Ail right. Resolutions. Number 2, the Resolution referring to the Planning Commission the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinances, re: The bulk storage of earthen minerals and as a conditional use in AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Zoning Districts. VICE MAYOR JONES: MAYOR OBERNDORF: VICE MAYOR JONES: MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Is that it? Is that deferred? The second one is going to be deferred. Item B, in other words. The other one about bulk storage -- A. COUNCILM~NREEVE: MAYOR OBERNDORF: B is deferred, right? Yes. CITY MANAGER: MAYOR OBERNDORF: VICE MAYOR JONES: Until the 23rd. I'm talking about A right to be a no vote on that. Item A? now. I would like MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yeah, based on the Agricultural Advisory Virginia Beach City Council March 2, 2004 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood CITY~a_NAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: Mayor At-Large Bayside District 4 Kempsville District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach Princess At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven District 6 Anne - District 7 District 5 James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Resolution to repeal the Open Space Promotion Option Item V-K. 2b. - 38 - RESOLUTIONS ITEM # 52309 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED, until the City Council Session of March 23, 2004: Resolution referring to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO): b. 3~3~ 250, 251, 252 and 253 to repeal the Open Space Promotion option. Voting: 10-0 (By Consen0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron .4. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members .4bsent: Richard .4. Maddox March 2, 2004 ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Resolution Referring To The Planning Commission Proposed Amendments To The City Zoning Ordinance Repealing The Open Space Promotion Option March 23, 2004 · Background: In 2002, the General Assembly enacted amendments to the Virginia Code requiring localities that provide for clustering of single-family dwellings pursuant to a conditional use permit or rezoning to amend their zoning ordinances or subdivision regulations by July 1, 2004, so as to allow clustering as a matter of right. Because the City Zoning Ordinance contains the Open Space Promotion Option (CZO Sections 250 - 253 and 506), under which clustering of single-family dwellings is allowed pursuant to a conditional use permit, the legislation applies to the City. As a result of the legislation, the City must either: (1) eliminate the Open Space Promotion Option (such that the 2002 legislation would not apply); or (2) allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right. This Resolution would refer to Planning Commission amendments which would accomplish # (1) (i.e., repeal of the Open Space Promotion Option). An "Alternative Resolution" with accompanying amendments to accomplish # (2) (allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right) is also being brought forward to the City Council at this time. · Considerations: The proposed Resolution refers to the Planning Commission proposed amendments implementing # (1) (repeal of the Open Space Promotion Option). Much the same development permitted under the current Open Space Promotion Option, however, could be accomplished by means of conditional zoning proffers, even though the City Zoning Ordinance would no longer contain any express provisions by which this may be done. Rather than filing an application for a conditional use permit under the Open Space Promotion, an applicant wishing to accomplish a similar result would simply need to file a conditional zoning application and proffer the conditions by which this is to be accomplished, rather than doing so under a conditional use permit. By not allowing clustering as a matter of right, the City will retain a much higher degree of control over the result. · Public Information: The amendments themselves would be the subject of advertised public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Resolution requires no special form of advertising. · Alternatives: As explained in the Background section, the City may either entirely repeal the Open Space Promotion Option or allow it as a matter of right. A Resolution referring to the Planning Commission amendments to allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right is being presented to the City Council concurrently with this Resolution. The City Council should adopt only one of the two Resolutions. · Recommendations: it is recommended that this Resolution (repeal of the Open Space Promotion Option) be adopted, and that the other Resolution (to allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right) not be adopted. · Attachments: Proposed City Zoning Ordinance Amendments Repealing the Open Space Promotion Option Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ~ 1~.._ 1 2 3 4 5 6 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE REPEALING THE OPEN SPACE PROMOTION OPTION 7 WHEREAS, the public necessity, 8 and good zoning practice so require; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED convenience, general welfare 9 BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 10 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 11 That there are hereby referred to the Planning Commission, 12 for its consideration and recommendation, proposed amendments to 13 the City Zoning Ordinance repealing Sections 250, 251, 252, 253, 14 and 506 thereof, pertaining to the Open Space Promotion Option. 15 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach 16 on this __ day of _, 2004. CA-9103 Wmm[ openspacepromoopt ionres, doc R-2 March 3, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning~ ~partment APPROVED ,AS T~O LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS PERTAINING SPACE PROMOTION OPTION Sections Repealed: City Zoning 250, 251, 252, 253, and 506 CITY ZONING TO THE OPEN Ordinance BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 250, 251, Ordinance are hereby repealed, as follows: ~- ~=~ Legislative intent CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 252, 253, and 506 of the City Zoning Reserved. intent of this ~.~ .... ~v~,,,a..~ option is to encourage tho "~ ^-' ' ~ · .... $ as well as to ..... on cf ~-~lr~..mental amen4~ ....... usa of land and public and private facilities by under apprcprzatc ~umst ..... $ a ...... flexib!c means ..... entmal d ..... ~,,,~nt than is ~- ' ~ct by lot restrictions In view of · ~ ........... ages, it is thc ....... t of thic cptmon to pre,mete thc preservation of opcn space lot size reductions without density variation. Proccdur=l rcqulrc~cnt~. Initiation. k~.y property c~,~er may file with thc plannin~ an app!icaticn for an cpcn space promotion project. The application shall be accompanied by a plan chewing: ~i) Current zoning(s) of the tract invc!vcd. (2) Location and dimensions of the tract. ugh director 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 (2) Thc general spaces. size and loc .... n of ~'~-~ ~ ...... C3~1 ..... ~ ai.~.d ~i~,~,~d ......... UrQS and cpcn ~=~ The ~'~ +~ ' C ..... a~ szne and lecation c~ prcposed lot~ and ~pcn spaces and all ~--~ ~-- ~ ....e. ...... ealeul ...... $ related tc (~) A ..... ~ ........ n and v~h ...... traffic e' ...... m .... n relatinG to topography, acccss, ~iGnifieant envircnmcntal ...... cs, and surrounding zoning and land ~2) A plan for the -~ ............... e of thc open spaces= The planning director shall .... ~ the application and shall ...... p~rt ....... city agencies to dc ...... ~n~ whether thc proposal ...... rms to the general purpose and '~ · ....... of thc cpcn ~.~mc ..... o~ ...... any applicable regulations that have bec~ ~ted, and the r ~-~ c~ ........... s of this ^~ .... ~ completion o£ such review, if the director shall ~ ..... ............ that any proposal in the application does not meet thc ..... ~ ~ ....... ents of thms ordinance, ~c shall reject the ~ ' ~atlon and rct~rn it .......... , with it~ accompanying fas, to the a~..~ant. If thc application docs meeb ~m^ .c~ .......... ts of this ~d~ ....... , thc d ..... oz shall transmit all the ...... ngs and ......... endatlons of the sity a g ..... es to the 53 5~ 55 56 57 58 59 (b) Ail citI ....... ~ ......... hal (c) Cvmpl ..... e with .... ' r~Iromcnts. ~[o shall ~^ 9r ...... ~ ..... ~ upon a ........ ~ by thc -~ ....... ents set forth in this crdinano~ and that thc proposal will m .... nc more ~ ..... ~ .... se effect cn the ......... of persons ~z .... ~ or working '~ ~.,e area, 61 and will bc n~ ,,more injurious, ^ ' · ~ ~conomzcally or to 63 ...... ~ ...... t ...... thc district. Among .......... d in this ..... ' ~o ...... tmon are t ...... flow and ...... 65 to and ~ ~ .... .... u ..... n ....... n thc .... 66 utilities; ~rcc ..... g buffering; = .......... h~ open spaces; ~o, .......... hlp to ......... ~' .... ~P .............. a .... and o ..... appropriate matters. 70 (d) ~ ~-f~ of approval. The plan as approved t 71 thc ~nd ...... o ~ r~ ;~ ' a .... str ....... s mmpcsed by city council and the 72 prcvisicn~ of this ~' . , ~zclc shall constitute thc zoning rcquzrcmcntu 73 of thc tract ~m~ ~.ed ~-~ ' ~..~ ~^ ..... ~ ...... p .... shall aloe =nclude ~ lo ..... n and 74 ...... ~.c ...... al uccc and facilities of thc opsn space. 75 ~sc or facility shall ~ ~ .... ~hc ......... d on open space except 76 a recreational nature. Thc c~.~er ma},, at any time, ~ ....... 3 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ~^ trast as a '.'~ ~ ..... 1..~ ........... z~g zoning m~' ..... ioL (e) If thc ..... ~- ~ ....... ns of this -~ ~ ..... ~ ..... it ..... Lz arc net that ten (~, ~le h ...... ~ is held. ........ part of ~m then sit} ..... ~un ..... ~ay revoke thc approval, ~ ...... tc.~ ~' is g~vcn to thc applicant and Sac. 252. Chnngem in approved plans. ...... gee In approved ~ ...... ~ ~irecter ~ .... ~p1 ...... n by ~m~ owner, R,,~ only upon a ..... ~n~ that .... ~ ~ ........... ~ arc in ..... m with all ..... · .... thc change is ....... ~ ~ ..... d, and ~m~ ~ ............... and ......... ~ ~m~ approve~ plan in effect at the time of thc proposed · ~ .... r than as ~1 ..... ~ by a now cpcn space ...... '~ a~l~ , ............ts. shall not ~ ~ to thc area ~mmcdmately ~nvclved in thc proposed ~ .... t.~. rcq-aircmcntz in general. Reserved. Ap~abzlzt} . Thc span space promotion option in thc R ~0 ~ ..... ......... tlal ...... ~.,~nt The ........... um arca to under thc open space promotion op ..... shall be ~ ...... 4 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 ...... ~ ..... it ...... thc "-~-~--' ~ ' .... ght, slgn and off ..... ..... 1 be the same au ..... let . (o) Opcn spats -~" ....... ~^- ........ c ............. e shall ~ ~n .......... cl ~u~ ~rovicion for ~ ~.4 ............ (1) ~ ....... ~ . ....... ~ ..... open ..... If the ~lie .... has ..~ plan tu (2) shall bc ..... 4.._ tho city in srdor tu thc city ~ ..... 1 aS~U~Q imprsvcmants on thc prcpcrty, kc ~ ...... In this case, all ....... ~ ' ' ' ~ ..... bllltlCs for ~' .... ~ ..... cpen ..... If thc applicant plans tc crcct ................. e othcr im ......... ,~ ........... $ to tho opcn ~ ......... h, in the ~ ..... n of cit~ ....... ' ...... 11, arc ..... ant~al to encourage ..... ~ .... ~ ........ by h ......... ~ ........ n or ~he~ similar agsnt, thcn city council ma}. ~-- t ............. r o£ and assumption of all ~ responsibilities to such agcnt, ~ .... ~ ~ .... ded that sufficient nco of -~ ....... c~zlzt= on the part of the ...... ~ ....... ed to city council, and ~'-~ ........ ~ .... dod 5 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 that nc more than fifty ,~) ..... ~- cf thc ~"''~'~'~ permits for the prcjcet shall be i .... d b ..... the ~v~s .... re ....... 1 facilities are cc~ ~ · -~t~ and marc ..... lo ~ use by ~ ~ ~ prcvide a .~i~i ....... of fz .... n (15) ~rccnt cf tkc total traot acreage as cpcn ~, ...... ng st ..... and ~'-'~ ~ .... ~m areas. All cpcn space areas shall be permanently ~-~= la- ~ ................. 1 s~e, or ...... al areas. No span ~aee ska!! bu ~ except in its ...... al state or far ...... ' ......... n~t} recreational ...... d uses. ~'~ cpcn space skall be part of apl ..... ~ ' lot, ~ .... ' ~ '~ . ..... nd~ or ...... ~ pcrt~cn cf any f .... ~la~.., bcty of water, ,..~ ~ cn .... ~ .... b~ .... .......... d a ~zo or private utility c .... ~mc..~ whose total ....... 1~ greater than twenty (20) feet ~ ........... ........... enan~ cr rccroationa! purpcscs~ ,~ ....... e cpcn spaoe was legally platted as part of .... dentlal lot prior to April 18, ~noo .... , private p~a .... heaL ..... o shall be ~-- ..... oorz on thc ~ ' .... ~ ..... nt~al lot. Provided, kcwever, that any pier or ~- ~n ..... ted shall not ....... u~ public passage through thc open space. Sac. 505. Span space prsmotisn. Thc ¢ ~ ' ~oll~w~n~ ohart lists the r ,,~ · ...... n thc R 40 ............ rial D~ ~ ¢~ ,,,1 .......~ lot area, ,..~ yar~ .... .... ~e fa ..... z dwellings ~ ................. tlonal use 150 permit. 151 (a) Special ~ .... ~ ~ulrcmento for single family ......... ~ ...... r an open space ~ ....... lC.. usc pcrmit~ 153 154 155 156 -(1) 157 158 i59 (2) 160 161 162 163 (3) 164 i65 166 167 168 169 (E) 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 (6) 178 179 180 181 182 (7) 183 184 185 186 {8) 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 R-40 ................ area iA square feet: 2d,O00 Hinimum lot area ..... d~ water, marsh Hinimum lot width feat: front yard Residential Districts R-30 R-20 R~15 R 10 18,000 12,000 9,000 7,500 R 7.5 24,000 18,000 12,000 9,000 7,500 r =~ 100 100 100 7E 7~ 60 EO EO 30 30 30 20 .......... m front .... ~ ...... k when ad]accnt way created in accord anco with section 4.1 (m) Ordinance in feet: 1~ lg 10 10 =~ 8 30 30 30 30 30 30 Minimum side in fact: .......... m aide yard setback adjacent to a street in feet: gE 3g 3g 35 Minimum side yard setback when adjacent to a 40 foot right of way created in accord anco with ccction i.l(m) of the Su~divlsio.~ Ordinance in feet: 7 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 ........ except in feet: 20 20 20 20 20 ..... l .......rear yard .......... only 1E 1E 10 10 10 1u (!i) ..... 4 .... lot coverage ~" ~ ........ 2g 2E 30 30 3~ 3b ( ~1 ~..~ .... ~c~gity units per acre: 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.2g 2.0 3.b COMMENT In 2002, the General Assembly enacted amendments to the Virginia Code requiring any locality that provides for clustering of single-family dwellings and preservation of open space upon approval of a conditional use permit or rezoning to amend its zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations by July 1, 2004, so as to allow clustering as a matter of right. Because the City Zoning Ordinance contains the Open Space Promotion Option (CZO Sections 250 - 253), under which clustering of single-family dwellings is allowed pursuant to a conditional use permit, the legislation applies to the City. For that reason, the City must either: (1) allow single-family dwellings to be clustered as a matter of right; or (2) eliminate the Open Space Promotion Option (such that the 2002 legislation would not apply). The proposed amendments implement the second alternative by repealing the Open Space Promotion Option. Much the same result, however, could be accomplished by means of conditional zoning proffers, even though the City Zoning Ordinance would no longer contain any express provisions by which this may be done. Rather than filing an application for a conditional use permit under the Open Space Promotion, an applicant wishing to accomplish a similar result would simply need to file a conditional zoning application and proffer the conditions by which this is to be accomplished, rather than doing so under a conditional use permit. By not allowing clustering as a matter of right, the City will retain a much higher degree of control over the result. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this __ day of 2004. CA-9102 wmm~openspacepromoordin, doc R-2 March 4, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Planning ~ar tment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFEICIENCY~~ ,~~: City Attorneys (~ffice ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Resolution Referring To The Planning Commission Proposed Amendments To Sections 251,252, 253 And 506 Of The City Zoning Ordinance, Pertaining To The Open Space Promotion Option [Alternative Version_). March 23, 2004 · Background: In 2002, the General Assembly enacted amendments to the Virginia Code requiring localities that provide for clustering of single-family dwellings pursuant to a conditional use permit or rezoning to amend their zoning ordinances or subdivision regulations by July 1, 2004, so as to allow clustering as a matter of right. Because the City Zoning Ordinance contains the Open Space Promotion Option (CZO Sections 250 - 253 and 506), under which clustering of single-family dwellings is allowed pursuant to a conditional use permit, the legislation applies to the City. As a result of the legislation, the City must either: (1) repeal the Open Space Promotion Option (such that the 2002 legislation would not apply; or (2) allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right. This Resolution (marked "Alternative Resolution") would refer to the Planning Commission amendments which would accomplish # (2) (i.e., allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right). A different Resolution referring to the Planning Commission amendments to accomplish # (1) (i.e., repeal of the Open Space Promotion Option) is also being brought forward to the City Council at this time. · Considerations: The proposed Resolution refers to the Planning Commission proposed amendments which would allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right. The amendments accomplish this by essentially transferring approval authority from the City Council to the Planning Director, but as a ministerial, rather than discretionary, function. Thus, if an application under the Open Space Promotion Option meets all of the requirements of the ordinance, the Planning Director would be required to approve it. · Public Information: The amendments themselves would be the subject of advertised public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Resolution requires no special form of advertising. · Alternatives: As explained in the Background section, the City may either entirely repeal the Open Space Promotion Option or allow it as a matter of right. A Resolution referring to the Planning Commission CZO amendments which would repeal the Open Space Promotion Option is being presented to the City Council concurrently with this Resolution. The City Council should adopt only one of the two Resolutions. · Recommendations: The Planning Department recommends that this Resolution not be adopted, and that the Resolution which refers amendments repealing the Open Space Promotion Option be adopted instead. · Attachments: Proposed City Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow the Open Space Promotion Option as a matter of right. Recommended Action: Decline to adopt Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~-="O ~-~ , ~~ ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 251, 252, 253 AND 506 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO THE OPEN SPACE PROMOTION OPTION WHEREAS, the public and good zoning practice NOW, THEREFORE, BE necessity, so require; IT RESOLVED 8 9 10 convenience, general welfare 15 pertaining BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 11 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 That there are hereby referred to the 13 for its consideration and recommendation, 14 Sections 251, 252, 253 and 506 of the to the Open Space Promotion Option. COMMENT: Planning Commission, proposed amendments to City Zoning Ordinance, The Resolution refers to the Planning Commislon proposed City Zoning Ordinance amendments which would essentially transfer the authority to approve open space promotion applications from the City Council to the Planning Director. This Resolution and its corresponding CZO amendments consititute an alternative to the resolution and ordinance which would entirely repeal the Open Space Promotion Option as a conditional use. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach 26 on this day of 2004. CA-9159 OID~ orders ~proposed[ openspaceAmendres, doc March 8, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Plannin~epartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office ALTERNATIVE VERSION 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO PROMOTION OPTION ZONING ORDINANCE THE OPEN SPACE Sections Amended: City Zoning Sections 251, 252, 253 and 506 Ordinance BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 251, 252, 253 and 506 of the City Zoning Ordinance be, and are hereby amended, to read as follows: E. OPEN SPACE PROMOTION OPTION Sec. 250. Legislative intent. The intent of this development option is to encourage the preservation of environmental amenities as well as to provide for a more efficient use of land and public and private facilities by allowing under appropriate circumstances a more flexible means of residential development than is otherwise permissible under lot-by-lot restrictions. In view of these advantages, it is the intent of this option to promote the preservation of open space through lot size reductions without density variation. COMMENT This section appears for reference purposes only. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Sec. 251. director Procedural requirements. Initiation. Any property owner may file with the planning an application for an open space promotion project. The application shall be accompanied by a plan showing: (1) Current zoning(s) of the tract involved. (2) Location and dimensions of the tract. (3) The general size and location of existing and proposed structures. (4) The existing and proposed use of structures and open spaces. (5) The calculated size and location of proposed lots and open spaces and all other calculations related to these. (6) A general pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation plan. (7) Information relating to topography, access, significant environmental features, and surrounding zoning and land use features. (8) A plan for the maintenance of the open spaces. The planning director shall study the application and shall confer with pertinent city agencies to determine whether the proposal conforms to the general purpose and intent of the open space promotion option, any applicable regulations that have been adopted, and the requirements of this ordinance. Upon completion of such review, if the director shall determine that any proposal in 49 the application does not meet the requirements of this ordinance, 50 he shall reject the application and return it forthwith, with its 51 accompanying fee, to the applicant. If the application does meet 52 the requirements of this ordinance, the director shall ...... m~t all 53 the f ....... g~ ~ ........ ~ ~ .................. a ...... of the city agcnclcs to thc 54 ~ ~ ' ..... m ....... approve the application, with or without 55 aPpropriate conditions intended to mitigate any potential advers~ 56 effects of the proposed development. 57 J~ All fees, ~4-~ by thc ....... by 58 ~ ........ ....... 1 ..... ~ ~ ~ ........... s shall be as zn tkc ease 60 -(e) (b) Compliance with requirements. No application 61 approval shall be granted except upon a finding by the e&~-y--ee~eei& 62 planning director that the proposal conforms to the requirements 63 set forth in this ordinance and that the proposal will have no more 64 adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons living 65 or working in the area, and will be no more injurious, economically 66 or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area 67 than would any proposal generally permitted in the district. Among 68 matters to be considered in this connection are traffic flow and 69 control; access to and circulation within the property; refuse and 70 service areas; utilities; screening and buffering; yards and other 71 open spaces; location of structures; location of proposed open 3 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 spaces and recreational uses; relationship to surrounding property; and method of open space maintenance and other appropriate matters. (d) (c) Effect of approval. The plan as approved~ together with the conditions and restrictions imposed by ~ the planning director and the provisions of this article~ shall constitute the zoning requirements applicable to of the tract property. The approved plan shall also include the location and nature of recreational uses and facilities of the open space. No use or facility shall be allowed on the open space except those of a recreational nature. The owner may, at any time, however, develop the tract property as a whole by utilizing the underlying zoning district requirements. (e) (d) If the provisions of this ordinance or the conditions or restrictions imposed by ~ the planninq director as part of the plan approval are not met, then eity ....... 1 the planning director may revoke the approval,-~ that ~^~ (10) ~ .... , ' .... **~lce ~ ~ivan to thc ~ ...... t and a ~ ............. ~ held. (e) Any application, approval may be appealed by the property owner or applicant city council. action by the planning director in denying a~ imposing conditions of approval or revoking a~ to th~ 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 COMMENT The amendments essentially transfer the functions of the City Council under this section to the Planning Director and provide that decisions of the Planning Director may be applealed to the City Council by the property owner or applicant. Sec. 252. Changes in approved plans. Changes in approved plans may be permitted by the planning director ........ ~- b} *~ ly ........... on upon a finding that such changes ~ comply with all ..... ~*~- requirements in effect at the time the change is requested, and the general intent and purpose of the approved plan in ~=- .... et at thu ....................... Further, the minimum land area requirements set forth hereinafter shall not apply to the area immediately involved in the proposed amendment. COMMENT The amendments are essentially stylistic in nature and do not significantly change the substance of this section. Sec. 253. Open space promotion requirements in general. (a) Applicability. The open space promotion option ~-~ ~ ...... e shall be allowed on property locate~d in the R-40 through R-7.5 Residential Districts only. (b) Minimum area of development. The minimum area to be developed under the open space promotion option shall be twenty (20) acres. 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 (c) Use regulations. The uses and structures permitted are those permitted in the underlying zoning district. (d) Height, sign and off-street parking regulations. Height, sign and off-street parking regulations shall be the same as required in the underlying zoning district. {e) Open space maintenance. There shall be an assurance of adequate provision for the maintenance of open space in each case, whether the open space is unimproved or improved. (1) Unimproved open space. If the applicant has no plan to erect a substantial recreational structure or other improvements on the property, he shall be required to dedicate the entire open space to the city in order to utilize this option. In this case, the city shall assume (2) all responsibilities for maintenance. Improved open space. If the applicant plans to erect recreational structure or make other open space which, in the opinion of sufficiently substantial to a improvements to the city council, are encourage responsible property maintenance by a homeowners association or other similar agent, ~ -~- ......... ~ council the planninq director may allow transfer of ownership and assumption of all maintenance responsibilities to such agent, provided that sufficient evidence of maintenance capability on the part of the agent is presented to ' ' planning 6 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 director, and further provided that no more than fifty (50) percent of the building permits for the project shall be issued before the proposed recreational facilities are completed and made available for use by the residents. (f) Required open space. Each open space promotion plan shall provide a minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the total tract acreage as open space, excluding open space areas shall be park, recreational space, or natural areas. used except in its natural state or for related uses. streets and parking areas. Ail permanently maintained as landscaped No open space shall be community-recreational No open space shall be part of a platted residential lot, floodway portion of any floodplain, body of water, wetlands or be encumbered by a public or private utility easement whose total width is greater than twenty (20) feet. No structure shall be erected except for maintenance or recreational purposes. (g) Where open space was legally platted as part of a residential lot prior to April 18, 1988, private piers and boat docks shall be allowed as accessory uses on the residential lot=--l Prcvidcd provided, however, that any pier or dock constructed shall not impede or obstruct public passage through the open space. COMMENT The proposed amendments trans~r responsibility mr the ~nctions set ~rth in the section ~om the City Council to the Planning Director. 7 173 174 175 176 177 178 ARTICLE 5. RESIDENTAL DISTRICTS. Sec. 506. Open space promotion. 179 The following chart lists the requirements 180 through R-7.5 Residential Districts for minimum 181 yard spacing and maximum lot coverage 182 developed under 183 pcrmit option. 184 (a) 185 dwellings within the R-40 lot area, width, for single-family dwellings a valid the open space promotion ' 186 187 188 189 (1} 190 191 192 (2) 193 194 195 196 (3) 197 198 199 (4) 200 201 202 (5) 203 204 205 206 207 2O8 209 210 (6) 211 212 213 214 Special dimensional requirements for single-family under an the open space promotion ~ option: Minimum lot area in square feet: Minimum lot area outside water, marsh or wetlands: Minimum lot width in feet: Minimum front yard setback in feet: Minimum front yard setback when adjacent to a 40-foot right-of- way created in accord- ance with section 4.1(m) of the Subdivision Ordinance in feet: Minimum side yard setback except when adjacent to a street in feet: Residential Districts R 40 R-30 R-20 R-15 R 10 R-7.5 24,000 18,000 12,000 9,000 7,500 6,500 24,000 18,000 12,000 9,000 7,500 6,500 100 100 100 75 75 60 50 50 30 30 30 30 55 55 35 35 35 35 15 15 10 10 5&lO 8 8 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 25O {7) (8) (9) (10) Minimum side yard setback adjacent to a street in feet: Minimum side yard setback when adjacent to a 40-foot right-of way created in accord- ance with section 4.1(m) of the Subdivision Ordinance in feet: Minimum rear yard setback except for accessory structures, in feet: Minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures only in feet: 30 30 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 10 10 10 10 (ii) (i2) Maximum lot coverage in percent: 25 25 30 30 35 35 Maximum density in units per acre: 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.25 3.0 3.5 COMMENT The amendments delete all references to conditional use permits for the open space promotion option. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this __ day of 2004. CA-9160 OID~ordres ~proposed~openspaceAmendord. doc R-1 March 9, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Planning Department 9 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIE~NC,~,: ~ , / City Attorney's 6ffice 10 all in one motion. February 24, 2004 MAYOR OBERNDORF: Can we appoint him all in one motion? Okay. COUNCILMAN REEVE: I would like to make a motion that we defer the reconsideration of the Guidelines until March 23rd and that we appoint Captain Keeley as a member of the Oceana Task Force. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: By a vote of 10 to 0 you have deferred March 23rd the AICUZ Guidelines and appointed Captain Keeley to the Task Force. until 11 CITY CLERK: February 24, 2004 That's what I had. CITY ATTORNEY: That's what I thought you were saying. just wanted to clarify the motion. I MAYOR OBERNDORF: Excuse me. Mr. Villanueva. COUNCILMAN VILI_J%NUEVA: It would be helpful to get some remarks from the Navy to see if they are interested in being part of this Task Force. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Admiral Turcotte. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Point well-taken. MAYOR OBERNDORF: We got a thumbs-up. ADMIRAL TD-RCOTTE: Absolutely. Madam Mayor and City Council, thanks again for offering the opportunity to say a few words. Yes, we would enjoin the opportunity to have Captain Keeley participate as the Navy's sponsor to represent the United States Navy in these Chambers and in the Task Force and any and all mechanisms that we dictate after that. I also would like to thank you as I am seeing a whole lot of things going on that haven't been going on for quite some time. A lot of good telephone calls, a lot of good conversations with most of you here, a lot of smiling faces -- a lot of things that we haven't seen in a while. That's good. Thank you for that. And, again, the Navy would love to participate in this Task Force. COUNCILI~a.N P~EEVE: Thank you, Admiral. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, we can have two separate motions. You can defer your thing and then if you would make a motion that we include Captain Keeley on the Task Force. COUNCILMAN I~EEVE: If it's okay with Council, I will do it 10 COUNCILMAN REEVE: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR OBERNDORF: VICE MAYOR JONES: COUNCILM3%N REEVE: CITY ATTOBREY: MAYOR OBERNDORF: February 24, 2004 Yes, separately. I was just answering Louis' question. I didn't know if you were making it one motion. No, not for me. We're going to do that separately I think. Yeah. And then the other item was the appointment of Captain Keeley to the Oceana Task Force. talking about is to see adopted by the Council, That's what I wanted. When we go back to the Task Force, what I think Mr. Bourdon is if they are going to recommend that this be the Amendment. I was also saying I would like it to be considered by the Task Force at that time to have a representative of the Navy sit on the Task Force. CITY ATTO~NEY: Mayor, if I can, just for clarification. As I understand what Mr. Reeve is saying, wants to reconvene the Task Force as soon as possible. he Council, you're saying after the Task Force reconvenes and discusses whether they want Captain Keeley on the Task Force or not, then to come back and do the appointment by Council? I am just unclear. MAYOR OBEBAIDORF: Okay. I would like to have it be able to be done now, tonight. CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR OBERNDORF: That's what I thought you were The Council is approving of it. saying. 9 February 24, 2004 ground. But, also understanding the Navy's concerns where these concerns lie, both for present and future residents. I think it would be a wise choice to bring the Navy closer to the mix. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Then, I would just like to add that verbiage to your motion that we will also consider appointing Captain Keeley or someone from the Base that's appropriate to sit on that Task Force, because we have the development community represented and I think the Navy's industry needs to be represented also. COUNCILMAN REEVE: MAYOR OBERNDORF: know. I agree. In fact, I was hoping to reconvene the Task Force at its earliest convenience. Great and we'll get together an Agenda prior to meeting, so that everybody will COUNCILMAN REEVE: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. There's a motion and a second to defer this until when? COUNCILMAN REEVE: March 23rd. MAYOR OBERNDORF: CITY ATTORNEY: March 23rd. Any other discussion? ready for the question? Madam Mayor. Are we MAYOR OBE~NDORF: CITY ATTORNEY: but, I also heard MAYOR OBERNDORF: Oh, excuse me. Mr. Lilley. I'm not totally clear on the motion. The motion was to defer this item, which is K-2; it's to also defer L-5 until the 23rd? I don't know. February 24, 2004 Task Force and with our Navy partners to go through them in more detail to even look at specific properties and to get an understanding. I think we all have a better understanding on the Reid Property and the flight tracks that exist in that section of the City of their ongoing concerns for both present and future residents. So, I would like to make a motion that we defer the Amending and Readopting of the Interim Guidelines until March 23rd. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Wood. COUNCILMAN WOOD: Application as well, I just had a question to clarify. Are also contemplating deferring the Alcar Jim? you COUNCILMAN REEVE: Correct. VICE MAYOR JONES: Until March 23rd? COUNCILMAN REEVE: Correct. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Just one other question. In this Resolution about the Guidelines, we have received a little memorandum from one of the members of the Task Force suggesting that perhaps we would put a Navy partner -- could we also talk to the Task Force about that when we bring this back up in March? Perhaps Captain Keeley would be able to participate on the Task Force while we are mulling over these Guidelines. COUNCILMAN REEVE: I agree with that sentiment completely. I think the Navy belonged to the table years ago and we need to take this opportunity to get them at the table as we look at these specific pieces and as we work together to find solutions for our land owners and the realities of what's on the February 24, 2004 development in air installation compatible use zones, and what this Resolution asks is that they delete the exception for land use applications which have been filed as of February 3rd, 2004. And if the Resolution were adopted, the Guidelines would apply to discretionary land use applications coming before the Planning Commission or City Council to the development of property located wholly or partially in an AICUZ area. all That's just so -- you've been very candid about your Application and why you want a deferral on this and I just wanted to be sure we all knew exactly what we are addressing. Mr. Reeve. COUNCIIA~L~N REEVE: Did you want to say something else, Eddie? EDDIE BOURDON: Yeah, I will pass these out so you-all can see what I'm talking about. What's coming around to you now is a map that shows what I'm talking about and how this Resolution, you know, would affect that little strip and would say that we would have to be deferred indefinitely based on the presence of that small strip of property that is directly adjacent to all the other houses in the other neighborhoods that abut us. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you, Ma'am. This is a prime example of how we've tried to have some Interim Guidelines that address the new directive change, the concern of the Navy, the desires of land owners in this section of the City that lie within the '99 Map. I think this shows an example where even in good faith on these Guidelines that there are some things that may not make total sense when you apply them to actual pieces of land on the ground and with existing development all the way around them. So, I think it is a reasonable request to defer until the end of March the Readoption of these Guidelines and spend that time with our 6 February 24, 2004 Application, but the 70 and above is what is directly adjacent to Castleton and Pine Ridge. It's all houses that, you know, surround us. So, there would be houses there. We haven't asked to put anything other than open space there. When you look at the big picture, it doesn't make any sense; but, I didn't want to let this go because then it would have -- I didn't want to bring it up when the Application came forward. It is something that I don't believe anyone contemplated at the time these were drawn up and adopted two weeks ago. COUNCILMA/~ SCHMIDT: Do you, in fact, exceed 70 in any of that area? EDDIE BO~I~DON: We're between 70 and this is the way it actually is done, but it's not on the map. We're between 70 and 71 in that, you know, 7-acre portion of our 112 acres. Ail the rest of this is 65 and going down. So, that's where we are and as I read 3-B if that were to be -- if the change you have on your Agenda tonight were adopted, it could be arranged that we would have to be deferred indefinitely. Then we would have to come back for everything, but those 7 acres. Frankly, we could come back and try to rezone the 7 acres, of that same Application and put the same number put them in a townhouse, you know, alignment for That's okay under your Guidelines. you know, as a part of houses, but just that little piece. Again, there is a little bit of common sense I think that needs to be -- you know these need to be looked at a little bit closer and that was my purpose of coming forward now and I don't think it affects anybody else and it has no affect at all on the actual Park Application. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Just to focus -- and I'm going to call on Mr. Reeve. The item that you're speaking to is the Resolution amending the proposed Resolution to Amend and Readopt Interim Guidelines governing the Application for 5 February we will even take a deferral until this thing back by then. 24, 2004 the 23rd of March if you can bring We don't see that there is a need to defer our Application, but we want to make sure that everyone is clear that these Guidelines need some work and I will be happy to answer your questions. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Jones. VICE MAYOR JONES: but not after that? So, are you saying that you would be agreeable to a deferral until March 23rd, Is that what you're saying? EDDIE BOURDON: If the Body believes that that's the best course of action, that's correct. We're not agreeable to a deferral indefinitely under any circumstance and we would like to proceed tonight; but, if you adopt this change at least some might argue that we have to start over again with an application on 107 -- excuse me -- 105 of our acres, which we can do under the Interim Guidelines and then leave the other 7 acres and come back -- under Subsection A is infill, because it's less than 10 in the 701bn, just like Mr. Arnold's Application two weeks ago, which was 5 acres all in the 701bn, which just doesn't make any sense to do that way. So, we would like to go forward but we would accept a deferral if you-all defer the proposal to spend a little bit of time trying to straighten out some of these issues that I don't really think have been adequately thought through. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Schmidt. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: building on that area? Mr. Bourdon, the 7 on the 70 or above, acres that would encroach what do you contemplate EDDIE BOURDON: Well, there is some housing. some open space and there is I don't want to get into our 4 February 24, 2004 That hasn't been thought through and we certainly don't want to deferred indefinitely, because that hasn't been thought through all. be Secondly, if you look at 3-B it talks about if you have a part of your property that's 70 or above -- again, in the Alcar situation I have 7 out of 112 acres that are 70 and above. I can shill move forward as long as I am proposing the part that's 70 and above is compatible under Section 221 of the Zoning Ordinance, which I have given each of you a copy of. If you look at that list, it's a lengthy list of things that are compatible. It doesn't include single-family homes, but it does include townhouses and multi-family development as well as schools, hospitals and all kinds of other things that are compatible. So, again, I really don't believe that those Guidelines have had enough scrutiny and I think that they need a little more scrutiny. So, that's why I come forward tonight to ask for some -- I don't think you-all ought to adopt the change tonight. Now, so that everybody understands, if you defer and spend a little bit of time looking at these things -- there are no other applications coming forward that come before this Body -- before the 23rd of March. So, you do have time. In the actual park application, you know, it doesn't matter at all. They are fine under the Guidelines you adopted two weeks ago or if you wanted to change them, you know, to what's on there tonight they would be fine with that, too. They're okay under any scenario, because they have nothing that's 70 or above. The only one that's affected by this is the Alcar Application and we are not agreeable to an indefinite deferral. We think that what's being proposed would potentially lead to that argument and we think it just doesn't make any sense, given the fact that only 7 acres out of our 112 is in the 701bn. So, we would prefer that it be deferred so that it can be resolved. We would like to go forward, but obviously if the Body would prefer, 3 February 24, 2004 The issue that I have with the Interim Guidelines and the proposed changes deal with a couple of things. One, they talk about infill development of ten acres or less. On Page 2, Line 42 of the Guidelines that you have in front of you, the word "quick" is used in there for people expecting their zoning applications to be dealt with. I frankly believe that nhe use of the word quick is rather absurd. Timely might be a more appropriate word, but in the case of Mr. Reid's Application, it's been two years and that's certainly not quick. In the case of the Alcar Application, it's 14 months. I think timely is a better word, but more importantly the guidelines themselves talked about ten-acre parcels under 3-B, which is on Line 65. When you deal with a ten-acre parcel of infill, it doesn't matter what zoning -- excuse me -- what noise zone it's in. As Mr. Arnold's Application two weeks ago for HAV was on the Consent Agenda and involved property entirely within the 70 and above, 70 to 74 Noise Zone, and that's okay. The Alcar Application on tonight has only seven acres in the 70 Noise Zone and it's right at the 70 Line. The remaining 105 acres is all 65 and below. Yet with the change, that would be required to be deferred. an Application for 105 acres below the 70 Line, and, the other seven acres I could come in for Subsection A and do that -- If we came back with it would be okay; infill under CITY CLERK: COUNCILMAN ~ADDOX: Mr. Bourdon, your time has expired. Council has to give you more time. I will give him some more time. EDDIE BOURDON: Ail right. So, the point is that the Guidelines, well meaning, but it doesn't make any sense if in the Alcar situation I can turn around and file an application and come forward with a 105 of my 112 acres and I'm okay. I can be heard. So, I meet all the other criteria under 3-B and then I can come back for my seven acres that's in the 70 as infill under 3-A. MAYOR OBERNDORF: February 24, 2004 We will go back to K-2 under Resolutions. Madam Clerk. CITY CLERK: Guidelines for the AICUZ. to speak in opposition. Okay. Your Honor, the first item is the Resolution to Amend and Readopt Interim in We have Mr. Eddie Bourdon who would like EDDIE BOURDON: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. For the record my name is Eddie Bourdon and I'm a Virginia Beach attorney. I wanted to speak about the proposed Amendment to the Interim Guidelines that you adopted two weeks ago after a number of months of study by a lot of very interested parties. You received input from the Blue Ribbon Task Force that you appointed back in December on those Interim Guidelines. You also received resolutions from Virginia Beach Vision and the Virginia Beach Chamber of Commerce regarding this subject as well. On that Task Force you had Retired Congressman Owen Pickett, State Senator Ken Stolle, Planning Commission Chairman Ron Ripely, Mr. Michael Barrett, Retired Rear Admiral Metz and Mayor Oberndorf, Members of Council Maddox and Reeve. You adopted those Guidelines on the recommendation of your professional staff and the only people who spoke in opposition to the adoption of those Guidelines were a couple of members of Concerned Citizens About Jet Noise. The Resolution to change the guidelines I don't believe have been reviewed by any of the members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force except possibly the three Members of Council and I don't think the Chamber of Commerce or Virginia Beach Visions had an opportunity to take a look at those either. I believe that they must be a reaction to the rumor that apparently resulted in -- I've told although Ii didn't get notice of it -- Mr. Reeve's Application being moved for reconsideration. Virginia Beach City Council February 24, 2004 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood Mayor At-Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven District 5 CITY F~a-NAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Resolution to Amend and Readopt Interim Guidelines governing applications for land use development in the AICUZ - 39- Item V-K. 2. RESOLUTIONS ITEM# 52267 Attorney R. Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, 5'h Floor, Phone: 499-8971 requested DEFERRAL until the City Council Session of March 23, 2004, distributed Master Transportation Plan Map and and Section 22.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance relative specific standards for certain conditional uses located within Airport Noise and Aircraft Accident Potential Zones (AICUZ). Mr. Bourdon did not believe the Task Force had a chance to review the amended lnterim Guidelines. Mr. Bourdon objected to the word "quick" on page 2, line 42 of the guidelines, and 10 acre parcels of infill under 3b on line 65 Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Maddox, City Council DEFERRED to March 23, 2004, and APPOINTED Captain Tom Keeley, Commanding Officer - Naval Air Station Oceana, to the Joint Land Use Task Force: Resolution to AMEND and READOPT Interim Guidelines governing applications for land use development in Air lnstallations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). Voting: 10-0 Council Members l,'oting Aye: Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Councd Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Harry E. Diezel February 24, 2004 ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Resolution Amending and Readopting Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: On February 10, 2004, the City Council adopted Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), which had been developed by the Task Force on Land Use in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones and recommended to the City Council by the Task Force on February 3, 2004. A provision of the Guidelines exempts rezoning, use permit, and similar discretionary land use applications filed before February 3, 2004. An amendment concerning this provision of the Guidelines has been proposed and is the subject of the attached Resolution. The resolution was deferred at the February 24, 2004 City Council meeting to the March 23, 2004 City Council meeting. Considerations: The proposed Resolution amends the Guidelines by deleting the exception for land use applications, which have been filed as of February 3, 2004. As a result, if the Resolution is adopted, the Guidelines would apply to all discretionary land use applications coming before the Planning Commission or City Council for the development of property located wholly or partially in an AICUZ. On March 16, the Task Force met and one of the topics of discussion was the proposed amendment. The Task Force determined that the provision should be deleted as proposed. The Council specifically asked the Task Force to review its policy as it relates to parcels split by key decibel contour lines. The Task Force did so and recommends that no other provision of the Guidelines should be modified. If the City Council passes this Resolution to revise the Guidelines, it will affect three Planning items on the March 23 agenda: Donald Reid (Chan,qe of Zonin,q) - The majority of this site is located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. A portion is located in the Greater than 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. Under the revised Interim Guidelines, this request should be deferred until the completion of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) is completed. Resolution (Interim AICUZ Guidelines) Page 2 of 2 2. ALCAR (Change of Zoning) - A portion of the site is located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. The majority of the site is located within the 65 to 70 dB Ldn AICUZ. Under the revised Interim Guidelines, since a portion of the site is located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ, this request should be deferred until the completion of the JLUS. 3. VA-CAR -- The property is located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. Under the revised Interim Guidelines, this request should be deferred until the completion of the JLUS. Public Information: This resolution has been advertised in the same manner as other City Council agenda items. · Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution · Attachments: Proposed Resolution; Amended Interim Development Guidelines Recommended Action: Approval of Amended Guidelines Submitting DepartmentJAgency: Planning Department ~ City Manager: ~~.-- · ~c'c~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND READOPTING INTERIM GUIDELINES GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ) WHEREAS, Use in Air Installations Compatible Use adopted recommended "Interim Guidelines Applications for Development in Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)"; and WHEREAS, the City Council Guidelines on February 3, 2004; and on February 3, 2004, the Task Force on Land Zones(AICUZ) Governing Air Installations adopted the aforesaid WHEREAS, the aforesaid Guidelines, as adopted, do not apply to discretionary land use applications filed with the Planning Department as of February 3, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to amend the aforesaid guidelines by deleting the exception for applications which have been filed as of February 3, 2004; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby amends and readopts the Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), as hereinafter set forth: Amended Interim Guidelines Governing Applications Develol~nent in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) for balance between the City's commitment to act in a timely manner on land use proposals in the affected area and the City's com~itment to partner with the Navy to carefully and comprehensively work toward a mutually acceptable land use solution. It is reasonably anticipated that the JLUS effort will take at least six (6) months and perhaps a year to complete, such that this passage of time will work against the interests of those citizens seeking quick resolution to their land use issues. Accordingly, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach sets forth these interim guidelines intended to move forward, for resolution on their merits, those rezoning and conditional use permit requests that are impacted by the AICUZ program but whose 1. Purpose. The City of Virginia Beach has agreed to engage with the Navy in a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) to resolve conflicts between development and jet aircraft operations near NAS Oceana. This agreement necessitates a careful 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 impact is not deemed detrimental be struck through the JLUS effort. 2. Application. (a) These guidelines discretionary development to the desired balance to govern the procedural aspects of applications (i.e., applications for rezonings, conditional zonings and conditional use permits requiring hearing by the City Council and Planning Commission) pertaining to property located wholly or an Air Installations Compatible Use Zone partially within (AICUZ), (b) These subdivision plats, guidelines do not apply to the review of site plans or other forms of review of proposed developments not requiring the approval of the City Council nor to applications for discretionary approvals on property entirely outside of an AICUZ area. 3. Guidelines. (a) Infill development on tracts or parcels of less than ten (10) acres, where all of the following conditions are present should be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the normal course and should be decided on the merits of the application: (1) the existing zoning 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 is unreasonable; (2) the requested action would give rise to development substantially similar to that on surrounding properties; and (3) the requested use is the least intensive necessary to achieve consistency with the surrounding properties (b) Development proposals for property wholly or partially located in AICUZ areas and not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (3) (a) above should be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the normal course and should be decided on the merits of the application where all of the following conditions are present: is not located, wholly or partially, Potential Zone; (2) the development lowest reasonable density or its location (1) the property within an Accident proposal represents the intensity for the property, given and surrounding land uses; (3) the property is wholly or partially, Ldn (except where the uses with their location in such 221.1 of the appropriate noise 221.1 of not located, than 70 dB compatible to Section within a noise zone greater proposed are deemed noise zone pursuant City Zoning Ordinance); and (4) all attenuation measures specified by Section the City Zoning Ordinance are provided. 93 94 95 96 97 98 (c) Ail other applications should be deferred by the Planning Commission or City Council, as the case may be, pending completion of the Joint Land Use Study. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9132 H: \0I D\ordres \amendedinterimAICUZguidelinesres .doc R-1 February 18, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning De~art[nent APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENt: C£t~ ~t-t-orne~s 6ffic&' 5 Amended Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Purpose. The City of Virginia Beach has agreed to engage with the Navy in a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) to resolve conflicts between development and jet aircraft operations near NAS Oceana. This agreement necessitates a careful balance between the City's commitment to act in a timely manner on land use proposals in the affected area and the City's commitment to parmer with the Navy to carefully and comprehensively work toward a mutually acceptable land use solution. It is reasonably anticipated that the JLUS effort will take at least six (6) months and perhaps a year to complete, such that this passage of time will work against the interests of those citizens seeking quick resolution to their land use issues. Accordingly, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach sets forth these interim guidelines intended to move forward, for resolution on their merits, those rezoning and conditional use permit requests that are impacted by the AICUZ program but whose impact is not deemed detrimental to the desired balance to be struck through the JLUS effort. Application. (a) These guidelines govern the procedural aspects of discretionary development applications (i.e., applications for rezonings, conditional zonings and conditional use permits requiring hearing by the City Council and Planning Commission) pertaining to property located wholly or partially within an Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) (b) These guidelines do not apply to the review of subdivision plats, site plans or other forms of review of proposed developments not requiring the approval of the City Council nor to applications for discretionary approvals on property entirely outside of an AICUZ area. Guidelines. (a) Infill development on tracts or parcels of less than ten (10) acres, where all of the following conditions are present should be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the normal course and should be decided on the merits of the application: (1) the existing zoning is unreasonable; (2) the requested action would give rise to development substantially similar to that on surrounding properties; and (3) the requested use is the least intensive necessary to achieve consistency with the surrounding properties (b) Development proposals for property wholly or partially located in AICUZ areas and not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (3) (a) above should be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the normal course and should be decided on the merits of the application where all of the following conditions are present: (1) the property is not located, wholly or partially, within an Accident Potential Zone; (2) the development proposal represents the lowest reasonable density or intensity for the property, given its location and surrounding land uses; (3) the property is not located, wholly or partially, within a noise zone greater than 70 dB Ldn (except where the uses proposed are deemed compatible with their location in such noise zone pursuant to Section 221.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance); and (4) all appropriate noise attenuation measures specified by Section 221.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance are provided. (c) All other applications should be deferred by the Planning Commission or City Council, as the case may be, pending completion of the Joint Land Use Study. ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Ordinances to Renew Nine Existing Franchises and Grant Two New Franchises for the Operation of Open Air Cafes in the Resort Area March 23, 2004 Background: Since its initial development and implementation, the Open Air Caf~ Program has been very successful, and a number of cafes have been established in the Resort Area. The City's policy and practice has been to grant the initial franchise for a term of one (1) year. If the open air caf~ is operated successfully during the initial one-year term, the City then renews the franchise for terms of five (5) years. Considerations: Renewals: The following entities have operated open air caf(~s in the Resort Area during the past and have applied for renewals for a five (5) year term: 1. King of the Sea (2610 Atlantic Avenue) side street cafe; 2. Beach Diner (2417 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; Atlantic Bistro (910 Atlantic Avenue) sidewalk caf6; Baja Cantina (206 23rd Street) side street caf6; 5. 18th Street Caf6 (1804 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafb; 6. Seaside Galley (1401 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; 7. LaVerne's Chix Caf6 (701 Atlantic Avenue) connector park cafe; Fish Bones Restaurant (1211 Atlantic Avenue) connector street cafe; and 9. Waterman's Cafb (415 Atlantic Avenue) connector park caf6. A one year initial franchise is proposed for Tropical Smoothie Cafb (211 25th Street) to operate a side street cafb from May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005. Another one year initial franchise is proposed to be granted to Thirty First Street, L.C., (3001 Atlantic Avenue) for the operation of a boardwalk caf~ from May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006. If City Council approves the attached ordinances (one approves the renewals and another approves the grant of the one year franchise), the grant of the franchises remains contingent upon the respective Grantees' execution of an Open Air Cafb Franchise Agreement, and compliance with the terms and conditions thereof. Recommendations: Approval of Ordinances Attachments: Ordinances (2) Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager:~ ~ GG\ordersX, ope~airarf doc Approval Virginia Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau 1 AN ORDINANCE TO RENEW NINE 2 EXISTING FRANCHISES FOR THE 3 OPERATION OF OPEN AIR CAFES IN THE 4 RESORT AREA 5 6 WHEREAS, the following businesses (hereinafter 7 "Grantees") wish to renew existing franchise agreements for the 8 operation of open air cafes at the oceanfront: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1. King of the Sea (2610 Atlantic Avenue) side street cafe; 2. Beach Diner (2417 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; 3. Atlantic Bistro (910 Atlantic Avenue) sidewalk cafe; 4. Baja Cantina (206 23rd Street) side street cafe; 18th Street Caf~ (1804 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; 6. Seaside Galley (1401 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; 7. LaVerne's Chix Caf~ (701 Atlantic Avenue) connector park cafe; 8. Fish Bones Restaurant (1211 Atlantic Avenue) connector street cafe; and 9. Waterman's Caf~ (415 Atlantic Avenue) connector park cafe; WHEREAS, the City has developed a franchise agreement for the regulation of open air cafes that each of the above- listed Grantees will be required to execute as a condition of franchise renewal; and 39 WHEREAS, 40 operation of an open air 41 past year, the Virginia 42 recommends a five-year 43 foregoing Grantees. 44 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 45 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: based upon each Grantee's successful caf~ pursuant to a franchise during the Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau renewal of the franchise of each of the ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 46 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to each of the 47 above-listed Grantees to operate an open air caf~ at the address 48 indicated herein from May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2009, 49 conditioned on each Grantee's execution of a franchise agreement 50 51 52 53 54 55 and compliance with all of the terms 2. That the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to enter into franchise agreement with each Grantee. Adopted by the Council of the Virginia, on the day of and conditions thereof. duly authorized a five (5) year City of Virginia Beach, , 2004. CA-9138 GG/ordres/openairord.doc R-1 - February 26, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: y Attorney' s ~ffice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TWO FRANCHISES FOR THE OPERATION OF OPEN AIR CAFES IN THE RESORT AREA (NEW FRANCHISES) WHEREAS, the City has adopted, and incorporated into a franchise agreement, regulations for the operation of open air cafes on public property in the Resort Area; WHEREAS, Tropical Smoothie Caf~ and Thirty-First Street, L.C., have submitted applications for the operation of an open air caf6s and have paid the required application fee; WHEREAS, representations made in comply with the aforementioned regulations; and the application interest, Area. application and determined that the proposed caf~ wall have no detrimental effecE on the public health, safety, welfare, or and will enhance the festive atmosphere in the Resort NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to Tropical Smoothie Caf6 to operate an open air side street caf~ at 211 25tn Street from Hay 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, conditioned on provision of TS Caf~ ef an approved final site plan, liability WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Resort Advisory Commission have reviewed the 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 insurance coverage, a security bond and applicable franchise fee, and on compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement. 2. That a franchise is hereby granted to Thirty- First Street, L.C., to operate an open air boardwalk caf~ at 3001 Atlantic Avenue from May 1, 2005, to April 30, 2006, conditioned on provision of Thirty-First, L.C., of an approved final site plan, liability insurance coverage, a security bond and applicable franchise fee, and on compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement. designee, 3. That the City Manager, or his duly authorized is hereby authorized to enter into franchise agreements with Tropical Smoothie Caf~ and Thirty-First Street, L.C. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9142 GG/ordres/openairneword. doc R-3 March 5, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~e'nvention & Vi.~itors Bureau 2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution Establishing a Pilot Program to Establish, on an Experimental Basis, Open Air Cafbs on Atlantic Avenue Between 20th and 23rd Streets MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: The City currently allows open air cafes on the Boardwalk, connector parks, side streets between Atlantic and Pacific Avenues and on Atlantic Avenue, but not between 15th and 24th Streets. The City Council is contemplating the establishment of a pilot program under which two open air cafb franchises would be th rd allowed in that area, more specifically, between 20 and 23 Streets. · Considerations: The franchises which would be granted under the pilot program would have very strict controls by which the City could suspend or terminate them for any number of roasons related to public safety and order. Thero are a number of "special" franchise terms expressed in the Resolution. At the conclusion of the pilot program, the City Council would evaluate the advisability of continuing the program on an expanded basis. · Public Information: The Resolution requires no special advertisement; it was, however, been discussed at length by the City Council during its informal session on February 9th and was disseminated to interested parties. · Alternatives: The establishment of the pilot program contemplated by the Resolution is entirely at the discretion of the City Council. · Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Submitting DepartmentJAgency: Requested by Councilmember Richard A. Maddox City Manager: REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD A. MADDOX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM TO ALLOW, ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASIS, OPEN AIR CAFES ON ATLANTIC AVENUE BETWEEN 20tn AND 23rd STREETS WHEREAS, as a means of improving the appearance and pedestrian ambience of the Resort Area and to provide a public amenity for the benefit of residents and tourists visiting the Resort Area, the City of Virginia Beach allows outdoor cafes on public property facing the Boardwalk, in connector parks, on side streets between Atlantic and Pacific Avenues, and on a portion of Atlantic Avenue; and WHEREAS, the open air caf~ program has been highly successful in achieving its objectives; and WHEREAS, under the City's current Open Air Caf~ Regulations, sidewalk cafes are not permitted on the public sidewalk of Atlantic Avenue between 15tn and 24tn Streets; and WHEREAS, it is the sense of the City Council that the open air caf~ program should be evaluated for the advisability of allowing open air cafes, on an experimental basis, on the west side of Atlantic Avenue between 20tn and 23rd Streets, as a means of enhancing the quality of the dining experience and general pedestrian environment on the west side of Atlantic Avenue; and 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 WHEREAS, it is also the sense of the City Council that, because of the especially heavy amount of pedestrian traffic on the west side of Atlantic Avenue, any open air cafes allowed in that area must be subject to even more stringent regulations than are open air cafes in other locations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, FIRST: That there is hereby established a pilot program to allow, on an experimental basis, open air cafes to be located on the west side of Atlantic Avenue between 20tn and 23rd Streets during the Resort allow two (2) 1, Season. Under such pilot program, the City shall franchises authorizing the operation, between May 2004 and September 30, 2004, of open air cafes in that area under strict conditions designed to evaluate (1) the effects of such applicable to such open air cafes, allow the City Council to cafes, (2) the regulations and (3) the advisability of continuing such program on an expanded basis; SECOND: That the aforesaid open air cafes shall be subject to all applicable Resort Open Air Caf~ Regulations pertaining to Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk (Category C) Cafes, and in addition thereto, the aforesaid franchises shall be subject to the 2 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O following additional control in the event Air Caf~ Regulations: 1. Alcoholic meals, 2. patrons or franchised requirements, which of a conflict with one requirements shall or more Resort Open beverages shall only be served with and only in unbreakable drinkware; The operator shall not permit persons other than employees of the establishment to enter the area or to congregate therein, other than at tables provided by the establishment 3. In the event a duly authorized official of the discretion, that than the normal unruly behavior nearby areas or of public safety or the open air caf~ public safety City determines, in his or her sole the open air caf~ should be closed earlier closing time for reasons of crowd control, either within the establishment or in for other reasons related to preservation public order, the operator shall close immediately or at such later time as directed by the public safety official; 4. A menu or bill of fare offered by the establishment shall be provided to the City Manager or his designee, and the open air caf~ may remain open only so long as all regular menu items served by the establishment are available to patrons; 3 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 5. The operator shall not permit the franchised area to be used for storage of furniture or equipment or for any purpose other than as an open air cafe; 6. The operator shall not allow persons awaiting entry into the establishment or open air caf~ to form lines on the sidewalk, but shall admit patrons only from the inside of the establishment; 7. The operator shall strictly comply with all fire, building, zoning, alcoholic beverage control, or health regulations in the operation of the open air caf~ and remainder of the establishment; and 8. The franchise may be revoked by the City Manager whenever the City Manager determines that (1) the owner or operator of the establishment has been found guilty of a criminal offense arising from the operation of the establishment; (2) the owner or operator has been assessed a civil penalty for violation of any fire, building, zoning, alcoholic beverage control, or health regulation arising from the operation of the establishment; (3) the presence of the open air caf~ is causing or contributing to a deterioration of the quality of the pedestrian experience or general environment in the area; or (4) the open air caf~ is in violation of any material term of its franchise 4 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 or Resort the City privilege pending alcoholic arising Open Air Caf~ Regulations. In addition thereto, Manager may suspend the owner or operator's to operate the open air caf~ under the franchise final disposition of any criminal charge, infraction a beverage control violation, or civil from the operation of the establishment; THIRD: City Manager is hereby authorized to accept open air caf8 franchises for the area between 20th of those received, shall select, for Council, the two proposals which in his objectives of this pilot program; FOURTH: than November 30, 2004, the City Manager City Council a written evaluation of the his recommendations concerning the and That the proposals for and 23rd Streets, and presentation to the City opinion best promote the That by no later shall provide to the pilot program and continuation, expansion or termination of the pilot program; FIFTH: That in determining whether an expansion of the pilot program is warranted, the City Council shall consider all relevant factors pertaining to the objectives of the City in allowing open air cafSs, including, without limitation, the quality of menu offerings, table service, appearance and general 5 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 caliber of and the degree to provide a desirable the establishments desiring to operate open air cafes which such establishments are likely to public amenity which enhances the appearance and pedestrian experience on the west side of Atlantic Avenue. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9163 OID~ordres ~openairca f eordin, doc R-2 March 9, 2004 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TEM: Acceptance of Streets for Urban Maintenance Payments MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: The 1985 General Assembly established legislation requiring City Council resolutions for all new streets to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation for Urban Maintenance payments and for all corrections to the road inventory. Considerations: The first resolution requests the addition of 40.18 lane miles of new streets, which will be eligible for urban maintenance funds beginning July 1, 2004. Of this .64 lane miles are classified as arterial streets. At the present rate of $14,040 per lane miles, the city will receive $8,985.60. The remaining 39.54 lane miles are classified as local/collector streets. At the present rate of $8,243 per lane miles, the city will receive $325,928.22. The combined total for additional urban maintenance funding is $334,913.82. The second resolution reflects a net increase of 6.66 lane miles of arterial and local/collector streets in the urban street inventory. The increase is the result of the reconstruction of streets to add lanes and/or to lengthen and the deletion of streets. Of this, 6.06 lane miles are classified as arterial streets that are being added/replaced to the streets inventory. At the present rate of $14,040, the city will receive an additional $85,082.40. Also, the remaining .60 lane miles are classified as collector/local streets that are being added/replaced. At the present rate of $8,243, the city will receive an additional $4,945.80. Finally, .30 lane miles of local/collector streets are being deleted from the street inventory. At the present rate of $8,243 per lane mile, the city will lose $2,472.90. Based on the current VDOT rates, the city will net an increase of $422,269.12 in revenue for urban maintenance funding beginning July 1, 2004, as a result of the above changes. A list of streets is attached. Public Information: The item will be publicized as part of the Council's agenda Alternatives: N/A Recommendations: Approval Attachments: Resolutions (2) Form U-1 (street inventory) Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works~/~ A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACCEPT 40.18 LANE MILES OF ADDITIONAL STREETS FOR URBAN MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires a City Council resolution prior to accepting additional streets for urban maintenance payments; WHEREAS, the 40.18 lane miles streets listed on Exhibit A (attached) have been constructed in accordance with standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation; WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has accepted and agreed to maintain these streets; and WHEREAS, a representative from the Virginia Department of Transportation has inspected and approved these streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That City Council hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to accept the streets listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and to begin paying urban maintenance payments to the City of Virginia Beach based on the established rate. Virginia, Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, on the day of , 2004. Approved as to Content: - ~ubllc Works Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City ~ttorne~ A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACCEPT CORP~CTIONS TO THE ROAD INVENTORY FOR URBANMAINTENANCE PAYMENTS WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires a City Council resolution prior to accepting corrections or deletions to the revised road inventory for urban maintenance payments; WHEREAS, City personnel have reviewed the revised road inventory prepared by the Virginia Department of Transportation and have determined that some inaccuracies exist; WHEREAS, corrections to the revised road inventory have been made as shown on Exhibit A (attached); resulting in a net increase of 6.66 lane miles, and WHEREAS, a representative from the Virginia Department of Transportation has inspected and approved these oorrections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That City Council hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to accept the corrections listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and to begin paying urban maintenance payments to the City of Virginia Beach based on the established rate. Virginia, Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia on the day of , 2004. Beach, Approved as to Content: Public ~Works Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: Cit~ Attorne!~ N. PLANNING - NO ACTION Petition ofRONALD C. and DONNA G. RIPLEY for a Variance to § 4.4(b) that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at 4101 White Acres Road. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ronald and Donna Ripley, Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Ronald C. and Donna J. Ripley. Property is located at 4101 White Acres Road (GPIN 14789829780000). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Considerations: Due to an advertising error prior to the Planning Commission hearing, this request cannot be heard. It has been rescheduled for the Planning Commission's April 14 public hearing. Recommendations: No action needed. Recommended Action: No action needed. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Depadrnent ~ City Manager:~_~z~ '~ ,'~[¥'~L. O. PLANNING RECONSIDERATION: Applications ofF. DONALD REID at 3592 Indian River Road: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and allow a forty-five-foot (45') lot subdivision with open space and walking trails in the Transition Area Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural ~stncts to Conditional R20 Residential D~stnct c. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space DEFERRED: DEFERRED INDEFINITELY: APPROVED: SCHEDULED ADVERTISING FOR RECONSIDERATION: APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO: RECOMMENDATION: December 2, 2003 for Sixty (60) days September 23, 2003 February 10, 2004 February 17, 2004 March 23, 2004 APPROVAL Application of OCEAN BAY HOMES, L.L.C. for a nonconforming use to replace two (2) existing multifamily structures with two (2) single family residential structures at 305 26th Street. (BEACH - DISTRICT 6) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of ROBERT W. and MARIA L. KANIA re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an Alley adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, Croatan, at South Atlantic Avenue and Croatan Road to incorporate this area into Lot 15. (BEACH - DISTRICT 6) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Applications of VA-CAR DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., at Salem and North Landstown Roads. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and to subdivide the property into twenty-eight (28) single-family home lots with wooded open space and trails (two (2) flag lots proposed do not meet the lot width requirement). Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-20 Residential c. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 10. Petition for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for JOHN [ WILLIAMS and ELLEN LANE WADSWORTH to subdivide an additional lot (Parcel F) at Princess Anne and Pleasant Ridge Roads. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER, INC., a Virginia Corporation T/A BEACH FC for a Conditional Use Permit re a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soeeer fields) at Shipps Corner and Holland Roads. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) DEFERRED: RECOMMENDATION: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 APPROVAL Application of JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit re an off-site parking lot at 2149 Vista Circle. (LYNNHAVEN - DISTRICT 5) RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO APRIL 27, Application of OMNIPOINT (T-Mobile) for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications antenna on top of an existing tower at North Great Neck Roads. (LYNNHAVEN - DISTRICT 5) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of KRAMER RED MILL #20 L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit re automobile repair at Nimmo Parkway and Upton Drive. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) DEFERRED re Sunday operation: RECOMMENDATION: MARCH 9,2004 APPROVAL Applications of ALCAR, L.L.C. at Nimmo Parkway and Rockingchair Lane: 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 DEFERRED: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: FEBRUARY 24, 2004 DECEMBER 9, 2003 OCTOBER 28, 2003 DEFERRAL APPROVAL THE BEACON SUNDAY, MARCH 7,2004 SUNDAY, MARCH 14, 2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 1. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for John L. Williams and Ellen Lane Wadsworth, on the west side of Princess Anne Road, 2. VA-CAR Development, L.LC. Application: Chan~e of Zoning District Classification from AG 1 and AG-2/~griculturat to Conditional R-20 Residential on the east side of Salem Road. 3. VA-CAR Development, L.L.C. Application: Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the east side of Salem Rood. 4. Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for VA-CAR Development, L,L.C., on the east side of Salem Road DISTRICT 5 - LYNNNAVEN 5, Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Application: Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot at 2149 Vista Circle. 6. Omnipoint (T-Mobile) Application: Conr~itional Use Permit for a com- munications tower on the east side of North Gmat Neck Road. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 7. Robert W. & Maria L Kania Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an alley ~ocoted adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, South Atlantic Avenue, 150 feet from the north side of Croatan Road. 8. Ocean Bay Homes, L.L.C. Application: Nonconforming U~e at 305 26th Street. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE 9. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivisioh Ordinance, Subdivision for Ronald C. and Donna J, Ripley, at 4101 White Acres Road. All interested parties are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk If you are physically disabled or Visually impaired and need assis- tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303; Hearing impaired, call TDD only 427-430S (TDD - Tele- phonic Device for the Deaf). BEACON: MARCH 7 and MARCH 14, 2004 11136230 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 1. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for John L. Williams and Ellen Lane Wadsworth, on the west side of Princess Anne Road. 2, VA-CAR Development, L.L.C, Application: Chan~e of ZoninA District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 A~riculturat to Conditional R-20 Residential on the east side of Salem Road, 3. VA-CAR Development, L.L.C. Application: Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the east side of Salem Road. 4. Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for VA-CAR Development, L.L.C., on the east side of Salem Road DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN 5. Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Application: Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot at 2~49 Vista Circle. 6. Omnipoint (]'Mobile) Application: Conditional Use Permit for a com- muoications tower on the east side of North Great Neck Road. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 7, Robert W. & Maria L. Kania Application: Discontinuance, closure and r abandonment of a portion of an alley located adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, South Atlantic Avenue, 150 feet from the north side of Croatan Road. 8. Ocean Bay Homes, L.L,C. Application: Noncoaforming Use at 305 26th Street. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE 9. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain ele- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Ronald C. and Donna J. Ripley, at 4101 White Acres Road. All interested parties are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk if you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assis- tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303; Hearing Impaired, coil TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Tele- phonic Device for the Deaf). BEACON: MARCH 7 and MARCH 14, 2004 11136230 MAYOR OBERNDORF: February 17, 2004 Thank you. 19 CITY CLERK: COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: CITY CLERK: COUNCILMAN MADDOX: CITY CLERK: COUNCILFaa_N REEVE: CITY CLERK: COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: CITY CLERK: COUNCILMAN VILLANUEVA: CITY CLERK: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: CITY CLERK: COUNCILMAN WOOD: CITY CLERK: VICE MAYOR JONES: CITY CLERK: MAYOR OBERNDORF: CITY CLERK: February 17, 2004 Mrs. McClanan. Aye. Mr. Maddox. Aye. Mr. Reeve. Aye. Mr. Schmidt. Aye. Mr. Villanueva. Aye. Mrs. Wilson. Aye. Mr. Wood. Aye. Vice Mayor Jones. Aye. Mayor Oberndorf. Aye. The vote is 11 to 0 in reconsideration. favor of the 18 February 17, 2004 representatives to have honest dialogue. It is: change. ?hat's our Order. Read the directive. comment. And that's unfortunate, but that's the Government works. We have a directive That's all we can way the Federal So, I just wanted to better explain myself. I believe any personal risk of looking like we're not sure where we're going is well worth the long-term goal of achieving a plan that is a balanced plan, that everyone understands the facts and we can move forward without so much rhetoric and, you know, grand stand of committee facade. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, I thank you. I think we're probably ready for the vote. I would like to tell you that, although I didn't vote for the Change of Zoning, I am more than happy to work with this Council to see to it that we have a legitimate dialogue established according to the Chain of Command. It must be very difficult when each individual Member of Council is either called or makes calls so that everyone may have a slight variation. It would be much easier to have the opportunity to have the dialogue where we're all at the table including the public, listening, instead of he said that she said that they said that thus and so. I'm interested, obviously, in what is in the long run a good stand for the City of Virginia Beach, the developers and also for the people who hold the jobs. I don't know if you-all remember when they closed the Air Rework Facility in Norfolk, but a leave and go look elsewhere for work. So, we've those heart-wrenching things where families have themselves without a position or income. So, we heard too. lot of people had to been through some of suddenly found need to have them Mrs. Smith, if you would like to call the role. CITY CLERK: Mr. Diezel. COUNCII~4AN DIEZEL: Aye . 17 the truth. February 17, 2004 I've talked with the people up the Chain of Command of the Navy after this was done and discussing with them what my intentions were and why we followed the rationale that we've followed. That they were very concerned. As we talked about before everything we do is under a microscope and goes all the way to the Pentagon on a daily basis and that we do have people 300 miles away from us making decisions about this area based on "sound-bite journalism". That's the reality of it. That's what goes forward. Our transcripts probably don't go forward. News articles go forward. And, it is not right to try to do a long-range plan of this City and get our view points across in a sound-bite type of manner. We need a plan just like in the Transition Area. We need a plan, because that gets the facts on the table and gets our goals on the table. I just felt that if the Navy backed away it would be very tough to get them back to the table and then we have no way to get to a plan. We need to have a partner in order to achieve a plan. And if I have to take criticism for changing my mind and not knowing, you know, which direction the City wants to go, I've never claimed to be perfect. I claim that this is a dynamic change in situation and that we need to be flexible. We always have to have the ability to evaluate our decisions and evaluate what is best in the long course of action and I believe that we need to maintain in all possible ways good faith, that we are dedicated to the joint land use study and that we want a partner that can deal with us. I'm frustrated too that the Navy can't deal with us. That's the way they are. They take orders. They follow orders. It goes down the Chain of Command, up the Chain of Command and there is not a lot of deviation from that. The military has been present in every single task force meeting. I personally have no problem. I would welcome more dialogue from a military representative at the table each and every time. But, I don't think there's been the liberty provided to some of these 16 February 17, 2004 I would like to see something from the Navy, you know, either defining that that is true or it's false. We're not hearing anything, so we're going through all of this process on a rumor. That is, as far as what I've heard today and I hadn't heard the rumor either until way after the fact that we voted. So, I have a problem. Is there anyone else here that wants to address it since we've entered this into the record? Maybe we ought to ask the public or hold a Public Hearing over whether we should reconsider it. I mean, this is getting really ridiculous. MAYOR OBEP. NDOP~F: There will be a Public Hearing if the Council votes to reconsider the application and everyone -- the people who are asking for the rezoning as well as anyone in the general public. Mrs. Smith, do you have CITY CLERK: MAYOR OBEP~NDORF: CITY CLERK: any speakers signed up? No one is registered to speak. Okay. Because when you spoke to me yesterday you told me you had two. We had two that called, but they didn't register. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Reeve. COb'RCII~MAN RKEVE: Actually, a lot has been said that is somewhat redundant, but I'm going to better explain that even though there has been innuendos, there's been rumors, the decision I came to is this: I know the Federal Government well enough that if we do not reconsider and they make a decision that they are no longer interested due to the lack of good faith in proceeding with the joint land use study, they can back away from the table and it will be very difficult for us to convince them to come back to the table because they would have felt good faith is lost. That is not an innuendo. That is not a rumor. That is 15 February 17, 200~ understand he's retired, but apparently he is taking a position. said here that Captain Keeley wanted to be a member -- in parenthesis, Captain Keeley feels he should be on the task force. He So, are we going to go -- I respect Admiral Metz, but are we going to go by his recommendation or are we going to listen to the Captain and ask him? Does anyone serve on the task force that is from Oceana? MAYOR OBERNDORF: I don't recall anyone that is on Active Duty that serves on the task force from Oceana. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Well, I think clearly that as much as we have tried to get through, we know Captain Keeley's position on the application because he expressed it. But, I'm not willing to take anyone's suggestion that speaks for the Captain unless the Captain says it himself. So, I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned that if we're going to have a Public Hearing today, which we apparently are in the process of one, is there anyone else here that would like to have input into this matter? It's a matter of fairness, because I didn't realize that this subject was going to be handled in this manner. I thought we would have a motion that we would vote on whether or not to reconsider it, but now we're in a Public Hearing and we've entertained and listened to other points of view recommending other people on the task force without their consent. As far as we've been contacted, they are not here today to speak for themselves. So, I just think this is delaying the process as it's been delayed. Now, we're probably looking at at least two years. We don~t know whether or not they are going to fund the study and we just keep being hung out there and it's time really for somebody to, you know, get real. It bothers me that we're spending all this time over something that we've been through and now we're going to have to vote on it again. We don't know whether the study is going to be funded and I understand it's just rumor that they do not fund the study. 14 February 17, 2004 I asked Mr. Spore to call the Navy people and Mr. me -- what was it Friday? Villaneuva called MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yeah. VICE MAYOR JONES: And try to get a position out of them as to where they really stand and based on the response at least that he gave me on Friday they really didn't give us a position. So, here we are reconsidering somebody's property and basically saying to this private property owner that the value of your property and the importance of your rights are not going to be considered now because of some innuendos or supposed threat that the Navy or the Government is not going to fund the joint land use study. I'm going to vote for the motion very reluctantly, because it is the safest thing to do; but, I really don't appreciate, quite frankly, the lack of candidness on the part of the Navy for not being here and giving us their position. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: I agree. MAYOR OBEP/~DORF: Mrs. Eure and then Mr. Reeve. COUNCIL I~DY EUI~E: I would agree with everything that Louis said particularly the Navy's response. I did read in the paper that Captain Keeley -- if I read it correctly, it said that he was not aware that the BRAC had said that, you know, that they would not (Inaudible). But, I think certainly Captain Keeley and the Navy are able to speak for themselves. Nd my question to you is I know Admiral Metz is on the committee, but does he represent Captain Keeley? MAYOR OBEP~NDORF: He's retired. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Well, it would seem to me if you -- I 13 February 17, 2004 COUNCIL~A~N SC~IDT: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a quick comment. With the change in the 2005 BRAC Law that's come up whereby a base if it's shuttered can be kept under the grounds of National Defense rather than giving back to the host community. Obviously, that raises the stakes tremendously and my encouragement would be to those of you who serve on the committee, if in fact OEA gives us approval to go forward, that we incorporate into that very carefully the Comp Plan that we obviously just approved so that it corresponds with those issues that are going to be of paramount importance. We spent a lot of time on it, the Planning Commission and the citizens. We're going to have to make sure there is good temper going forward because as a lot of you have said we just can't get it wrong going forward. MAYOR OBEP~NDORF: Mr. Jones. VICE MAYOR JONES: Well, I agree with everything Richard has said. I'm really a little bit disappointed, quite frankly, that the Navy isn't here this morning. I mean, this is a pretty important issue. We're sitting here thinking about reconsidering the vote, because we've been told indirectly not by the Navy itself but by a Retired Admiral -- who I'm assuming knows what he's taking about, but we don~t really no that either -- that the Navy is threatening to not go forward with the joint land use study because of the vote. Well, I would think that somebody from the Navy would be here to tell us that, quite frankly, which just reiterates and reinforces what Richard said and that is that there is no communication taking place, no direct communication that we can rely upon to make an intelligent decision. The better part of valor, of course, is to move to reconsider and then defer it as Jim suggested, because it's the safest thing to do. But, the truth of the matter is someone from the Navy ought to be here this morning to tell us what their position is and I'm disappointed that that has not taken place. 12 should know. February 17, 2004 I'm certain that the Clerk's Office can provide some support to make sure that the notices are given out appropriately. Mr. Maddox. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Thank you. I don't know what happened, but I'm on the committee and I wasn't notified either. So, I found out by Jim Reeve the morning of the meeting and I couldn't attend because it was just too short of notice. I suspect it was just a -- MAYOR OBERNDORF: It was very short. COUNCILM~N MADDOX: -- mistake. I don't know what happened, but I wasn't notified. I just want to bring us back one more second to what I originally started out to -- the comment that I made that we can't make good decisions here without the right information. I don't feel we have all of the information right now and I don't feel like we have a process in place that is conducive to us getting all the information. Quite frankly, you know, it's embarrassing for us to be here today and have to change what we voted on two weeks ago. It doesn't reflect well on us, but perhaps it is the right thing to do. It's no way to run a railroad and we need to be able to have all of the information to be able to make decisions and then, you know, cast our vote and take the heat. I feel like it is proper today probably to reconsider this, because we haven't had all the information and I would urge the Council if there is anything that we can do -- and I'm not sure there is because I think we are doing everything we can to get information -- to urge the Navy to implement a process whereby we can have open dialogue and not have to rely on other people or other means or rumor or gossip to determine how we vote. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Schmidt and then Mr. Jones. 11 February 17, 2004 MAYOR OBERNDORF: liaisons to that There was a very had a lady from CCAJN, we had I think two or three members of the Citizens Action Against Jet Noise there. The Navy sat behind me. remember they were against the wall. I understand what you're saying. The three Members from the Council who serve as committee are Mr. Maddox, Mr. Reeve and myself. short notice for that meeting and I remember that we Although we are liaisons we do not vote with the committee. That is strictly -- we're there just as the conduit, but I certainly understand and I did not realize that when we received the notice, which was about a day and-a-half or two days ahead of the meeting, that everyone who wanted it didn't get it. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: Well, Madam Mayor, I'm not disputing your role as liaison or anything else. I'm saying that I asked specifically how people were going to be notified. I called the City and asked how to get notification of the meetings that were going to occur on this committee and I was first told that there weren't going to be any notices. That you had to go to the web site to find out. Then, I was told if I requested special notice I could receive it and that's exactly why I asked for my name to be put on the list. Then, I found that other people whose names had been put on the list -- I don't care so much about myself; but when a citizen is not notified that has requested something, that really gets my dander up. You know I don't object to anything anybody on the committee does, how they do it, what their role as a liaison is. I am just saying not with any issue, but particularly something like this as important as it is. If that's the way we are going to be notified I accept that, but I do want the notification. What you-all did at the meeting and how you did it, that's your business. MAYOR OBEP/~DORF: Well, I certainly understand that and I'm sure that the committee will be happy to request that the Public Information Office give notice if they or someone knows that your names are on the list. You certainly 10 February 17, 2004 COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I mean, I think that's a big key here, that we need to get moving on this thing; because, we hear lot of the same things I think. I didn't have any information that had a vote on Tuesday. I don't know who did, but my vote was just based on what happened that very night. ~AYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. McClanan. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: different line. I don't think that I disagree with anything that's been said, but my concern is that really feel like this whole thing was moved along in a way that probably inappropriate. What I have to say is along a little bit I was The consideration two weeks ago, in which those of you who had requested to be notified under the Freedom of Information Act when this committee was meeting. Did not get notification. I was quite surprised that day when our Planning Director stood up and said the meeting had occurred that morning. I knew I had not received the notice and I had requested to be put on the list. Since then I have heard of other people who did not receive notice of that meeting. Now, maybe that's not important in the overall picture because it eventually came to the Council and then was scheduled for a vote last week. But, this whole issue is a major issue. It does need to receive proper notification among the community, among Council Members, among everybody in the City and it needs to be discussed. I think the comments here indicate that the lack of broad discussion from all people has brought us to this point. And, it's easy to point fingers and say this shouldn't have been done. That shouldn't have been done. Ail my point is, is I would like to be notified and I want -- everybody that's requesting to be notified about meetings, I want them notified. these federal money. February 17, 2004 CITY MANAGER: What do you mean? Who decides whether or not we get the grant? COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Yeah. CITY MANAGER: The OEA decides that. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: And do we know when they are going to make this decision? CITY MANAGER: No. I think what they are doing is wanting to see the draft scope of services before they reach a decision. We have prepared that and that will be to them within the next couple of days. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Okay. them. find out? Do we know that? So, it's prepared and it's going to And, how long do we have to wait to CITY MANAGER: If we transmit it to them electronically, they can decide within a week. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: forward with the grant? So, essentially in two weeks we should have a decision on whether they are going to go CITY MANAGER: I mean, they are still waiting to see if Chesapeake and Norfolk want to participate. I have a meeting with those two managers tomorrow morning as a matter of fact, on that; but, our position has been we would be glad to participate in a regional study or we would be glad to participate unilaterally with the Navy and the OEA. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: But let's move forward. CITY M~NAGER: Right. February 17, 2004 that would have greatly affected how we proceeded with that one application and will affect how we proceed with other applications. You know we have to go down this road together. We may not agree on certain issues. We may not agree with certain stances, but we all need to have the same information at the same zime even if it's second-hand information. I think the people that bear this information have credibility, have good intentions in mind and are trying to divert a train wreck. But, we all ought to be on the same sheet of music so we can all make the same educated decision based on the information that's at-hand at that time. My motion, whenever this issue is re-hatched, will be for a deferral of this application, not a denial but a deferral in order for the joint land uses study to be taken without the threat of one application derailing MAYOR OBERNDORF: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: COUNCILMAN REEVE: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: in this joint land use it. So, I just wanted to make that clear. Okay. Mrs. Wilson. I would have voted for a deferral last I think a lot of us would have done that. So, I'm glad to hear that's what you're changing it to. Who is the decision-maker study? I mean I, like a lot of you, am hearing things all over the place. CITY I~La_NAGER: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: CITY MANAGER: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: COUNCILMAN REEVE: It's the City Council, clearly. We're the decision-makers? It's your study and you adopt it and you choose whether or not to implement it. Well, haven't we done that already? The OEA still needs to decide to spend the week. February 17, 2004 business when your business partner won't talk to you or you have the feeling that, you know, you can't have honest dialogue, because they are being constrained by superiors in Washington or whatever. There's an awful lot at stake here and it's just a very strange process. It's, you know, frustrating to say the least. MAYOR OBERI~DORF: I think their intentions are very admirable. I have never known anyone to try and preserve a military installation with as open mind and open heart as Oceana. They are following, as you know, what has been handed down by the Department of the Defense. Their reasons for wanting to have the Council alerted and the public is because they are concerned about the well-being of the citizens who will be making decisions if they are -- you know pieces are rezoned and they move in. They want to be certain that everyone is on record as having said what they needed to say so that there is no miss-representation. Mr. Reeve and then Mrs. Wilson. COUNCILMAN P. EEVE: Thank you. I do think there's been a lot of innuendos and concerns raised but not officially on how the Navy was or was not going to react to our decision. And that did weigh in my decision to ask for this Meeting today; but, when it comes down to it I still support the Application on its merits. It's just like when we went through the Transition Area, sometimes individual applications will be used as lightening rods or a catalyst to move one direction or another and I don't think it's fair to the application. I don't think it's fair to other applications to be treated that way and that's why I think we need to have a plan in place that addresses all of these concerns and tries to defuse some of this rhetoric. Also, I think it would be good to go forward and that this Council have all the information at the same time. There were conversations prior to our vote that were not shared with everyone and I think February 17, 2004 I think everyone here would have supported Keeley or a naval representative being on that task force. But, they don't talk to us. We have to rely on intermediaries like Admiral Metz who is no longer in the Navy and is retired and feels like he has the liberty of being able to say things the Navy doesn't feel comfortable with or can't say. It makes the process extremely difficult for us to figure out the right thing to when your partner won't talk to you. MAYOR OBERNDOP~F: Well, in the defense of the Navy, because know that Admiral Metz has been busy with each BRAC in the City, I worked with him when he was appointed by Congressman Owen Pickett. I personally feel that the Navy does not think it's appropriate to come and ask for a position and the second problem is, there is the data calls now for BRAC and I think they have to be more careful to look -- this is Meyera Oberndorf. I've never been under the Navy, so I can't speak from first-hand knowledge, but I think that maybe they just might have mentioned it to the Admiral, the Retired Admiral and he in turn took the liberty of sending that e-mail to me. I just wanted to be sure that when I do receive anything from the Admiral -- and I know, Richard, he is very proud of having supported you for your seat on Council and refers to that frequently. I know he means no harm. I think he's just trying to find a way to make sure that all of our I's are dotted and our T's are crossed. COUNCII~4~N MADDOX: And I would agree with you. I think he is trying to be helpful. But, I will take us back to that Council Meeting a number of weeks ago when the Navy was there and Admiral Metz and Admiral Dunleavy got up and for the first time ever we actually had real dialogue about the issue give-and-take, which for whatever reason we don't seem to have with the Navy other than very official statements. You know there's an awful lot at stake here. It's difficult to do 5 February 17, 2004 I got a call from Mr. Reeve this a.m. He mentioned he had talked to Admiral Fallen and he asked if I had heard anything from the Navy. The only thing I have heard is the Navy is encouraged by the reconsideration of Reid. I suggested that we get on with organization and identifying goals of the JLUS. Mayor, I am not sure how the task force was organized, but I recommend that Captain Keeley be a member -- and this is Retired Admiral Metz' words: The Captain feels he should be on the task force. Have a good day, Fred. I will ask for someone to make a copy of this e-mail from yesterday for everyone on the Council. Mr. Maddox. COUNCILI~a.N MADDOX: I have a few comments. I think part of the remarks really lend themselves to my concerns that we -- first of all, the Planning Commission voted for this item, eight Council Members voted in favor of it, the staff recommended it and now we're here reconsidering it today. I seconded the motion that if we want to maintain the morale high ground, then, maybe it is the right thing to do. But, once again, we're reacting to rumor or we're reacting to second-hand comments or we're reacting -- I mean, if Captain Keeley wanted to be on the commission, why didn't Captain Keeley himself ask us and tell us that he felt like he needed to be on the task force? MAYOR OBERNDORF: I don't think that he has mentioned that to be candid with you. He's never said anything to me personally. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Well, that's my point. My point is that we have a partner that doesn't talk to us and that we have tried very hard, very diligently over the last two months to sit down and have some very candid, frank conversations and it's difficult to do that. Whether it's protocol that prevents that from happening or whether it's the Chain of Command that -- you know February 17, 2004 He says: Mayor, I understand the Reid issue will be brought up again before the Council. Hopefully, Members of the Council all understand how important their vote will be and the signal it sends. I've been talking to many, explaining the importance of maintaining a partnership and how important the JLUS, joint land use study, is to the City and the Navy. There are well-founded expectations for the JLUS. For the first time both the City and the Navy will engage in a quote, real study, unquote. A City study that will ultimately allow for present and long-range planning decisions. Because we are putting so much faith in this study, it must be done correctly and as soon as possible. Parenthesis, I realize the study has not been approved, but I am sure there will be pressure to get some answers, closed quote. I am not sure how the criteria is going to be established for City input. The JLUS study has recommendations how to proceed and facts from the study. Results are expected from the JLUS project. Communities are asked to make a good-faith commitment before the grant is funded and study recommendations will be accepted and incorporated into the local planning and decision-making. Some of the study recommendations will be controversial, particularly to groups or individuals having development interests in land affected by Base operations. Local Officials must face this reality before they agree to participate in the process and be willing to consider the broad public, health, safety and welfare, Page 2 of Program Guidance Manual. The Manual gives guidance on organizational development of work plan resource administration technical issues, study recommendations and implementation activities. Mayor, I suggest the task force get together soon and start identifying the City's goal of the study and the organization. This would show more good faith. I have asked the Chamber and Navy whose concerns need to be included in the study. February 17, 2004 force who voted several days prior to move applications ahead in that direction, I feel that by moving that application and probably several others in that general vicinity forward, even though they've been supported by staff and supported by the Planning Commission, that that would work to undermined our ability to work with the Navy in this joint land use study. So, it's my intention that we work closely with the Navy in the next couple of weeks to determine where there are critical areas, which they have somewhat identified to us and to get a better understanding of that prior to the next vote on applications. But more importantly, to proceed as quickly as possible to task our task force with starting to put together the prime areas of the joint land use study. We're still waiting to hear from OEA and whether or not they are going to approve it, but I think we need to be proactive. The City is dedicated to that process. That, is a plan that we will develop with the Navy as our partner and we can use in the future so people know what our goals and expectations are for areas throughout the City. The Transition Area is hot right now, because we all know there is going to be a lot of redevelopment issues that are just as critical and even more so in the sense of density in future years in other districts. So with that being said, I would like to make a motion that we re-advertise to re-hear the Reid Application. COUNCILM~N M~DDOX: Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Before I call for the vote, yesterday late in the day I received a fax from Retired Admiral Fred Metz and I would just like to read this into the record so everybody will know. February 17, 2004 MAYOR OBEP/~DORF: I would like to call the Special Session of the Virginia Beach City Council to order. We have had this Special Meeting called to initiate and schedule for advertising the reconsideration of the Applications of F. Donald Reid at 3592 Indian River Road, District 7, Princess Anne District. The Variance to Paragraph 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and to allow a 45-foot lot subdivision with open space and walking trails in the Transition Area. B, a change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District. And, C, Conditional Use Permit for open space. Madam Clerk, do you have the roll? CITY CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Reeve, if you would like to make a motion or have -- COUNCII/qAN REEVE: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: -- the floor? COUNCILMAN REEVE: Yes, ma'am. The reason I asked for this Special Session is due to the discussion I recently had right after the vote and the concern that was expressed by the Navy. I firmly believe the joint land use study is the key to getting a plan together that the Navy knows what our expectations are, we know what the Navy's expectations and needs are and the citizens and the landowners know what direction we want to proceed. Just like the Transition Area Guidelines, we need to have a plan in place and even though we followed the guidance from our own task Virginia Beach City Council February 17, 2004 8:30 a.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood Mayor At-Large Bayside District 4 Kempsville - District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven District 5 CITY M~NAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Special Session to reconsider the Applications of F. Donald Reid SYKES. t OURDON. AttERN & LEVY. P.C. The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Members of Virginia Beach City Council March 1, 2004 Page 2 (b) A vote will be, or has been, taken by the City Council to "Reconsider" the zoning approvals granted to Mr. Reid on February 10, 2004; (c) A rehearing of Mr. Reid's applications by the Virginia Beach City Council has been scheduled for a Public Hearing before City Council. Based upon what I read in the local newspaper and a few conversations I have had, it would appear that you all held a Special Meeting or Public Hearing on the morning of February 17, 2004 at which time you apparently discussed my client's approved zoning applications and voted to reconsider and rehear them. If this is accurate, we would have appreciated the courtesy of receiving written notification of your action (if not before, then certainly after). We would also have appreciated receiving any communication regarding the scheduling of such a reconsideration. Assuming the information I have gleaned from the newspaper articles, editorials and conversations I have had is accurate, and you have voted to reconsider Mr. Reid's zoning approvals, please be aware that I will be out of the country for the second week of March 2004 (3/6 to 3/14). If you have voted to rehear Mr. Reid's applications, please provide us the courtesy of scheduling the rehearing for your meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 and confirm same in writing if at all possible. With kind regards, I am REBjr/arhm cc: F. Donald Reid Very truly yours, (, R. EclwaTd Bourdon, Jr. CONDITIONALREZONING / REID / POTTERTRACT/OBERNDORF 1 PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK BUILDING ONE 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 FACSIMILE; 757-456 5445 Via Hand Delivertt l SY[[S, ] 0Ut2DON. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW March 1,2004 JON M AHERN SCOTT N. ALPERIN R EDWARD BOURDON, JR JAMES T. CROMWELL L STEVEN EMMERT DAVID S. HOLLAND KIRK E3. LEVY JENNIFER D ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R SYKES, JR The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf Office of the Mayor City Hall Building # 1 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones c/o Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk City Hall Building #1, Room 281 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Members of Virginia Beach City Council c/o Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk City Hall Building # 1, Room 281 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Application of F. Donald Reid at 3952 Indian River Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia (a} Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance (b) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 & 2 to Conditional R-20 {c) Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion Approved February 10, 2004 Dear Mayor Oberndorf, Vice Mayor Jones and Council members: I am corresponding with you for the purpose of advising that as of this date, neither I nor my client, Mr. F. Donald Reid has received any written notification from the City that: (a) A Public Hearing is, or has been, scheduled by the City Council at which time the subject of "Reconsidering" the zoning approvals granted to Mr. Reid on February 10, 2004 would be discussed or considered; Maps F, G - 13 M~, N o~ .z. ,;c~,~ F. Donald Reid Gpin 1483-38~5300 ZONING HISTORY 1. 8-10-87: Conditional Use Permit (Single-family dwelling) -Approved 2. 3-25-83: Conditional Use Permit (Additions to cemetery) - Approved 3. 11-28-88: Subdivision Variance - Approved 8-13-91: Conditional Use Permit (Church)- Approved 1-13-98: Conditional Use Permit (Private School) - Approved 4. 5-25-99: Rezoning (AG-1 & 2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential) Approved 6-27-00: Rezoning (AG-1 & 2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential) Approved 4-24-01: Modification of Proffers - Approved CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: F. Donald Reid - Subdivision Variance, Change of Zoning District Classification and a Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of F. Donald Reid for a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion on property located at 3592 Indian River Road (GPIN 1483386300). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE (b) An Ordinance upon Application of F. Donald Reid for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District on property located at 3592 Indian River Road (GPIN 1483386300). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this property for appropriate growth opportunities consistent with the economic vitality policies of the City of Virginia Beach. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE (c) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for F. Donald Reid. Property is located at 3592 Indian River Road (GPIN 1483386300). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE The City Council indefinitely deferred this matter on September 23, 2003 and on December 2, 2003. The City Council approved these requests on February 10, 2004. On February 17, 2004, the City Council moved to reconsider the vote of February 10, and set March 9 as the date for that reconsideration. On March 9, the Council deferred the matter of reconsideration to March 23. There have been no changes to the proposal since the February 10 approval. Considerations: The existing site is heavily wooded with mature trees and vegetation. Wetlands areas and Southern Watershed Management Areas exist on the western side of the site. The highest noise zone under the AICUZ designation encumbers the eastern side of the site. A single-family dwelling occupies the site. The site is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural. The applicant proposes to rezone the site from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District and to obtain a Conditional Use F. Don Reid Page 2 of 3 Permit for Open Space Promotion. The Open Space Promotion allows for a reduction in lot sizes provided a minimum of 15 percent open space is provided throughout the development. Within the R-20 Residential Open Space Promotion, the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. The proposed development will consist of 45 lots varying in size from 12,000 square feet to 41,129 square feet with an average lot size of 15,875 square feet. Four of the lots do not meet the required lot widths in the Conditional R-20 Residential District with an Open Space Promotion. The lots are shown as flag lots on the submitted plan. The applicant is seeking a Subdivision Variance for those lots. The site is located within the Transition Area. Residential development should be a secondary component of the open space, and the overall development should strive to achieve a minimum of 50 percent open space using the existing natural resources. The applicant proposes 60 percent open space throughout the development, including areas of the existing natural resources and the land area encumbered by the greater than 75dB Ldn AiCUZ. Staff utilized the Transition Area Matrix to determine the permitted number of lots within the proposed development. The proposed development is configured to protect and maintain the existing natural areas along the right-of-way and perimeter of the site. A minimum 300- foot buffer of existing treed areas along Indian River Road is maintained as a scenic buffer, as recommended by the Transition Area Design Guidelines. The buffer area will insure that a wooded area is maintained along Indian River Road and will effectively camouflage the residential development from the roadway. Large open space areas of woods and wetlands are maintained on both the western and eastern sides of the site. Eight foot wide mulch trails meander through the buffer areas. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan with proffers that effectively addresses the recommendations of the Transition Area Design Guidelines. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0-1 to approve the requests as proffered and with the following conditions: Conditions for Use Permit: The proposed development shall substantially adhere to the submitted Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF POTTER TRACT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated 05-06-03, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council F. Don Reid Page 3 of ;3 and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Before any land disturbance occurs on the site, the applicant shall submit a detailed tree protection and restoration plan to the Development Services Center of the Planning Department for review and approval. The plan shall clearly delineate vegetation to be preserved and all restoration areas. Tree mitigation for the restoration areas shall be 2:1. Residential lot tree canopy shall be double the total canopy cover specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table." For the purpose of screening the development from the existing agricultural operations to the northwest, supplemental plantings of evergreen trees shall be required along the boundaries of lots 31 through 40 in the open space area adjacent to the parcel to the west, if needed. 5. Right and left turn lanes shall be provided into the site. The design and location are subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 6. The eight foot mulched trails proposed on the eastern portion of the site shall be modified to provide connectivity with the parcel to the east. 7. A note shall be placed on the plat for Lots 31 to 40 as follows: "Lots 31 to 40 may be subject to sounds, odors, and other affects commonly associated with agricultural operations." Conditions for Subdivision Variance: The subdivision shall substantially adhere to the submitted Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF POTTER TRACT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated 05-06-03, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~See write up on interim AICUZ guidelines which modify recommendations. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: ~ ~ Planning Department~ F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 ~ August 13, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION F13-213-SVR-2003 NUMBER: F13-213-CRZ-2002 F13-213-CUP-2002 REQUEST: 34) 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 35) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District. 36) Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion. ADDRESS: 3592 Indian River Road Maps F, G - 13 F. Donald Reid Gpin 14gl-35~6300 Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page I GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 14833863000000 7- PRINCESS ANNE 51.4 acres (47.35 developable acres) Faith Christie The applicant is proposing a 45-1ot subdivision with open space of walking trails and wetland areas in the Transition Area. Major Issues: · Degree to which the application complies with the Transition Area Design Guidelines, as adopted by the City Council on January 25, 2003. · Consistency with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin,q Land Use and Zonin,q The existing site is heavily wooded with mature trees and vegetation. Wetlands areas and Southern Watershed Management Areas exist on the western side of the site. The highest noise zone under the AICUZ designation encumbers the eastern side of the site. A single-family dwelling occupies the site. The site is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural. Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: - Single-family dwellings / A church and private school / AG-1 and AGo2 Agricultural Districts · Indian River Road · Across Indian River Road are Single-family dwellings / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts · Vacant, undeveloped land / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts · Single-family dwelling / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: Three single-family lots or any of the uses permitted in the Agricultural District such as agricultural and horticultural uses, borrow pits, churches, golf courses, horse stables, kennels, public utility installations, public buildings and grounds, recreational and amusement facilities of an outdoor nature, and schools. With Proposed Zoning: Forty-five (45) single-family residential dwellings and dedicated open spaces. Zoninq History There is no zoning history to report for this site. The site has been zoned agricultural since the creation of the City of Virginia Beach. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The majority of the site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn. A portion of the site is in a greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding Fentress Airfield and NAS Oceana. The United States Navy comments that "residential land use is not compatible" within the greater than 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". Planning Commission Agenda August13,2003 F. DONALD REID/# 34,35 & 36 Page 3 Environmental Concerns The site is comprised of heavily wooded areas, City-defined wetlands, Southern Watershed Management Areas and isolated pockets of wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers (but are not City-defined). The Department of Agriculture examined the site for soil types and wetland areas in conjunction with their review of the proposal. They concurred with the Planning Department's analysis that for the purpose of calculating density (Section 200 of the City Zoning Ordinance), 47.35 acres of the site qualify. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is no City water or sewer available to the site. Water analysis, construction plans and bonds are required for the water system. Sewer analysis, pump station calculations, construction plans and bonds are required for the sewer system. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Indian River Road in front of this site is currently an undivided two lane rural highway. It is depicted on the Master Transportation Plan as a 120-foot divided right- of-way with a multi-use trail and controlled access. Right-of-way reservation or dedication for Indian River Road will be addressed during detailed construction and subdivision plan review. Left and right turn lane improvements will be required with the development of the site. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 50 Indian River Road 5,000 ADT ~ 7,400 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3. 513 Average Daily Trips 2 Based upon the current AG-1 & 2 Zoning classification 3 Based upon the proposed Rezoning to R-20 (OP) and the subdivision of the site into 45 residential lots Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 4 Schools School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation ~ Change 2 North Landing 611 690 15 14 Elementary Landstown Middle 1,617 2,143 8 7 Landstown High 1,910 1,931 10 10 "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. Fire and Rescue: Fire hydrants must be located within 500 feet of residential structures. Structures must be located within 200 feet of the road surface for fire department access. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the site as being within the Transition Area. The Comprehensive Plan states "this area of the City serves as a land use buffer between the clearly urbanizing area of the north and the clearly rural area of the south", The Comprehensive Plan notes that residential growth within the Transition Area should be considered a special type of growth with its own development standards suitable to the atmosphere and character of the area. Two of the primary criteria specified by the Plan for development in the Transition Area are Planning Commission Agenda August13,2003 F. DONALD REID/# 34,35 & 36 Page 5 1. Demonstration to the City Council that the project establishes the residential component as secondary to the open space component; 2. Demonstration to the City Council that the character of the project is in keeping with the character of the Transition area. The proposal must also demonstrate adherence to the recently adopted Transition Area Design Guidelines. This development's degree of adherence to the Guidelines is discussed below in the Proffers section. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant proposes to rezone the site from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion. The Open Space Promotion allows for a reduction in lot sizes provided a minimum of 15percent open space is provided throughout the development. Within the R-20 Residential Open Space Promotion, the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. The proposed development will consist 45 lots varying in size from 12,000 square feet to 41,129 square feet with an average lot size of 15,875 square feet. The site is located within the Transition Area. Residential development should be a secondary component of the open space and strive to achieve a minimum of 50 percent open space using the existing natural resources. The applicant proposes 60 percent open space throughout the development, including areas of the existing natural resources and the land area encumbered by the greater than 75dB Ldn AICUZ. Staff utilized the Transition Area Matrix to determine the permitted number of lots within the proposed development. A copy of the matrix can be found at the conclusion of this report. Site Desi,qn · The proposed development is configured to protect and maintain the existing natural areas along the right-of-way and perimeter of the site. A minimum 300-foot buffer of existing treed areas along Indian River Road is maintained as a scenic buffer, as recommended by the Transition Area Design Guidelines. The buffer area will insure that a wooded area is maintained along Indian River Road and effectively camouflage the residential development from view. Large open space areas of woods and wetlands are maintained on both the western and eastern sides of the site. Eight foot wide mulch trails meander through the buffer areas. Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 6 A single entrance from Indian River Road curves through approximately 600 feet of buffer area into the development. Pedestrian crosswalks and a sidewalk are also proposed along the main roadway. North Landing Estates / / / The proposed lots are arranged in groupings along the main entrance road and through four cul-de-sacs. All of the proposed lots are sited so the rear and some of the side yards are adjacent to open space areas. All of the lots have been located outside of the "City-defined" wetlands and Southern Watershed Management Area buffers. Stormwater management ponds are integrated into the site. One of the ponds, located adjacent to the primary roadway, provides a visual amenity for the development. Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 7 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Vehicular access is limited to a single entrance from Indian River Road. The entrance road curves through approximately 600 feet of wooded open space. The design of the entrance provides a scenic view into the development. · Eight foot wide mulched trails are proposed through the open space along the eastern side of the site and along the front of the site. · A sidewalk and pedestrian crosswalks are proposed along the main entrance road. Stub streets are proposed for connectivity to adjacent parcels. Architectural Desi,qn · The applicant did not proffer architectural elevations for the proposed dwellings within the development. Proffer 6 limits exterior finishes to brick, stone, hardi-plank siding or dryvit. No vinyl siding will be permitted. Living area within the dwellings will be a minimum of 2,400 square feet for ranch style structures and 2,600 square feet for two-story structures. All homes are required to have a two-car garage and exposed aggregate or stamped concrete driveways. Considering the minimum square footage of the dwellings, the required exterior building materials, and the sales prices of homes situated to the north on Indian River Road, staff concludes that the homes will have a value of $400,000 or more, consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. While not proffered, the applicant has submitted elevation drawings of homes that a builder has proposed for this development as well as a letter from that builder noting that the lots within the development will sell between $110,000 to $135,000 and the sales prices will start in the Iow $400,000 range. Landscape and Open Space · Wetlands areas are located on the eastern portion of the site. The western portion is heavily wooded and impacted by the highest AICUZ. The applicant has designed the site to take advantage of the natural resources and AICUZ impacted areas that currently exist. Both of these areas will be left as natural open spaces, with recreational trails meandering throughout. A varying natural buffer of a minimum of 300 feet wide will be maintained along Indian River Road, in keeping with the recommendations of the Transition Area Design Guidelines. Proffer 7 will insure that existing natural areas depicted on the proffered site plan are protected. If clearing does occur within those areas, the applicant will be responsible for restoring the site subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 8 While the submitted site plan does not depict on-site landscaping, the applicant will have to provide tree canopy cover as specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table" on each residential lot. Subdivision Variance Four of the lots do not meet the required lot widths in the Conditional R-20 Residential District with an Open Space Promotion. The lots are shown as flag lots on the submitted plan. Item ~ Lot16 Lot17 Lot31 Lot40 Lot Width in feet 1 O0 42* 36* 40* 40* Lot Area in square feet 12,000 19,247 18,318 22,715 41,129 *Variance required Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#2 When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than forty-five (45) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF POTTER TRACT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated 05-06-03, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the proposed development will be in accordance with the submitted conceptual site layout plan. When the Property is developed, the pedestrian trail system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. Approximately 33.3 acres of landscaped parklands with pond features and an extensive trail system as depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. A public use easement Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 9 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#4 shall be dedicated on those portions of the trail system located within the 300' Transition Area Buffer adjacent to Indian River Road. The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the goal of 50 percent or more open space within a residential development in the Transition Area is achieved. The applicant has designed the development to provide a minimum of a 300-foot buffer along Indian River Road. This natural buffer should effectively screen the homes and provide a natural scenic view along the right-of-way. The proposed trail system is to be dedicated for public use thus accomplishing the goal of providing an amenity that is visually and operationally available to those who do not live within the development. Additionally the trail system can easily be integrated into the proposed trail system for Indian River Road. The landscaped parklands and pond features provide additional open space and visual amenities within the development. The community entrances and the proposed street section of the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the detailed plans on the Concept Plan. No on-street parking shall be permitted on one side of every road within the community. The proffer is acceptable concerning the proposed entrance and street sections as they meet the minimum requirements established by the Public Works Department. Regarding the no on-street parking on one side of the road, the proffer is negligible in terms of effect. The applicant would have to request that the Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works post the roadway in order for the Police Department to enforce the no parking requirement. When the property is developed a left turn lane shall be constructed at the entrance to the community from Indian River Road. A public right of way shall be dedicated to the adjoining property to the east and the adjoining property to Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 10 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#5 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#6 Staff Evaluation: the north as depicted on the Concept Plan. The proffer is acceptable. The Traffic Engineering Division of Public Works determined that left and right turn lanes will be required during the detailed subdivision and construction plan review process. Staff requested connectivity with the adjoining parcels be depicted on the conceptual site plans. Proffering the turn lane and right-of- way connections within the development will reduce any confusion between the applicant and the staff during the detailed site plan review process. When the property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by the Property Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all open space areas, including the community owned parklands, pedestrian trail, and the entrance features. The proffer is acceptable. It meets the requirement in the of the City Zoning Ordinance open space promotion section concerning improved open space areas to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than eighty percent (80%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one-stow dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-stoW 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 and a driveway (including apron) with a minimum of four hundred ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. The proffer is acceptable. The size of the proposed homes and the proposed quality building materials will contribute to the high quality appearance of the subdivision. The Planning Commission Agenda F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 11 PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 8 Staff Evaluation: required two (2)-car garages and driveway for each dwelling will help alleviate on-straet parking within the proposed development. When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve the existing mature trees on the site and a tree preservation and restoration plan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The proffer is acceptable. It insures that the areas depicted for open space will be protected and preserved. If there are areas that must be disturbed during the construction process the proffer insures that those areas will be restored. Staff will not permit any land clearing activities to occur until the preservation and restoration plan has been reviewed and approved. The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing sixty-four percent (64%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of approximately thirty-three and three-tenths (33.3 +/-) acres of Property to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantor agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space promotion pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If funds proffered by the Grantor in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. The proffer is acceptable. It provides funds for pumhase of open space (or for any other public purpose after 20 years) Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 12 PROFFER # 9 Staff Evaluation: within the City. The proffered $750.00 per lot equates to $33,750. O0 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- 20 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 the City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The proffer is acceptable. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated June 26, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the site from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District, and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion is acceptable as proffered and subject to the conditions listed below. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and proffer agreement that effectively addresses the recommendations of the Transition Area Design Guidelines. A copy of the Transition Area Matrix can be found at the end of this report. Conditional Chanqe of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit The Transition Area Design Guidelines suggest that developments should strive for a minimum of 50 percent open space by designing with nature, making a special effort to preserve and showcase significant environmental resources. The applicant is proposing 60 percent open space in the form of wetlands areas, heavily wooded areas encumbered by the highest noise zone designation surrounding Fentress Airfield and NAS Oceana, and a varying width buffer of a minimum 300-foot along Indian River Planning Commission Agenda August13,2003 F. DONALD REID/# 34,35 & 36 Page13 Road, which preserves the existing scenic view. Mulched walking trails meander through the buffer along Indian River Road and the eastern side of the site. The Guidelines suggest that the development should contain lots of varying sizes. The proposed Conditional R-20 Residential District with an Open Space Promotion allows the lots to be reduced in size to 12,000 square feet in order to preserve open space. The applicant proposes lots varying in size from 12,000 square feet to 41,129 square feet with an average lot size of 15,875 square feet. The lots are clustered in cul-de-sacs and in small groups along the main roadway with all rear yards and some side yard facing open space areas. The Guidelines suggest that the development should be fiscally neutral. The applicant provided documentation that the minimum starting price for a home within the proposed development will be in the Iow $400,000 dollar range. The proposed dwellings will be constructed of high quality building materials, minimum square footage requirements, and double car driveways and garages. Additionally, the applicant is proffering cash proffers of $750.00 per lot, which equates to $33,750.00, for purchase of open space (or for any other public purpose after 20 years) within the City of Virginia Beach. Subdivision Variance Four of the lots in the development do not meet minimum lot width and thus a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Variance is required. 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. 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. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 14 adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. 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. 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. Staff recommends approval of the requests for a conditional change of zoning from AG- 1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District as proffered, a Conditional Use Permit for an Open Space Promotion subject to the conditions listed below, and a Subdivision Variance subject to the conditions below. Conditions for Use Permit The proposed development shall substantially adhere to the submitted Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF POTTER TRACT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated 05-06-03, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Before any land disturbance occurs on the site, the applicant shall submit a detailed tree protection and restoration plan to the Development Services Center of the Planning Department for review and approval. The plan shall clearly delineate vegetation to be preserved and all restoration areas. Tree mitigation for the restoration areas shall be 2:1. Residential lot tree canopy shall be double the total canopy cover specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Requirement Table." For the purpose of screening the development from the existing agricultural operations to the northwest, supplemental plantings of evergreen trees shall be required along the boundaries of lots 31 through 40 in the open space area Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 15 adjacent to the parcel to the west, if needed. 5. Right and left turn lanes shall be provided into the site. The design and location are subject to the approval or the Public Works Department. 6. The eight foot mulched trails proposed on the eastern portion of the site shall be modified to provide connectivity with the parcel to the east. Conditions for Subdivision Variance 1. The subdivision shall substantially adhere to the submitted Exhibit entitled "C©NCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF POTTER TRACT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated 05-06-03, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with these rezoning and conditional use permit applications 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 August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 16 Transition Area Matrix NORTH LANDING ESTATES - DATED 5/6/03 Allowable maximum residential density for any rezoning in the Transition Area under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan is 1 unit per acre. The maximum density can be achieved through adherence to the Evaluative Criteria provided below and further explained in the Design Guidelines for the Transition Area. Each section of the Evaluative Criteria below ties to the Design Guidelines through the graphic icon at the top of the section. For further guidance on the respective section of the Matrix, turn to the page of the Guidelines that has the corresponding graphic icon. Staff will 'score' the proposed development for its consistency with the Evaluative Criteria below. The scores are then totaled and the total is 'plugged' into the formula below to determine the recommended maximum density for the development. Evaluative Criteria Total Comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project preserves and integrates into the 2.0 overall project the natural resource amenities on the site. Amenity Nature and degree of the 3,5 amenity Design Degree to which the project 4,5 incorporates good design into the project Line A -- Line B -- Line C -- Line D -- Line E -- I (A) TOTAL: (B) TOTAL / '11 possible points r (C) Line (B)* 0.5 = [ 0.46 J (D) Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre -- l 0.96 da/acre (E) LineD*total [ 45unitsI developable acres (47.35) = total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible I dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the site. total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 17 (1) Natural Resources Existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and ~ related features Tot al a) Are natural resources protected? Comments: · Yes, the proposed lots have been located YES (0 to 1 1 outside of the City defined wetlands and the point) Southern Watershed Management buffer. NO (0 points) b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · Yes, wooded areas with recreational trails, a 1 minimum of 300 feet in width are retained point) along the right-of-way. A public use easement shall be dedicated over the trail system as parr of the proffered Rezoning agreement. · The wetlands area to the east and the high noise area to the west, with recreational trails, are left as open space. NO (0 points) TOTAL (NATURAL RESOURCES) 2 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 18 2 ) Amen A feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site ~ consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? I YES (0 to 1 Comments: point) 1 · Yes, in the form of a minimum 300-foot buffer along the right-of-way that has recreation trails within iL The wide buffer is visually and operationally available to those who do not own property in the subdivision through the dedication of a public use easement. · Large wooded portion of the site are also provided as amenities. NO (0 points) b) Does the amenity consist of recreational components? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · Yes in the form of trails and open space .75 areas. However the trail system proposed on point) the eastern side of the site needs to provide connectivity with the adjacent parcel. NO (0 points) Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 19 c) Are improvements made that provide visual or physical access to the natural resources on the site OR are improvements made to create a new amenity to the property? YES (0 to 1 1 point) Comments: · Yes, the trails provide access to the open space areas, and the proposed storm water management facilities. · Storm water management facilities are integrated into the site as amenities. NO (0 points) d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? YES (0 to 1 .75 Comments: point) · The proposed trails are not linked with the surrounding parcels. · The trails proposed along the right-of-way can be easily integrated into the trail system proposed for Indian River Road, · Future right-of-way connections to adjacent parcels are depicted. NO (0 points) TOTAL (AMENITY) 3.5 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Planning Commission Agenda August13,2003 F. DONALD REID/# 34,35 & 36 Page 20 (3) Design Creation or execution in an artistic or highly skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Are natural or manmade water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? YES (0 to I .75 Comments: point) · Yes, City defined wetlands areas and Southern Watershed Management buffer areas are preserved and depicted as open space. · Storm water management ponds are integrated into the project and serve as NO (0 points) visual amenities. b) Is there an attempt to integrate units with amenities within the development? Comments: YES (0 to 1 · Yes, there is an attempt to integrate the units point) .75 with the amenities within the development through the trail system. NO (0 points) Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 21 c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES (0 to 1 1 Comments: point) · Yes, a minimum of a 300- foot buffer of existing woodlands will be retained along the right-of-way maintaining the existing natural view. · The entrance curves into the site so that no structures are visible from the right-of-way thereby maintaining the natural view from the right-of-way. NO (0 points) d) Is a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering or massing of homes used to achieve a primarily open space development? YES (0 to 1 1 Comments: point) · Yes, there is a mixture of lot sizes. The proposed lots are clustered and sited so that all rear yards and some side yards abut open space areas. · The development exceeds the 50% open space goal. NO (0 points) Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 22 e) Does the development use roadway and "hard infrastructure" that is appropriate for its design? Is it consistent with the vision and recommendations of this area as expressed in YES (0 to 1 the Comprehensive Plan? point) 1 Comments: · The proposed roadway section is appropriate for its design. NO (0 points) TOTAL (DESIGN) 4.5 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 23 Planning Commission Agenda August13,2003 F. DONALD REID/# 34,35 & 36 Page 24 ! o Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 25 Planning Commission Agenda August13,2003 F. DONALD REID/# 34,35 & 36 Page 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ~'~ls. Faith Christie Planning Department City of Vizginia Beach ~uilding 2, R~ om I00 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 5726 Set 32/0260 July 1, 2003 Dear Ms. Christie: Item [ on the P]~anning Corlv~ission Agenda for July 9, 2003, is a rezoning request and proposed residential development by F. Donald Reid. The site is ioeated in the 70-75 decibel (dB) day-night average (Ldo) noise zone and partially in the greater 5ban 75 db Ldo. The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use zones Program states that residential land use is not compatible in this zone. The Navy acknowledges the landowners' desire ~o develop uhelr property, but I urge you to deny their Iequest. 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, Copy to: COMNAVREG Mi OLANT !~ayer Msyera Oberndorf Virginia Beach City C}~nc[l Virginia Beach Plain]lng C}mmisslen Hr. Rober~ Scott, V rginia Beach Planning Director Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 27 SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY Application No: ............. Property Desenl~cm (13-d~9it Tax Map Number, Street A~c~ress or Common Description, Boroug~):_ 1483--3/~-6300 Nature of U~e Ewe , , am/are: E~ me app~nt for ~he a~eve referenced appli~on ~ ~e owner of the pmpe~ ~esct;bed a~ave ~o ~o ~emDy r~, ~ns[~, and appoin~ ~' ~ ~, ~. · ~.. ~ of , , ~eand i~ui a~m~d~ aha grant urea ~ a~mey~~ ~11 p~er aha a~o~ ~ make appli~t~n far ~e ~ pe~t appli~on des~ea ~. ~d ~ pe~ all ~ and ma~ all ~ d appi ~on, w ~t any ~m~aon ~a~a~er, in~u~i~ ~ut ~t limi~ ~ ~ following auth~ aha ~ ~ or amend any do~nm in w~ole ~ in pa~ ruling ~ t~ appl~aon. ~e dgn=, p~em. and ~m~od~ of s~d a~mey-in.~ ~erein gmm~ s~alt ~mmen~ and be shall m~in in full ~ an~ effe~ th~eaher undl amual n~, by ~e~ ~il, tatum m~ip[ ~u~ea is ~ved by ~e Planning Depa~ent~ ~ Ci~ of C~ s~n9 ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ - ~ Apph~nt- Subscd~d and swan m before me this ...../~~ ~ day of ....~ov~'~ _20~ NOTARY PUBLIC / My commission expires: ,/':'/~//~/~ ~~corporaaon, par~ership, or sin',ilar eH, c~ocumentation must be attached w~lch establishes that bhe person signing an behaif of ~ emi~ has The authority ta act on behaif of anti to bincJ ~hat enti~ Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 28 Z Z Applicant's Name: F'. Fx)nald Reid List All Currant Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE tfthe property owner is a CORPORATION, list ail officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ~/A 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) ............. N/A [] 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 th e Appflcant 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) ~'1 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. Signature Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 29 Z Z Applicant's Name: List All Current · Iiaz'~y A Pottez' Property Owners. _ i PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ~/A If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list ail members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 1'2'1 .Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnersh p, firm, or other umncorporated organization, If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Dis closure sectfon 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 alt members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~/A [] Check here il~ 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. Signature Print Name Conditional Rezonlng Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 30 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list ell officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) if the properly owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. list all members or partners in the organization betow: (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 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 ether unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name Subdivision Variance Application Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2003 F. DONALD REID / # 34, 35 & 36 Page 3'1 Item #34, 35 & 36 F. Donald Reid Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit 3592 Indian River Road District 7 Princess Anne August 13, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next items am Items #34, 35 & 36, F. Donald Reid. Mr. Chairman, 1 need to abstain from these. Eddie Bourdon: For the record, Eddie Bourdon representing the applicant. I know from the informal session, and the lateness of the hour you prefer that I would be brief so I will do my best to do just so. The piece of property that I think most of you know, Mr. Reid, who is here, as is Steve Val, one of the principals from Lifestyle Homes, and they will be ones who will be building these very beautiful homes that are proposed on this project. The property has been in the Potter family for over a half century. Actually, I thought Mr. Potter was going to be here from Florida, but we haven't seen him. Thc properties on Indian River Road, just at the north side of the Transition Ama, adjacent to the green line and you can see a little bit of what's up there and the fact that development is occurring on the other side of the bridge north of this site. The proposal as your staff has, and we have worked with them for frankly ten months in working through this process and waiting for the TATAC Committee. I guess Jon Glass is watching. This application was filed before the TATAC Committee was organized. This is not a rushed application after TATAC. I don't think we have any of those, but anyway the application involves dedicated 60 percent of the site to open space with extensive trail system. The property itself is 47.3 acres of developable lands and only 45 lots are being proposed. We maintain a beautiful buffer that exists today, very heavily treed along Indian River Road. This property in my comment to Don when it was first brought in, lays out perfectly for what the Comprehensive Plan is looking for and as TATAC went through and made their recommendations, it totally fell into place. We provided a trail system both along Indian River Road of 300 feet or more of area that's maintained existing vegetation, a well- treated open space. We put a trail through here, as well as trails up in this area of open space on the property. This can easily be put within the trail system that is anticipated and envisioned from Stumpy Lake to Back Bay Wildlife Rethge. The trails will be a creation by the developers of the property. We have a very nice entrance road. Create an entrance road on both sides, sidewalks on both sides. You don't see the housing from the road at all. There will be a beautiful entryway. The proffers are actually what we seen in the previous Transition Area application. We provided access to the property here for the future and also access to the property here for the future development. This is the AICUZ line and the high noise zone over here. Under the current AICUZ map and that's based on fiight operations out of Fentress, which is slated to hopefully go away or significantly reduced. We put the housing over here on the land that's not in a high noise zone. I think staff has done, and I can't find fault with anything staff had to say. I think they hit the nail on the head with this application in terms of their review of it. We worked sensitively with them. We have open space provided along most of the border of the property where we adjoin an agricultural use. There is some low land over here but that is what it is and has been, and we have no problem with the condition that we will supplement existing trees with additional trees and along here we will plant a complete road trees. There are trees there, and we will maintain them and plant additional trees. That's one of the conditions that we have no problem with at all. The only condition as Stephen White had mentioned this morning that's problematic for us is the condition that involves mandating that we put in a left and right hand turn lane. Left turn is not a problem which we have no problem with a left hand turn lane. We will construct. We can provide the additional right-of-way for that and frankly that is going to be the more utilized because that is where the traffic is coming from and most of the traffic is going. There is no traffic coming northbound that would turning into here and there would be some but the majority of the trips would be leaving and going north and coming back and leaving there would be the normal destination points would not be going to the south but there will be some. And, were not adverse to putting in a right turn lane. We just have ability to effectuate that. We don't own the property here. The idea of moving the entrance over here is one that we could do but for the fact that there are some isolated non tidal wetlands in this area and that would require getting permits from the DEQ to do that. And, I wouldn't say we won't do that, we are concerned about being in a position where that's no do able, and we are stuck with having to come back for this process. So, we are perfectly happy with putting in a left turn lane and we're willing and I think someone is here who will be speaking regarding the property to our south or to our west. If we can obtain from them the needed right-of-way along Indian River Road we'll put the turn lane in. It's just we don't have the authority or the ability to get that, and we have put this entrance road at the location that is the highest ground and also significant distance from the curb here. But, again, that is not saying that if we moved it up here or a turn lane in that would be a problem. It wouldn't but we do have a concern about the permitting process for the non-tidal wetlands that would involve some disturbance. Ronald Ripley: Did you do wetlands delineation? Have you quantified what's there? Eddie Bourdon: There's been delineation there. Unfortunately, Mike Perry is not here so I'm not really in a position, and I don't know much about it, but there are some non-tidal wetlands, specifically in this area but they are eye sight but there really isn't, and we did look at is there a way to come through here without impacting those and the answer is no. So, that's the problem. Their indication to me was that it would be problematic to get those permits. Ronald Ripley: How problematic? Eddie Bourdon: I'm not the one who can answer that question. Ronald Ripley: Is it a big deal or not? Having that right turn in there would be a good safety thing especially on a small rural road. And, not having it is obviously not a good safety situation. Eddie Bourdon: Well, we are comfortable working with staffand working the property owner to try to make that happen or to go through the permitting process but those are both options that am out there but mandating it when this is the way we do it. We don't believe that there's enough right-of-way there to do a proffered job in the existing job with a right hand turn lane. Ronald Ripley: Faith, did you all look at that? Eddie Bourdon: Faith is not here. Ronald Ripley: This is your application? Did you look at the degree of wetlands that are in there that are kind of problematic situation you might see'? Stephen White: 1 know that Mr. Bourdon is correct, and that them are isolated head- water wetlands in that area. ! can't tell you the exact location though. I discussed this with Mr. Bourdon yesterday and actually suggested a realignment of that road as your all talked about. But as notes, it would require them getting permits to go through those isolated head water wetlands, and he could work with the aOjoining property owner if so inclined to provide that right hand turn lane. But, we agree with you that it is a safety issue and definitely do need to get that right hand turn lane in there. Eddie Bourdon: And, my understanding is that there is someone hem who is involved with the property adjacent to us. They have met with and talked with City representatives. They have not contacted me so I have an idea of what they're going to be talking about, and I suspect that there will be a way to make it happen because I have not had any communication with them. They haven't communicated with me on it. Let's see what they have to say. Ronald Ripley: I think Don has a question. Eddie Bourdon: I think we can provide it. Donald Horsley: You got an access just to that property? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. We provided an access to that property here. Donald Horsley: Well, if that property is developed will your road be the access to that property? Eddie Bourdon: That's the way we've done it. Donald Horsley: Well that would make that right turn lane pretty much a natural. Eddie Bourdon: Correct. We have designed this to provide them so that it will be a shared access situation if and when this property comes into development and apparently that is what is being contemplated, so they would not have to have another entrance other than Indian River Road and clearly that's what would be afforded if that happens. The problem there is that under the current AICUZ line, they're in the high noise zone so that's a potential problem that they face. We've also provided a point of access to this property as well as required by staff so we can have connectivity. Donald Horsley: Alright. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Yes, Will. William Din: Can you address Lot 45 and maybe the right turn lanes coming into Indian River Road them? Does it just come right out? Would you need a right and left turn lane them also? Eddie Bourdon: Lot 45. That's where the existing home on the property is located and that lot will be retained. It will be a larger than standard lot. A new house will be built there and replace the one that is there. Across the entire frontage back there will be an easement for the maintenance of the open space. This part of the lot going back and I dare say 200 feet would be natural, preserve, stay as it is. The driveway that is them now will remain. There will be a new house that will be built in place of the one that is there now. But there would not be a turn lane for that one house. No. It's the same situation that exists there today. You have one house. Ronald Ripley: Okay. I think we have some speakers. Sorry. Barry Knight: Eddie, on condition #4, which is the neighbor to the west, Mr. Harrison, Agricultural Operation you said something about planting some trees but they're Evergreen trees. Eddie Bourdon: Evergreen trees. The condition is absolute acceptable as written. Barry Knight: And, also we discussed this earlier but the adjoining neighbor also had a concern. He has an agricultural operation there and wanted to know if it would be okay to put in additional condition which would be condition #7, which states that the note shall be placed on the plat of Lots 31-40 as follows: Lots 31-40 may be subject to sounds, odors and other effects commonly associated with agricultural operations. Eddie Bourdon: Perfectly acceptable. Barry Knight: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: That's standard language that we see down the center part of the state. I'I1 be happy to add that condition. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Dot. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Rabef. Wade Rabey: Rabey? Dorothy Wood: I don't know. It looks like R-A-B-E-F. Wade Rabey: R-A-B-E-Y. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Thank you. Wade Rabey: Hello folks. My name is Wade Rabey. I'm with Rose & Womble, and i represent both the Lees, which is across the street here and the Graves property, so this particular Graves property obviously is going to have to be coordinated with the road that they're planning on putting in the Potter's piece. I've talked to the Graves, and they would love to see this project happen. They would have no problem working with the developer as far as the intersection there. We do have one concern though. It doesn't line up with the Lee property. There is a wedge that is owned by the State that is directly across from this intersection right here that we would have to purchase in order to line our entrance up with this entrance. We really prefer to have that thing shifted over and the Graves would be willing to dedicate right-of-way for that to happen so that when we and if we ever do be able to develop these two properties we'll have the entrance in place and we won't have to put another one that's down here and mess up the taper on the turn lanes and everything. But we would be willing to give a turn lane right-of-way dedication for the turn lane and the possibility of giving a right-of-way dedication down in this area. I believe that when they did the wetlands study for the Potters they also had a wetlands study for the Graves, so they should enough information to see if there is a possibility for them to shift that down without slowing their process down any. The other is the pump station. We don't have any problem with the location. We just want to make sure that we are going to be included. We fully realize that when we tap into that that will we have to pay a pro-rata type situation, but we just want to make sure that if we have the possibility to develop these two pieces that it's sort of master planned with the Potters piece. And, that's basically all we have. We'll be happy to meet with Eddie and Mr. Reed and work that out. The both of these properties are for sale and based on that noise issue which is really what's been holding these people back other than the Transition Area. All those people down there have been waiting for a long time. They're ecstatic over this. We appreciate it. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Lee. W.J. Lee. Ronald Ripley: Before Mr. Lee speaks, Bob, making adjustment to entrances like that this is a proffered plan, I'm not sure on how that would fit in at this point. Robert Scott: I think what you have here is a plan where we're not intending to nail down the exact location of Indian River Road where that road would com. There is some flexibility and it follows a general concept. And you already heard mention of the wetlands. 1 don't know where they are but I think wetlands would be a legitimate reason to adjust some road and other element locations consistent with the overall concept. Obviously, they can't move the road east. They have no place to move it to but things could be done. I think that one of the reasons why people go through subdivision review is that we can coordinate the location of elements like this that develops or properties are potential subdivisions in the area is to coordinate. If it requires minor adjustments to elements, and the plans like this then as long as a major concept is adhered to, I don't see a problem with it. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Just wanted to make sure that you were okay with that. Please come up. W.J. Lee: My name is Bill Lee. I'm a property owner and a resident practically just across the street from the Potter property. It's right across here. The line runs right straight across these two properties were probably at one time one piece. I've lived out there for 25 years and every time you lose electricity you have no water flushing toilets. I've raised five kids on the property, so that was a problem, so I'm all for the project particularly the decadence, possibly coming into fruitation along with the water comes the water and sewage. And, I'm listed with Rose & Womble and the Graves and myself, we've had our properties for sale. I think the Graves will probably be willing dedicate some property if this road was moved this way, and they would probably dedicate property tbr a turn lane. If that's not done, this runs directly into a piece of property that the State owns and then if this is developed, you will have access here but my piece on this side would have to be another road access to Indian River Road. By moving this over this way with a dedication you would have one intersection and that would limit the access to Indian River Road to one position. That's my comments on the project. Ronald Ripley: You pretty much confirmed with the previous speaker said. We appreciate it. W.J. Lee: I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: ! said you're confirming with what the previous speaker said. W.J. Lee: Right. Exactly. I've lived there 25 years. My taxes am more than double. I've got nothing in the last 25 years other than the garbage collection. For the ones who can't develop or maybe to small to get water and sewage and ones that do develop will realize something for the property they lived off. I'm retired so I can use the benefits from it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Lee. Are there any other questions of Mr. Lee? Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Bobby Roundtree. Bobby Roundtree: I've been referred to Ray Firenze. I'm just here to answer any operational questions. Ray Firenze: Good afternoon. My name is Ray Firenze. I'm a Community Planning Liaison Officer for Naval Air Station Oceana. l'm here today on behalf of the Navy to oppose the planned subdivision by F. Donald Reid and we respectfully urge, that the rezoning be denied. I will be speaking on operational issues that will affect this area and any questions regarding the actual operation of an airplane. I would like to refer that to Mr. Bobby Roundtree. Bobby is signed up as a speaker. Bobby is a retired Naval aviator. He flew Tomcats, Hornets. He was a squadron commander for VFA-136, the Nighthawks out ofOceana. In his last assignment was executive officer of Oceana. The proposed project would be located about 5½ miles southwest of Oceana and throe miles north of Fentress in a 70-75 decibel day/night average noise zone and partially greater than 75-decibel noise zone. This site is directly aligned to Oceana's Runway Five, one of our busiest runways. There are several key flight tracks that pilots use to navigate to and from Oceana and Fentress that concern us, as they should you. In 2002, Runway Five accounted for 44 pement of218,000 annual flight operations. Aircraft on approach to Oceana conducting straight instrument procedures will fly directly over this property as well overhead arrivals enter a facility arrivals and departures to and from Fentmss. We are on the north end trending runway. This is our routine right through here. Airplanes that depart Fentmss, Runway Five part come direct to the airport. Airplanes that depart Fentress after 11:00 o'clock at night between 11-7 will climb to 1,000 feet and landing configuration proceed direct or straight into the runway. I did an analysis of the traffic count from August 2002 to date and along this path only. Straight in we flew 6,686 instrument arrivals along that path. This subdivision will be impacted by flight operations will be subject to high single event noise levels. An F-I 8 Hornet of 1,000 feet has a sound exposure level of 109 decibels. An F-18 Super Hornet is expected to have a sound exposure level of 114 decibels. These are the levels that will be typical for an aircraft on late night straight in arrivals from Fentress. At an attitude of 1,500 feet on an instrument approach, the Hornet has a sound exposure level of 106 decibels and a Super Hornet is a 1 i0 decibels. The sound exposure level represents both the intensity of the sound and its duration. I'm almost done. So, for an airplane that flies over it includes both the maximum and lower decibels level and is representative of the entire event. Oceana and Fentress are both 24-hour facilities. We ask that you please consider our concerns on your way to your final decision. We view further development in this area as incompatible and an encroachment upon the operational mission of Oceana. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Eugene Crabtree: I've got one question. Ronald Ripley: Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Looking at the two diagrams, one is that we've got protected up there got a black line to it. It shows the high decibel zone is to the right of that. Yet, you show here in your diagram that it goes directly over the entire property. Ray Firenze: Well no. I actually and I guess I should have made a Power Point. Eugene Cralstree: I'm just curious as to how those relate to each other. Ray Firenze: Where the high decibels are posted, l'm not a great artist. I put the 75 hem so I have most of the property in the 70-75. Eugene Crabtree: So, the one up on the projection up them then is correct. Is that to the Reft hand side is in a permissible zone where that to the right hand is in a non-permissible zone. Right? Ray Firenze: We do not recommend residential develop in the high noise zone of 70-75. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. And, it is in the direct flight line with the runways. Ray Firenze: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Charlie. Charlie Salle': Ifl'm understanding your graphic, I assume the red piece is the piece of property in question. Ray Firenze: Yes sir. Charlie Salle': What does the yellow represent? Ray Firenze: That's the Transition Area. Charlie Salle': Okay. So, how much of the yellow area is impacted that all you would object to any development? Ray Firenze: It's a real good question. This is a great development if you could just move it from here to here. You know, of all the places its right underneath a major league flight tracks into Oceana on that runway. If you could flip these flight tracks over its the same story up there except nobody lives out over the water. Charlie Salle': So, within the area, I guess it looks like a triangular. Is that coming from Fentress? Ray Firenze: These are different flight tracks. This would be an instrument arrival on a radar approach, which I quoted you as 6,600 plus here. And, this is another instrument approach, which is what we call a tactical approach where the pilot just navigates the thing by himself. Here he is getting help from the comptroller. He navigates by himself and he's being monitored. But coming offof Fentress going straight northeast especially after 11:00 o'clock he does his touch and go at Fentress, he comes up and gets to 1,000 feet, wheels down for landing straight in to Oceana so he's just screening the noise straight across. Charlie Salle': You see that triangular path that goes from Fentress? Ray Firenze: Here? Charlie Salle': No. That you've drawn on here. It looks like all of that area and I guess it's anything outside of that area okay. It looks like the base of the triangle, the broad part is at Fentress and it narrows down to the apex at Oceana. Is everything between those lines the area that you have a problem with? Ray Firenze: Yes sir. And it's not just they're going to be effected by noise from the repetitive patterns operations at Fentress and the straight in arrivals to Oceana. So, while they're spinning around out here on Runway Five, they're in a repetitive operation and they'll get it again once they come off and come back. Ronald Ripley: Gene Crabtree has a question. Eugene Crabtree: Does the current environmental impact study that apparently is being done still verify this as a danger zone? Ray Fimnze: It all depends on what the Secretary of the Navy picks. Them are eight basing options. There's two preferred options but they're all out there on the table. Okay, to answer your question, if he picks option six, alternative number six, not much changes. But, we don't know that until he makes a decision and we put it on paper. Eugene Crabtree: I understand that he hasn't made his decision yet. Ray Firenze: No sir, he has not. After the 18th of August, anytime after that a decision could be made. Eugene Crabtree: So, we're in limbo. Ray Firenze: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Okay, next speaker. Ray Firenze: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: John Harris. John Harris: My concerns were taken care of this morning, i'm good to go. Dorothy Wood: The only other speaker we have is Mr. Roundtree, did you want add anything now Bobby? Bobby Roundtree: No ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. That's all the speakers. Ronald Ripley: We have a gentleman raising his hand back there. You already spoke and only if its new information. W.J. Lee: It's in reference to the noise. I live right there directly in the path. Ronald Ripley: Come on up if its new information please. W.J. Lee: It's in reference to the noise information that you received from Mr. Firenze. 1 live right there directly in the path probably. Sometimes the airplane goes right over the house and sometimes it's to the right and to the left. I have a high regard for the military and the Navy but at one time, their high noise zone was on the other side was on the other side of North Landing Road. Fentress is fixed plus Oceana has cross-runways. All the traffic doesn't go between Oceana and Fentress. It has a cross runway. It depends on the wind but they can also land in different directions. Fentress has two landing practice positions, I guess or whatever you might call it whether it can come in and practice on any and I guess sometimes they do their go around on the Chesapeake side and sometimes they do it closer to the Beach side. So, I know there's a noise issue but I'm trying to down play it I guess to some extent because I live there and when I'm in the house the noise doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't bother me when I'm outside. The 75 decibels or higher was totally on the other side of North Landing Road one time and Fentress is fixed. And for some reason they moved it over to the Potter side the lease side of North Landing Road. 1 don't know why they did that but maybe they got some pressure from Chesapeake to switch it or something. They don't always go directly to one field to the other plus they have cross-runways that they could use. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, first of all with regard to Mr. Rabey's comments, Mr. Lee's comments, we're in total agreement. Master planning is the way to go. We don't control where the pump station would be located, but the pump station will be there and a service area will encompass some or all of their properties. We are perfectly happy to work, as I said and as I kind of thought was going to be the case, with moving the entrance over if they'll dedicate the land, we'll build it and we'll build the right turn lane. That's an easy one. And, that works for everybody. We tried to master plan it. I see where they thought it was better if it was over here. If they'll work with us we'll do it. I think any change in that regard is within the Planning Director's discretion as being substantially and keeping with the plan because we're not changing anything as far as the nuts and bolts of development, just makes it a better plan and a better development. They'll do what they indicated we're there with them. We'll build the road and put the turn lane in and that works very well. My comments with regard to what I heard from the Navy. I understand that Bobby and Ray are the messengers and as all they are. The expressions of disappointment, then let it be a disappointment, and they are not necessarily directed at them. But, a number of years ago when the first BRAC Commission came about, Senator Warner represented a picket, represented as a TVA, TVR, Virginia Beach Division, City of Virginia Beach all worked and stake holders all worked diligently for many, many months. In finally resolving an issue that had been out there for years as to how to handle land use issues around Oceana, given the noise issues and that has worked very, very well for quite a number of years. And, now all of a sudden and I could only count because I think this is where it lies lack of political leadership and lack of strength and some Navy admirals getting involved in politics rather than dealing with staying the course, doing the right thing. Now we got changing of positions. Moving all around. It's a moving target. Telling people and taking the land over without buying, affecting what they can do without paying for it. It wasn't the case before we had something we could deal with. Something that everybody was dealing with and now because of the Hornet basing decision, which has been out there lbr many, many months, we see a change in policy. And, that is actually what is happening. It's a change in policy. Where were the Navy representatives when we decided to spend $200 and some million dollars for the Pavilion expansion'? Where were they? We didn't hear from them. Is the City paying $200 million dollars to put a Pavilion expansion in the high noise zone where it shouldn't be'? There are a lot of other examples that I can sight but I'm not going to go through it all tonight or today. You all know it. You understand the situation, l'm not going to go into it in great detail. But, this kind of politics, why doesn't make any sense. We're living under the rules that we all lived under and are working with as a community tried to work with. ! support the Navy strongly as anybody does and a lot of other people in this community that when this stuff starts flipping and flopping and going all over the place, you have rural support and that's what will happen if they don't stay the course and stay consistent in their leadership. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. That's getting on the soapbox there. Okay. Are there any other speakers? We'll open it up for comments. Donald Horsley: I'll start because I have to go. I think the applicant did an outstanding job developing a piece of property that probably ten years ago everybody rode by and said that property will never be developed. But, I think he's done an outstanding job. I think he's addressed the concerns of any neighbors that came by. I think he's shown a willingness to work with the adjoining property owners, and 1 think this is a good amenity in the Transition Area. The 60 percent open space is a benchmark for a lot of the developments we can look at now. So, I support the application. When you're ready for a motion, 1'11 make it. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Barry. Barry Knight: ! support the application also. l did have a little bit of concern about and I've heard it said so many times about the Navy has a moving target. We all support the Navy. We all want as many squadrons here as we can possibly get, and we want to support them but this moving target. We've it mentioned many, many times but this a nice development. Just actually like Don said and when it is time to make a motion please include condition #7. Ronald Ripley: Is there anybody else? Jan. Janice Anderson: I'm going to support the project also. I think it falls right in place with what the Transition Area. So far as the noise zone, I think we have to stick like Mr. Bourdon said right now, housing is allowed in these other places from 70 up to 75 and that's what it is zoned now, so I don't see holding it up and thinking five months about it may change. And they don't have any housing in that higher zone so I don't have any problem with that. Ronald Ripley: Does anybody wish to say anything else? Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I have a problem with the noise zone and the direct flights because as everyone knows I support the Navy and the air space totally. I think the development is an excellent development and the way it's drawn up on the board. But I do have reservations because it's in that direct flight line. However, if it's built and people buy in that area then they're taking their own chance. 1 wouldn't want them ten years fi'om now coming back and blaming the Navy for it. Not being able to hear right or whatever. But I just want to say that and ! do have reservations about this. Ronald Ripley: It appears to meet the intent of the guidelines for the Transition zone. It seems like it's been worked through pretty thoroughly. I do also favor approval of this. 1 say it's uniquely laid out, but it's laid out for the Transition guidelines, which does make it unique. I am concerned too with the noise zone issue, but on the other hand I have some concerns with the way perhaps we need to resolve that difference, and we need to resolve the policy if you will so that the Navy and the City can reside together, and we don't have conflicts on this type of issue. Barry, do you wish to make a motion? Barry Knight: I'm ready to make a motion. Ronald Ripley: Please. Barry Knight: I'd like to make a motion that we approve agenda items #34, 35 & 36 and add condition #7 as I read before. I can read it again. Condition #7, a note shall be placed on the plat on Lots 31-40 as follows: Lots 31-40 may be subject to sounds, odors and other effects commonly associated with agricultural operations. Ronald Ripley: That's a motion by Barry. Seconded by Don Horsley. Let the record that Bob Miller left before the proceedings, and 1 think he had to abstain on it anyway. I think his firm did the design. So, are we ready to vote? Let's call for the question. AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-1, the motion carriers. 1 think were completed. This meeting is adjourned. ity of Virginia Beach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Relbr To Our File No. DF-5669 DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilso~)~ DEFT: City Attorney DEFT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application F. Donald Reid and Harry A. Potter The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 23, 2004. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated June 26, 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/cms Enclosure PREPARED BY: ~ SYI([S. ~OIJRDON, AtlERN & I.[~Y. P.C F. DONALD REID HARRY A. POTTER TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth Virginia of THIS AGREEMENT, made this 26th day of June, 2003, by and between F. DONALD REID, Grantor, party of the first part; HARRY A. POTTER, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third 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 51.4 acres and described as "Parcel One" in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which parcel is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is contract purchaser of "Parcel One" 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-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-20 Residential 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 application gives rise; and GPIN: 1483-38-6300 PREPARED BY: AII[~N & liVY. 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-20 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 makes 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, 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 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 of no more than forty-five (45) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF POTTER TRACT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated 05-06-03, prepared by MSA, P.C., 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 pedestrian trail system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. Approximately 33.3 acres of landscaped parklands with pond features and an extensive pedestrian trail system as depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. A public use easement shall PREPARED BY: m §YK[g. ~OURD()N. AIt[RN & I.[~J/, P.C be dedicated on those portions of the trail system located within the 300' Transition Area Buffer adjacent to Indian River Road. 3. The community entrances and the proposed street section of the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the detailed plans on the Concept Plan. Sidewalks shall be provided on the main entrance road as depicted on the Concept Plan. No on-street parking shall be permitted on one side of every road within the community. 4. When the Property is developed a left turn lane shall be constructed at the entrance to the community from Indian River Road. A public right of way shall be dedicated to the adjoining property to the east and the adjoining property to the north as depicted on the Concept Plan. 5. 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 Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all open space areas, including the community owned parklands, pedestrian trail, and the entrance features. 6. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than eighty percent (80%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 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 and a driveway (including apron) with a minimum of four hundred ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. 7. When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve the existing mature trees on the site and a tree preservation and restoration )lan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. 8. The Grantor recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development PREPARED BY: A[I[t~N & LIVY. P.C taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing over sixty-four percent (64%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of approximately thirty- three and three-tenths (33.3+) acres of the Property to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantor agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantor in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantor agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. 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 R-20 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 4 PREPARED BY: Mt[t~N & L[TC/, P.C 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 ail conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: I ~YK[S. ~f)IJ~DON, AII[~N & kD/Y, WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: F. Donald Reid (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7th day of July, 2003, by F. Donald Reid, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY m §Y~[S, ROUt~DON, AIt[t~N & [~NY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: STATE OF FLORIDA CITY/COUNTY OF Manatee arry A:r , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this July , 2003, by Harry A. Potter. ' Ka~hryn ~, SeiOer My Commission Expires: 9 / 19 / 0 5 7th day of KATHRYFI A. SEIDER] Notary Public, State of Florida[ My corem, expires Sept, 19, 2005! Comm. No. DD058821! Bor~ded Thru Service Insurar~ce Company, inc.[ 7 PREPARED BY: ~ ~Y~t~S, t~OURDON, AlliSON & it~Y, P.C EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL ONE: All that certain tract of land located in the Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, marked Harry A. Potter 50.42 AC., as shown on a certain plat entitled "Survey of Property of George W. Bratten, Jr., et al, W.B. 35 P. 374, Harry A. Potter D.B. 663 p. 598, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Va." Made by Gallup Surveying, Ltd., dated May 28, 1974, and revised September 28, 1979, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 144, page 10, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a pin in the north side of Indian River Road at the dividing line between the Harry A. Potter and Edmonds tracts as shown on said plat, and from said point of beginning running N 56 degrees 10 minutes 33 seconds W, along the north side of said road, a distance of 980.90 feet to a point; thence continuing along the north side of said road in a radial arc with a radius of 373.89 feet a distance of 188.21 feet to a point; thence continuing along the north side of said road N 27 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds W a distance of 323.51 feet to a point; thence running N 60 degrees 57 minutes 21 seconds E a distance of 1044.49 feet to a pin; thence running N 27 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds W a distance of 208.70 feet to a pin; thence running N 62 degrees 32 minutes 08 seconds E a distance of 783.92 feet to a poplar; thence running $ 24 degrees 50 minutes 53 seconds W a distance of 935 feet to a pin; thence running S 61 degrees 32 minutes 33 seconds E a distance of 1125.31 feet to a pipe; thence running N 28 degrees 14 minutes 07 seconds E along a ditch a distance of 187.22 feet to a point; thence running S 64 degrees 44 minutes 06 seconds E a distance of 632.60 feet to a pipe; thence running S 64 degrees 13 minutes 52 seconds W a distance of 932.04 feet to a pin; thence running S 89 degrees 46 minutes 08 seconds W a distance of 75 feet to a pin; thence running S 86 degrees 43 minutes 52 seconds W a distance of 379.50 feet to a pin; thence running S 74 degrees 13 minutes 52 seconds W a distance of 404.61 feet to a pin, the point of beginning PARCEL TWO: All that certain tract of land located in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia formerly Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County, Virginia, lying north of the Indian River Turnpike, containing Forty-five (45) acres, more of less, out of a tract of seventy-nine (79) acres, as shown by plat of the same recorded in Map Book 10 page 90, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Said tract being bounded on the North, by Salem Public Road; on the East, by the property now formerly Sam Snowden; on the South by the Indian River Turnpike and on the West, by the property now or formerly Bratten and Sawyer. GPIN: 1483-38-6300 CONDREZONE/REID / PROFFER. 3 REV.6/26/03 Ocean Homes, LLC DATE 04/28/92 09/12/83 04/12/94 12/13/71 12/13/71 06/11/02 5 07/08/63 6 06/11/84 7 12/17/96 Non-Conforming Use ZONING HISTORY j REQUEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Bungee Jumping) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Motel Units) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Temp Pkg Lot) REZONING B-1 Business to MH Motel/Hotel CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (45 motel units) ALTERATION/ADDITION OF NONCONFORMING USE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Apartments) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Garage apartment) CONVERSION OF NONCONFORMING USE J ACTION J Denied Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ocean Bay Homes, Conversion of a Nonconforming Use MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Bay Homes, L.L.C. for a conversion of a Nonconform n,q Use on property located at 305 26th Street (GPIN 24280054810000). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Considerations: The RT-3 regulations do not permit multifamily residential structures on lots containing less than 20,000 square feet. The existing use is non-conforming because the lot contains only 7,000 square feet and has two multifamily buildings containing a total of five (5) dwellings. The applicant wishes to replace the two existing structures with two single-family residential structures. The result will be a decrease in the number of residential units on the site from five (5) to two (2). The new dwellings are shown 10 feet off the right-of-way on both 26th Street and 26-/2th Street. The existing dwellings are set back 10 feet off the right of way on 26th Street and 2.5 feet off the right of way on 26-1/2th Street. The new dwellings are proposed at 35 feet in height. The applicant has submitted a site plan and building elevations for the new dwellings that show a significant improvement over what exists. The existing dwellings are over 80 years old and are in a deteriorating condition. The new dwellings will be compatible with the existing architectural styles found in the surrounding neighborhood. The new dwellings have been designed with improved hard surface driveways and garages; the existing units do not have paved parking areas. The site plan for the new dwellings also shows that a new fence and landscape plantings will be installed along the eastern property line, adjacent to the existing asphalt parking lot. There is no existing landscaping on the site now. The increased height of the dwellings will allow a steeper pitch in the roof, which improves the look of the structure. In addition, this site is at the eastern edge of the neighborhood, adjacent to the Resort Area where much tal~er, multiple-story structures exist. Recommendations: Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming use may be converted to another use only if the City Council finds that the proposed use will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconforming use." Staff concludes that the proposed conversion is Ocean Bay Homes Page 2 of 2 reasonable and will be more appropriate to the district than the existing non- conforming use because this proposal represents a decrease in density on a small parcel that is not suited for the multifamily use that currently exists. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Development on this site shall be limited to two single-family dwellings as shown on the site plan entitled "Preliminary Site Plan of 305 and 305A 26th Street" prepared by WPL Civil Engineering and dated January 2, 2004. 2. The single-family dwellings shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural elevations entitled "Preliminary Architectural Elevations of 305 26th Street and 305A 26th1/2 Street" prepared by WPL Civil Engineering and dated January 2, 2004. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: (~Y~'~L · '~~ 1 2 3 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVERSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY OF OCEAN BAY HOMES, L.L.C. LOCATED AT 305 26TM STREET WHEREAS, "Applicant") has authorization to Ocean Bay Homes, L.L.C. (hereinafter made application to the City Council convert a nonconforming use situated the 4 for 5 on 6 7 certain property having the address of 305 26th Street, in the 8 RT-3 Resort Tourist District, to another use; and 9 WHEREAS, more particularly, the Applicant desires to 10 replace two nonconforming multifamily dwellings, containing a 11 total of five dwelling units, with two single-family dwellings 12 to be constructed upon the property; and 13 WHEREAS, the said multifamily dwellings are 14 nonconforming uses in that multifamily dwellings in the RT-3 15 Resort Tourist District are allowed under current zoning 16 regulations only on lots having at least 20,000 square feet of 17 area, and the subject lot contains only 7,000 square feet; and 18 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning 19 Ordinance, the conversion of a nonconforming use to another use 20 is permitted only upon resolution of the City Council 21 authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed use 22 will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning 23 dis'trict than the existing use; 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed structure, as replaced, will be equally appropriate to the district as is the existing structure. BE IT FURTHER RESOVLED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the proposed replacement of the current is hereby authorized, upon nonconforming multifamily dwellings the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall be limited to two single-family dwellings, as shown on the site plan entitled "Preliminary Site Plan of 305 and 305A 26tn Street" prepared by WPL Civil Engineering and dated January 2, 2004. 2. The single-family dwellings shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the architectural elevations entitled "Preliminary Architectural Elevations of 305 26tn Street and 305A 26th ~ Street" prepared by WPL Civil Engineering and dated January 2, 2004. 43 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 44 Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9149 OID/ordres/oceanbayres-doc R-1 March 5, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Cl~y Attorney's (~fflce OCEAN BAY HOMES LLC March 23, 2004 The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: LOCATION: Conversion of a Nonconform n.q Use 305 26th M.~, M4 Ocean Homes, LLC Street ' GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: EXISTING 24280054810000 6 - BEACH 7,000 square feet There are two non-conforming residential structures existing on the OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 1 LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: site. The original beach cottage fronting on 26th Street was built in 1917, with a detached garage building fronting on 26th1/2 Street. The two structures were converted over time to multifamily buildings. The original garage building fronting on 26th1/2 Street contains two rental units. The main structure fronting on 26th Street contains three rental units. In sum, there are currently five (5) dwellings on this one lot. North: South: East: West: · Residential Dwelling / RT-3 Resort Tourist District · Residential Dwelling / RT-3 Resort Tourist District · Parking lot / RT-3 Resort Tourist District · Vacant property/A-12 Apartment District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: There is no significant vegetation on the site. The site is in an AICUZ of greater than 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary of The RT-3 regulations do not permit multifamily residential structures on lots containing less than 20,000 square feet. The existing use is non-conforming because the lot contains only 7,000 square feet and has two multifamily buildings containing a total of five (5) dwellings. The applicant wishes to replace the two existing structures with two single-family residential structures. The result will be a decrease in the number of residential units on the site from five (5) to two (2). The new dwellings are shown 10 feet off the right-of-way on both 26th Street and 26-/2th Street. The existing dwellings are set back 10 feet off the right of way on 26th Street and 2.5 feet off the right of way on 26-1/2th Street. The new dwellings are proposed at 35 feet in height. The applicant has submitted a site plan and building elevations for the new dwellings that show a significant improvement over what exists. The existing dwellings are over 80 years old and are in a deteriorating condition. The new dwellings will be compatible with the existing architectural styles found in the surrounding neighborhood. The new OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 2 dwellings have been designed with improved hard surface driveways and garages; the existing units do not have paved parking areas. The site plan for the new dwellings also shows that a new fence and landscape plantings will be installed along the eastern property line, adjacent to the existing asphalt parking lot. There is no existing landscaping on the site now. The increased height of the dwellings will allow a steeper pitch in the roof, which improves the ~ook of the structure. In addition, this site is at the eastern edge of the neighborhood, adjacent to the Resort Area where much taller, multiple-stow structures exist. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the city as the Resort Area, an area planned for resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural, and other uses. One of the key strategic goals listed in the Comprehensive Plan for the Oceanfront Planning Area is to "attain the highest possible standards regarding the use and design of all private development and public improvements." In addition, the Old Beach District Concept Plan identifies the area between 22nd Street and 27th Street as a stable residential neighborhood. Enhancement of residential properties in this area will support the Plan's goal to maintain the stability of the neighborhood. The renovation design and materials should be complementary to the surrounding area and development. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Section 105(e)(1 ) of the City Zoning Ordinance states that a nonconforming structure may be converted to another use only if the City Council finds that the proposed use will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." The proposed use of two single-family dwellings is reasonable and is more appropriate to the district than the existing non-conforming use because this proposal represents a decrease in density on a small parcel that is not suited for the multifamily use that currently exists. The Old Beach neighborhood already contains the full range of residential uses and some motel uses. The zoning in this area also reflects OCEAN BAY'HOMES, LLC Page 3 this variety. The proposed new structures will contribute to the stability of the neighborhood and enhance the area. Conditions 1. Development on this site shall be limited to two single-family dwellings as shown on the site plan entitled "Preliminary Site Plan of 305 and 305A 26th Street" prepared by WPL Civil Engineering and dated January 2, 2004. 2. The single-family dwellings shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural elevations entitled "Preliminary Architectural Elevations of 305 26th Street and 305A 26thl/2 Street" prepared by WPL Civil Engineering and dated January 2, 2004. INOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable Cit~/ Codes. OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 4 Supplemental Info Zoninc History OceaH Homes, LLC ~EST Non-Conformin~ Use ACTION 1 04/28/92 09/12/83 2 04/12/94 3 12/13/71 12/13/71 4 06/11/02 5 07/08/63 6 06/11/84 7 12/17/96 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Bungee Jumping) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Motel Units) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Temp Pkg Lot) REZONING B-1 Business to MH Motel/Hotel CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (45 motel units) ALTERATION/ADDITION OF NONCONFORMING USE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Apartments) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Garage apartment) CONVERSION OF NONCONFORMING USE Denied Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 5 Public A.qency Comments Public Works Capital Improvement Project 7-145 Arctic Avenue - Baltic Avenue Drainage This project will identify and analyze the existing drainage system and provide for design and construction of necessary and feasible improvements for drainage in the general area of Arctic Avenue and Baltic Avenue from 27th Street to 22nd Street. To accomplish multiple outcomes within the community, several other initiatives are being accomplished and incorporated within the design and construction of this project. The sewer infrastructure evaluation and upgrade will be accomplished by CIP 6.003 Infiltration, Inflow & Rehabilitation - Phase III and neighborhood upgrades and betterments will be accomplished by CIP 5.708 - Resort Area Neighborhood Revitalization -- Old Beach. The completion of the Baltic Avenue portion of the project is scheduled for July 2004. Public Utilities Water: I Public water is available to this site Sewer: [ Public sewer is available to this site OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 6 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 7 7.000 S.F. ~ EXBIING USE 5 UNF~S ~,~,. NEW USE = 2 DWELUNG UNITS ~H 2 CAR GARAGES AND 2 OFF STREET PARKING sPACES Exhibit B Existing Site Conditions OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 8 Exhibit C Proposed Site Plan FENGE I~TAIL PAR/' OP' &O~ 4 OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC Page 9 Exhibit D - 1 Proposed Building Elevation 305A 26w ST.-FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION sHr~r 3 or '~ AL PRELIMINARY ARCHII ECTUR ELEVATION OF 305 26Ts STREET 305A 26TH 1,/2 STREET 1/s' = ~'-0' VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA j~u~r 2, 2004 OCEAN BAY HOMES,:ELC Pag 0 ! LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ,~LEVATION Exhibit D - 2 Proposed Building Elevation OCEAN BAY HOMES, LLC NOIJ~¥gH~ ~tSfl 9NII~I0~tN09'~,ION Exhibit E Disclosure Statement OCEAN BAYHOMES LLC Page 12 Supplemental Informatk ZoninQ Historv M~ Robert & Maria Kania Street Closure DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 07/11/00 STREET CLOSURE 2 04/23/90 STREET CLOSURE 3 08/27/91 STREET CLOSURE 4 07/13/93 STREET CLOSURE 5 07/11/00 STREET CLOSURE GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED ROBERT AN[ ~IIA A~i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Robert W. & Maria L. Kania - Street Closure (portion of an alley adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, South Atlantic Avenue) MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: Application of Robert W. & Maria L. Kania for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an alley located adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, South Atlantic Avenue. The alley is located 150 feet from the north side of Croatan Road and runs 50 feet in a northerly direction. The applicant requests that the eastern half of the alley (375 sq. ft.) be closed. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH · Considerations: The applicant is requesting to close a portion of the 15 foot wide alley way that runs north to south behind Lot 15 and incorporate this area into Lot 15. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified in the staff report. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The City has no future need for this right-of-way. There have been several other street closures granted for portions of the alley along this same block. There is a City policy aimed at disposing of undeveloped right-of-way to adjacent property owners in the Croatan community and using the funds generated to purchase/improve public access to Croatan beaches. (2) The residential use proposed is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the City has no future need for this portion of right-of-way and the closure is consistent with development in Croatan. The Viewers Committee and staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure, if private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 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 M08-211-STC-2003 ROBERT AND MARIA KANIA Agenda Item # 14 February 11, 1004 Staff Planner: Barbara J. Duke The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: LOCATION: Street Closure of a portion of an alley located adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, South Atlantic Avenue Property located on South Atlantic Avenue Robert Maria Kania Street Closure COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SIZE: 6 - BEACH 375 square feet ROBERT AND ~IIA 14 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: North: South: East: West: · Single family homes / R-10 Residential · Single family homes / R-10 Residential · Single family homes / R-10 Residential · Single family homes / R-10 Residential There are no significant features on this site. Summary of The applicant is requesting to close a portion of the 15 foot wide alley way that runs north to south behind Lot 15 and incorporate this area into Lot 15. Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. Current and/or future need for the right-of-way Consistency of any proposed development for the property with the Comprehensive Plan ROBERT Al*, A~ Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a Primary Residential Area. Staff Evaluation Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major issues' are (1) The City has no future need for this right-of-way. There have been several other street closures granted for portions of the alley along this same block. There is a City policy aimed at disposing of undeveloped right-of-way to adjacent property owners in the Croatan community and using the funds generated to purchase/improve public access to Croatan beaches. (2) The residential use proposed is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Viewers Committee and staff recommend approval of this request subject to the following conditions. Conditions The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. ROBERT ANE 3. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. INOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of ap/~licable City Ordinances. ROBERT AN~MARIA Zonin(~ Historv Map M-8 N Robert & Maria Kania Street Closure I#1 DATE I REQUEST IACTION I 1 07/11/00 STREET CLOSURE 2 04/23/90 STREET CLOSURE 3 08/27/91 STREET CLOSURE 4 07/13/93 STREET CLOSURE 5 07/11/00 STREET CLOSURE GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED ROBE RT AN D MARIA 14 Public A.qenc¥ Comments There are no public drainage or water/sewer facilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Private Utility Comments Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads Sanitation District do not have facilities within the area proposed for closure. No response from Dominion Virginia Power has been received. ROBERT AN~ MARIA A Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location ROBERT Exhibit B Survey of Area to be Closed "14" SOUTH OOvid P Sh;vely ! A~ANTIC AVE. ( 509 ROBERT AN[ qlA Exhibit C Disclosure Statement ROBERT ANDMARI, Item #14 Robert W. & Mafia L. Kania Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an alley located adjacent to Lot 15, Block 22, South Atlantic Avenue District 6 Beach February 11,2004 CONSENT William Din: The next item is Item #14 Robert W. & Mafia L. Kania. This is an application for a street closure. Eddie Bourdon: Again, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant on this street closure request and the conditions set forth irt the staff evaluation are acceptable to us. We appreciate being on the consent agenda. William Din: Okay. Is there any opposition to this item? If not, Ron Ripley is going to explain this item. Ronald Ripley: This item is an item coming forth to the Planning Commission with a favorable recommendation from Planning to close a portion of a street that actually backs up and you can see it in the picture here. It backs up to the houses that are in the Croatan area between Vanderbilt and S. Atlantic Avenue. We've seen a number of these come before the Commission and routinely we have approved them. This is a very routine matter as far as were concerned and we're recommending approval to City Council. William Din: Thank you Ron. Ms. Wood, I'd like to make a motion to approve the following consent item, Item #14 Robert W. & Marina L. Kania with four conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Eugene Crabtree: Second. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is the vote open? AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER AYE ABSENT ABSENT Item # 14 Robert W. & Mafia L. Kania Page 2 RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, this consent agenda item passes. Robert & Maria Kania Street Closure I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 ORDINANCENO. IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN 15' ALLEY TO BE CLOSED (AREA TO BE CLOSED = 375 SQ. Fl'. (SHADED)) AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED: "PLAN FOR PROPOSED STREET CLOSURE, LOT 15, BLOCK 22, CROATAN BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" 17 WHEREAS, ROBERT W. KANIA and MARIA L. KANIA applied to the 18 Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street 19 discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 20 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, 21 closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before one (1) year from 22 City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: SECTION 1 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject 30 to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "AREA TO BE CLOSED = 375 SQ. FT. (shaded)" shown as the GPIN: 2426-39-5362, 2426~39-6228, 2426-39~5388 and 2426-39-4360. shaded area on that certain plat entitled: "PLAN FOR PROPOSED STREET CLOSURE, LOT 15, BLOCK 22, COATAN BEACH, MB 24, P. 37, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 1"-- 20', dated 6 November 2003, prepared by Bonifant Land Surveys, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION II 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 47 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 48 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 49 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined 50 according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street 51 Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning 52 Department. 53 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to 54 incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted 55 and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 56 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way 57 proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are 58 no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the 59 applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 60 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the 61 above stated conditions within one year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted 62 above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City 63 Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void. 64 65 65 66 SECTION III 67 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before March 22, 2005, 68 this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 69 2. If all conditions are met on or before March 22, 2005, the date of final 70 closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 71 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the underlying 72 fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that 73 may be requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are approved by the City 74 Attorney's Office. 75 SECTION IV 76 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 77 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF 78 VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and ROBERT W. KANIA and MARIA L. KANIA as 79 "Grantee." 8{) Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this __ day 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 of ,2004. CA-9048 Date February 23,2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Plannin~partme APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney This is to certify that ~i' buildir on tt Ooq. ~3. , surveyed tlle property shown on and the walls hftha h,i!alnge ara aqlshoWn on this plat. , within the title lines and there are no encroachments >t as shown. 2426 - 39 - 4360 Thomas 08. 4/r4 ~ 1271 ;~' ALLEY Pin(F) Wood fenc~ ...... 50,0 ' ' ...... "14" 24t26 ' 39 ' 6228 George P Kotorides, dc 150' 50.0' S 04014'IS"E Pin (F) · Area to be closed z 375 sq ft (shaded) 2426 '$9 '5388 David P Shively DB. 1961 P 204 Pin(F) SOUTH ATLANTIC AVE. ( 50') EXHIBIT A PLAN FOR PROPOSED, STREET CLOSURE LOT 15 BLOCK g2 CROATAN BEACH MB 24 P 37 VIRGINIA BEACH~ VlROINIA SCALE /": 20' 6 NOVEMBER 2003 M~DE FOR Morio L Kanio Boni~nt Land Surveys PO Bar 6385 V/rgmio Beach, Va 23456 426.3361 .This property appears to lie wifhin Flood Zone X os shown on Pone/ 33 of 109 Community NO~ 515551 E Index doled 5 DecernOer 1996 143 R 20 Map c--,? VA-CAR Gpin - See.4pplica~ion I#1DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 03/25/85 2 05/24/82 3 09/24/02 4 06/27/86 Conditional Use Permit (pet cemetery) Conditional Use Permit (residential kennel) Subdivision Variance Downzone to AG-1 Granted Granted Granted Denied CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification (AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District); Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion); Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of VA.-CAR Development, EEC. for a Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District on the east side of Salem Road, approximately 700 feet south of North Landstown Road (GPIN 14843196640000; 14843089940000; 14844028540000). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE (b) An Ordinance upon Application of VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the east side of Salem Road, approximately 700 feet south of North Landstown Road (GPIN 14843196640000; 14843089940000; 14844028540000). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE (c) Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Property is located on the east side of Salem Road, approximately 700 feet south of North Landstown Road (GPIN 14843196640000; 14843089940000; 14844028540000). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE The property is located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. Under the Interim Guidelines (AICUZ} adopted by City Council on February 10, since the application was submitted prior to February 3, 2004, the P annin.q Commission has reviewed this application based on its merits. Considerations: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 28 single-family home lots using the Open Space Promotion option. The lots range in size from 12,000 square feet to 17,700 square feet. There are two flag lots proposed that do not meet the lot width requirement of 100 feet. A Subdivision Variance request for those lots is part of this package. There are 14.44 acres of open space provided in ponds, wetlands and open area, consisting of 51 percent of the property. VA-CAR Development Page 2 of 2 The home lots are concentrated on the northern and southern ends of the property with a large open space area in the middle of the property. There are trails shown on the plan that will meander through the open space area and that will connect to the streets in the two housing areas. The lots have been arranged in groups of no more than five contiguous lots. All of the home lots with the exception of Lot 21 on the southern side of the property are adjacent to some open space. The applicant has shown two future road connections for undeveloped property to the east and has provided an appropriate roadside buffer of 100 feet for Salem Road. The open space area is wooded; however, it is not a mature forest. It is the intent of the applicant to leave the majority of the open space in it's present wooded state and to provide small grassed parkland areas with benches in several locations along the trail. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the requests. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-0 to approve the requests, as proffered and with the following conditions: 1. The number of flag lots shall not exceed two as shown on the concept plan. The stormwater management ponds shown on the concept plan must be set back at least 50 feet from Salem Road and landscaping, to include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs, must be instatled within this 50 foot setback. · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~+See write up regarding interim AICUZ guidelines which modify recommendations. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~~ City Manage~~ ~._. ~~ G12-210-CRZ-2002 G12-210-CUP-2002 G12-210-SVR-2003 VA-CAR DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items # 19, 20, and 21 February 11,2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara J. Duke The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: 19 Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District. 20. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion 21 .Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance LOCATION: Property is located .... ~.~ ~',:~ VA-C.4R LLC on the east side of Salem Road, approximately 700 feet south of North Landstown Road VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, & 21 Page 1 GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 14843196640000;14843089940000;14844028540000;14843180170 000 (part) 7-PRINCESSANNE 28 acres The property is zoned AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District but is not under cultivation. North: South: East: West: · Single-family homes along Salem Road and agricultural land / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District · Agricultural land / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District · Agricultural land / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District · Single-family homes along Salem Road and agricultural land / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District Portions of the property are wooded. Pockets of nontidal wetlands, as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers, are present on the site. There are no "City-defined" wetlands present on the site. The site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy comments that "residential land use is not compatible" within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn noise zone. The United States Navy "would view residential development of this site as an encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana." SUmmary of Pro The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 28 single-family home lots using the Open Space Promotion option. The lots range in size from 12,000 square feet to 17,700 square feet. There are two flag lots proposed that do not meet the lot width requirement of 100 feet. A Subdivision Variance application has been submitted for those lots. There are 14.44 acres of open space provided in ponds, wetlands and open area, consisting of 51 percent of the property. VA-GAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, &21 Page 2 The home lots are concentrated on the northern and southern ends of the property with a large open space area in the middle of the property. There are trails shown on the plan that will meander through the open space area and that will connect to the streets in the two housing areas. The lots have been arranged in groups of no more than five contiguous lots. All of the home lots with the exception of Lot 21 on the southern side of the property are adjacent to some open space. The applicant has shown two future road connections for undeveloped property to the east and has provided an appropriate roadside buffer of 100 feet for Salem Road. All of the nontidal wetlands on the site are shown to be preserved within the open space areas. The open space area is wooded; however, it is not a mature forest. It is the intent of the applicant to leave the majority of the open space in it's present wooded state and to provide small grassed parkland areas with benches in several locations along the trail. VA-GAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, & 21 Page 3 Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Degree to which the application complies with the Transition Area Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council · Consistency with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the site within the Transition Area. The Comprehensive Plan states "this area of the City serves as a land use buffer between the cleady urbanizing area of the north and the clearly rural area of the south". The Comprehensive Plan notes that residential growth within the Transition Area should be considered a special type of growth with its own development standards suitable to the atmosphere and character of the area. Two of the primary criteria specified by the Plan for development in the Transition Area are 1. Demonstration to the City Council that the project establishes the residential component as secondary to the open space component; 2. Demonstration to the City Council that the character of the project is in keeping with the character of the Transition area. VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, &21 Page 4 Proffers. The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than twenty-eight (28) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF DEL HORIZON, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA", dated 7/24/03, prepared by MSA, PC, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). PROFFER#2 When the Property is developed, approximately 14,44 acres of landscaped parklands and lake featuring an extensive pedestrian trail system as depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. PROFFER#3 When the Property is developed, the pedestrian trail system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. PROFFER#4 The community entrances and the proposed street section of the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the detailed plans on the Concept Plan. PROFFER#5 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 Owners Association which shall be responsible VA-CAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, & 21 Page 5 PROFFER#6 PROFFER#7 PROFFER#8 for maintaining all common area easements, including community owned parklands, pedestrian trail and the entrance features. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows and doors, which is no less than seventy five percent (75%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 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 of yards of the homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two car garage and driveway, (including apron)with a minimum of four hundred and ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve as many of the existing trees on the site as practical and a tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The Grantors recognize that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing fifty one percent (51%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of fourteen and forty-four one-hundredths (14.44) acres of the Property to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space, the party of the first part agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the party of the first part in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, VA-CAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, &21 Page 6 Staff Evaluation of Proffers: then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. The party of the first part agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plan prior to the recordation of that plat. The proffers address the overafl concept plan, details within the plan and architectural standards for the development that will ensure that the development will be of the high quality envisioned forthe Transition Area. The proffers also include payment to the City in the amount of $21,000 for future open spa ce acquisition. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated November 1,2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Staff Evaluation Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified at the beginning of this report. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The development proposal protects and integrates the natural resources on the property, provides amenities to the future homeowners and the public and has designed the project with appropriate infrastructure features. The Transition Area Matrix provided at the end of this report contains more detail on these elements. (2) The applicant has consolidated four separate parcels for this development and has arranged the homes to compliment the surrounding rural neighborhood and to preserve the view from Salem Road. Open space has been provided in all areas where the property is adjacent to existing homes on Salem Road and this open space will be left in its natural state. Most of the homes within the development are adjacent to some open space. With 51 percent of the property reserved as open space, the residential component is secondary to the open space component. VA-CAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, &21 Page 7 Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request subject to the proffer agreement and the conditions for open space promotion noted below. Conditions 1. The number of flag lots shall not exceed two as shown on the concept plan. The stormwater management ponds shown on the concept plan must be set back at least 50 feet from Salem Road and landscaping, to include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs, must be installed within this 50 foot setback. 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. VA-GAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, & 21 Page 8 Supplemental Information Map G-12 VA-CAR Develo Zonin_~ History Gpin - See Application I#1DATE IREQUEST ACTION 1 03/25/85 2 05/24/82 3 09/24/02 4 06/27/86 Conditional Use Permit (pet cemetery) Conditional Use Permit (residential kennel) Subdivision Variance Downzone to AG-1 Granted Granted Granted Denied VA-GAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, & 21 Page 9 Public A.qency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Salem Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a two lane undivided minor suburban arterial. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 100 foot wide right-of-way divided with a multi-use trail and scenic easement. The Departments of Public Works and Planning have completed a corridor study and are developing an alignment for Salem Road based on a relocated 150 foot wide right- of-way. The preliminary alignment shows Salem Road relocated to the east of this site and does not impact his proposal. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use ~ - 50 ADT 3,500 13,600 Salem Road ADT ~ ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3 _ 280 ADT ~g Zas defined by agricultural use ~ as defined by 28 single-family homes Public Utilities Water: There is a 12 inch water main in Salem Road fronting this property. Plans and bonds for the construction of the water system are required. Sewer: There is a 6 inch vacuum sewer line in Salem Road fronting this property. Sewer analysis and pump station calculations are required. Plans and bonds for the construction for sewer system are required. VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, & 21 Page 10 Public Schools School Current Capacity Generation ~ Change Enrollment North Landing 611 690 8 8 Elementary Landstown Middle 1617 1925 4 4 School Landstown Senior 1910 1931 5 5 High School neration" represents the number of students that the development will add to the 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), Police: Public Safety 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. Fire and Rescue: Fire Department requirements will be addressed with the subdivision construction plan. VA-CAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, &21 Page 11 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Sits Location VA-GAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, & 21 page 12 Exhibit [] Pro posed Site Plan VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, & 21 Page 13 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement VA-CAR Agendaltems#19,20,&21 Page14 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 5726 Set 3 0396 October ?, 2003 Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Department Cit:y of virginia Beach Building 2, Room 100 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Duke: Item 5 on the Planning Commzssion ATenda fo i,::~.ober 8, 7~-CAB Development, L.L.C. The "':-e five miles southwest of Naval Az~ Station {NAS) miles north ef Naval Auxiliary Landing Field {HA]F) F{ntress the '70-~'75 decibel {dB) day nighl average {Ldn} i eise zone. Navy's Air instal].atio~ls Compatible Use Zones P~eglam s~ates ihaL to deny their request. This site is directly aligned to NAS Oceana's runway 5, ~ e of our busiest runways. There are several key fl ighr t~;acks o and from NAS Oceena asd NALF [*entress that concern runway 5 accounted fer 44 percent ef 218,000 ant N~i fiil~ht , perry, as will overhead ~ c, NAS Oceana ancl ilacility ar~[vaiis and departures between NAS Oced~a NALF 7 days a week. Quality of ~lfr2 in ~he VA-CAR Der{ }opm~n~ su}>G~vzslon will be impacted by flight operasions while beilg sul:~eel to high ~[ngie event: noise levels. ,%r; F/A~18 H>rrlet in landing configuration at 1000 feet produces sound exposu~ level decibels and an F/A-]8 Supe~ NorlleL is expected ~o prodl]ce ] 14 decibels. These are th~ level that will be typ cai dircraft On late night straiqht in arrlva!s decibels tD ntal lion VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, & 21 Page 15 Exhibit D Supplemental Information 5?26 Set 32 Oct:obei: ~,~ 1!003 The Navy acknowledges the landowners' desire to develop thei ~ property, but as already stated, [ u~ge you to deny their reque.~;t. We would view residential development at this si~::e s~ encroac~nment upon operatior~s at NAS Oceana. If you have any questions, please coz~tact my C<}~r~nunity Plan~li~g Ll~:[son Office~ , Mr. Ray Firenze at (757) 433--3~58, Copy ~:o: CO~NAVREG MIDLANT (00/N02 LANTDIV Regional Engineer Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Sincerely and ve:~y ~:espect'£,d] :i3, Virginia Beach City Council Virginia Beach P],anning ComJnission VA-GAR Agendaltems#19,20,&21 Page16 Transition Area Matrix Allowable maximum residential density for any rezoning in the Transition Area under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan is 1 unit per acre. The maximum density can be achieved through adherence to the Evaluative Criteria provided below and further explained in the Design Guidelines for the Transition Area. Each section of the Evaluative Criteria below ties to the Design Guidelines through the graphic icon at the top of the section. For further guidance on the respective section of the Matrix, turn to the page of the Guidelines that has the corresponding graphic icon. Staff will 'score' the proposed development for its consistency with the Evaluative Criteria below. The scores are then totaled and the total is 'plugged' into the formula below to determine the recommended maximum density for the development. PROJECT:VACAR DEVELOPMENT MATRIX REVIEW DATE: 11/24/03 PROJECT DATE: 7/24/03 Evaluative Criteria Total Comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project preserves and integrates into the 2 overall project the natural resource amenities on the site, Amenity Nature and degree of the 4 amenity Design Degree to which the project 5 incorporates good design into the project (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) TOTAL: TOTAL/11 possible points TOTAL / 11 * 0.5 = Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre = Line D * total developable acres ( 28 ) = 28 units ] VA-CAR Agendaltems#19,20,&21 Page 17 Line A -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. Line B -- total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 Line C -- total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible f dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). Line D --total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the site. Line E -- total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. 1) Natural Resources Existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and ~~ related features[~~ Total a) Are natural resources protected? Comments: YES X (0 to 1 · Yes, the proposed plan shows that the non- 1 tidal wetland areas will be preserved as open point) space. · Yes, the property is wooded and it is the applicant's intent to preserve the existing trees within the open space areas. NO [] (0 points) b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: YES X (0 to 1 · Yes, the majority of the open space area will point) 1 be left in it's natural state. A recreational trail is proposed with park benches and landscape islands winding through the open space to enhance the natural area. NO U (0 points) NATURAL RESOURCES TOTAL 2 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, &i21 Page18 Amenity_ A fea~-Z'~ure that increases the attractiveness or value ef the site ~ consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? YES X (0 to 1 1 Comments: point) · Yes, the concept plan shows a 100 foot buffer adjacent to Salem Road. In addition, the concept plan shows that open spaces are provided where the property is adjacent to existing homes fronting on Salem Road. The trees within these open areas will remain and will provide a nice buffer for the existing homes. NO [] (0points) b) Does the amenity consist of recreational components? Comments: ~ YES X (0 to 1 · Yes in the form of trails and open space point) 1 areas. NO [] (0 points) VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, &21 Page 19 c) Are improvements made that provide visual or physical access to the natural resources on the site OR are improvements made to create a new amenity to the property? YES Xu (0 to 1 1 ~oint) Comments: · Yes, the trails provide access to the open space areas. The trails will have landscaped islands with benches at strategic locations along the way to enhance the amenity. NO [] (0points) d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? YES X (0 to 1 Comments: point) · Open space extends along the entire northern and eastern property line. The houses along this property line have been grouped so that the open spaces provided can be larger and provide more opportunity for future links. · There is a large ditch existing along the southern property line that acts as a natural dividing line, so there is not a great need for NO [] (0 points) open space connection on this side of the property. · Open space is provided around existing houses that front on Salem Road. AMENITY TOTAL 4 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, &21 page 20 (3) Design Creation or execution in an artistic or highly skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Are natural or manmade water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? YES X (0 to 1 1 Comments: point) Yes, the stormwater management features will be located within the 100 foot buffer along Salem Road. The ponds will have a natural shape and there will be landscaping provided around the pond areas. NO D (0 points) b) Is there an attempt to integrate the amenities as an integral part of the overall development? YES X (0 to 1 'Comments: point) 1 · Yes, there is an attempt to integrate the units with the amenities within the development through the preservation of wooded areas and the proposed trail system. NO ~ (0 points) VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, &21 Page 21 c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES X (0 to 1 1 point) Comments: · Yes, a 100 foot buffer will be retained and enhanced along the right-of-way. · The home lots have been sited in groups of two to five houses with open space separating these housing groups. This layout helps to maintain some of the natural view from the right-of-way. NO [] (0 points) d) Is a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering or massing of homes used to achieve a primarily open space development? YES X (0 to 1 1 Comments: point) I · Yes, the proposed lots are clustered and [ ~ sited so that all rear yards and some side I yards abut open space areas, · The development exceeds the 50% open space goal, NO [] (0 points) VA-CAR Agenda Items # 19, 20, & 21 Page 22 e) Does the development use roadway and "hard infrastructure" that is appropriate for its design? Is it consistent with the vision and recommendations of this area as expressed in YES X (0 to 1 1 the Comprehensive Plan? point) Comments: · The proposed roadway and trail sections are appropriate and consistent with the recommendations for this area. · The applicant has provided future right-of- way extending from the proposed cu/-d-e- sacs to the eastern property line through the open space to provide opportunities to NO [] (0 points) connect the roadways with future development to the east. DESIGN TOTAL 5 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 VA-CAR Agenda Items# 19, 20, &21 Page 23 Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit Decisions of Administrative Officers East side of Salem Road District 7 Princess Anne February 11, 2004 REGULAR Dorothy Wood: Could you please call the next item? Joseph Strange: The next items are Items #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development. Item #19 is a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to R-20 Residential District. Item #20 is a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion and Item #21 is Decisions of Administrative Officers. They are located on the east side of Salem Road in the Princess Anne District. Eddie Bourdon: For the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. You all heard from me on this application back in December when the application was deferred for the issues that were addressed by City Council last night. I will just bring up that there was some comment about this possibly being on the consent agenda back then. The Council, as you know last night approved the Interim Guidelines and this application, like a number of other ones that in this case has been in the process since November 2002 is to be moved based on our current Comprehensive Plan adopted in December, which this is consistent with as well as the prior Comprehensive Plan which was in place when this was begun as well as the TATAC Committee recommendations for the Princess Anne area, which as your staff has properly noted that this applications complies with those recommendations and those requirements. The property is an assemblage of four pieces of property. They were at one point under separate ownership. The application was originally filed by a different entity then is the one that has bought and is before us today. That is actually a lady has acquired three parcels as an assemblage. This entity after buying them from her during the tenancy of the application has acquired another piece of property, all for the purpose of bettering the application. I think the assemblage of the property is a big benefit here. The other thing is this property is south of North Landstown Road and Salem Road. On Salem Road, in an area that is very much a rural residential stretch of Salem Road. There are a number of houses in place along this stretch of Salem Road in excess of 20 homes. And, the one thing that I also want to point out to you is the Master Transportation Plan shows Salem Road ultimately being relocated, realigned behind this property. I think there would be some improvements to this portion of Salem Road ultimately, but this would really wind up in all likelihood being a residential cul-de-sac, a residential street when and it's a number and number of years off when Salem Road is relocated and widened. Because of the nature of this area as being a lot of homes along here, the way we laid this subdivision Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 2 out is sensitive to those existing homes that front on Salem Road in that we have set the homes well back from Salem Road so we don't have a situation with the houses that face Salem Road having houses next to them backing up to Salem Road. We got the very significant buffer wherein it's a 100-foot buffer, wherein we also got to place the storm water BMPs, which will fit in well in terms of the aesthetics. The homes will be well spaced and they won't have homes real close to each other and again backs to fronts. The proposed subdivision is 28 lots on a total of 28 acres that are all developable acres in the City of Virginia Beach ordinances. The lots have been clustered up in the northern section and the southern section so again the lots are adjacent to Open Space. We've also left Open Space adjacent to the existing residents as wells. We got a trail system with benches in an area that will remain forested although its not a real mature forested area at this point but it will over time it will become so. We've also provided future potential accesses both the Open Space where we adjoin this property, which someday will likely be developed. Also a street extension accesses because it's important to remember as I mentioned before, when and if and when is the question and not if, Salem Road is developed behind this property and this becomes just a residential street, the benefit of not having development on these properties and having to access the new Salem Road, which will be a four lane divided and be able to be using this residential collector's feed, which it will be at the point in time, is from a long range perspective, a very good planning tool and a benefit down the road so we can limit access to the major thoroughfare. And given the large number of homes that front on this section of Salem Road, the idea of relocating Salem Road in the future when it's widened makes a whole lot of sense in a lot of different ways with the traffic movement standpoint and also in terms of not impacting all these homes in this area along Salem Road. The staff evaluation, I think is on point in every way. This applicant has met with the staff and moved through the process deliberately and have done everything that I think anyone has asked of them and recently asked of them. The issue as you are all well aware is and has been at least over the course of the last few months is the Navy's adoption of and I believe they're the only service that has adopted the DOD recommended change in the AICUZ Compatibility Table that was done by career bureaucrat up in the Pentagon. I went through all this last night. The bottom line is that City Council has clearly indicated that these applications that are in accordance with all of our ordinances, our Comprehensive Plan and our precedence should be moved through and those that are pending as this one has been under those precedence and under that Comprehensive Plan. The staffhas recommended approval in accordance there with. All the homes are in the 70-74 Ldn noise zone under the 1999 AICUZ map, which we are using as a planning tool and a planning guide. And, under that map and the guidance that existed with regard to what was compatible or conditionally compatible residential in this area and the noise construction techniques are required under ordinances in effect in the City that was adopted back in 1994 at the request of the Department of the Navy. As a result, we believe the application and as your staff has recommended, is one that is deserving of approval. I would also mention that in the year 2000, the Department of the Navy did an actual noise contour map based on actual base operations. Remember the 1999 map was a project map and the 2000, actual base operations map under those noise contours, this piece of property is not in any high noise zone. It is below 65 Ldn, and based upon that Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 3 fact as well, as all the other issues that I've discussed, and which I think you all are very familiar with because they have been widely discussed by this body and this application is deserving, in our estimation, of your recommendation for approval, just as the staff has also recommended approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Ronald Ripley: Eddie, can you point out and you mentioned the open space that is adjacent to existing houses, can you point to those areas? It's not real clear. Eddie Bourdon: There are houses along here. This is all open space. There are houses here and this is open space. There is open space adjacent to a house there. I believe there is a house on one of these two lots that this is adjacent to. Our lots are adjoined to another piece of property and this one does, but this is all open space area. The house is up here. A portion of that lot adjoins an area that is open. We have not put houses up against other people's houses just open space. Similarly, we got open space all along our borders. The only place we don't have open space along our boundaries again, is this little spot here. This spot here and this spot where these lots adjoin a very large drainage ditch. Then you got houses in here and that is where we got open space adjacent to where those homes are located. No lots abut those lots where those houses. Ronald Ripley: The land to, I guess the east, is that mostly farmland? Eddie Bourdon: It's farmland. Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Farmland. Okay. On your trail system, is that trail system something that will be open to the public or restricted to the neighborhood or what? Eddie Bourdon: The trail system will have a public use easement on the entire property. Ronald Ripley: Would that include equestrian too? Eddie Bourdon: I don't know if we designed the trail for equestrian use but if that is something that is desired, I am confident that the applicant would have no adversion to making sure that was effective. Ronald Ripley: That keeps popping up. It may be a goal of the Transition area. Eddie Bourdon: I think in this area along Salem Road it may well be a situation where that's necessary. There is no resistance to putting the trail in so that it meets whatever requirements the City Council or this body or Planning Department wants in terms ora private trail. The idea is just to provide for public access for whatever uses we think are needed. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Din? Item//19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 4 William Din'. Can you clarify the AICUZ for me again? Our write up says the site is in a 70-75 dbl. Eddie Bourdon: Under the 1999 AICUZ map that we are operating under as our planning tool, this property is under the 70-75 Ldn. That is correct. What I said in addition to that is that 1999 map, which we're operating under and under that map and the guidance that went along with in terms to what's compatible. Residential land use, is it compatible or conditionally compatible land use? In the year 2000, the Navy in reply to a lawsuit prepared and had done an actual on the ground AICUZ, not the word they use, had noise contours based on actual base operations modeled based on what's actually happening. Those contours and Council has seen the maps and the City, has got the maps. I don't know if you all have them on the PowerPoint today but those maps show contours of actual base operations where this property is not and a lot of properties are not under those high noise levels. In other words, those actual base operation contours are far smaller than the ones we are using under our zoning ordinance. Making this presentation for the purposes of necessarily arguing that those maps need to be changed but that is an issue that is going to be out there for discussion. The other interesting part of the whole scenario is that when the Super Hornet decision and lets bring the Super Homets here to Virginia Beach, there was all this conversation and discussion about them being louder than what we currently had here. And, as part of the environmental impact study statements to bring them here, those impacts were projected on computer. The baseline for making those projected determinations as to what the increase impact would be, the baseline is the 2000 Operations Map, not the 1999 map that we're using as a planning tool. And, those maps that show the projected impact of the louder planes that are part of the environmental impact study to bring the Super Hornets here, do in fact show a greater impact than is shown on the 2000 base operations map but in lhct is a smaller footprint of noise contours. Smaller area encompassed by high noise zones even after they are here then what we're operating under as our 1999 AICUZ map. That's the real interesting dilemma. The planes are louder but what we are dealing with is that we've already put more land 26,000 acres under our AICUZ program by adopting the 1999 projected map than those impacts actually exist. I gather there is another issue that is now bothersome from the Navy's perspective based on the conversation and discussion last night and that is single event noise. We have nothing in any of our ordinances. We have nothing anywhere that deals with single event noise. I guess that is something of an evolving process that may be addressed as time moves forward. Based on the laws, the plans, and situation, this is not new to any of us. The City has been dealing with this since the 1970s. The City has done, in my estimation everything that could reasonably be expected and exactly earnestly and forth rightly in trying to work through all these issues and trying to provide notice to the public as to what was transpiring and try to protect everyone's interest. It is unfortunate that we've been placed in this position because no one at NAS Oceana and they're wonderful people knew anything about this change before it took place. Obviously, no one here in our City government or any ()four political leaders or property owners knew anything about it either. That is all what we've been struggling with for a number of months. Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 5 Eugene Crabtree: Eddie, I have one question. We're talking about the noise and all but in looking at this I don't see anything on our maps that tell me anything about the flight paths in relationship to the runways between Fentress and Oceana. Am I to understand that this property sits offto the side or do the direct flight path between Fentress and Oceana or is it in the direct flight path? I'm interested in accidents. Eddie Bourdon: It is not in an accident potential zone under any map at any point in time that I've ever seen promulgated. It is in the, and if you look at the noise corridors, it is between Oceana and Fentress. Eugene Crabtree: I know that. The flight paths and do the planes go directly over this property or do they go to one side or the other of it normally in their flight paths? Eddie Bourdon: Based on the testimony of last night it was agreed by all parties that the planes don't fly in one straight line. They're all over. Eugene Crabtree: I know that. Eddie Bourdon: It is clearly in the general flight path but I don't there is specifically. We go right over this property between Oceana and Fentress. There's no denying that fact. There is five miles from the runway at Oceana and it's approximately three miles from Fentress in Chesapeake. lfyou look at the contours, the contours are based on where the flights take place and it's absolutely in as all these neighborhoods that I heard them talking about last night, that are very close to here to Indian River Road that have all been approved, rezoned, built and are in the process of being built that are in the same exact flight path that are in the same exact noise zone where you got three units per acre and you got hundreds and hundreds of houses. So, the answer is in the corridor between Fentress and Oceana. I don't think anyone would suggest that every plane could even fly the same exact line. There was a lot of testimony last night, if we could put the bigger map on this property is relatively close. Eugene Crabtree: That is what I was looking at. Eddie Bourdon: It is relatively close to the property that was approved last night. I'm fairly certain that this is Indian River Road. I believe the property is basically in this area down here to be offthe map. It is not far as the crow lies as from the property that was before the City Council last night. Eugene Crabtree: I want to know how the plane flies. Eddie Bourdon: According to the people who live out there and there was a lot of testimony last night, the noise impacts here are really, in their estimation, not very significant at all because planes are well in the air when their in this area. Eugene Crabtree: Noise won't take lives but a crash will. Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 6 Eddie Bourdon: It's not in close proximately. It's three miles from Fentress and five miles from Oceana. It's not in close proximately to the runways. It's not even close to being in any crash zones. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: I would suggest and I don't know if this is an appropriate place to do it but maybe after everybody testifies that Mr. Scott, possibly review the policies that w~re adopted last night by City Council. That's the policy under which we're reviewing this particular application. We're reviewing this application under the current Comprehensive Plan. This application was filed prior to entering into discussions with the Navy and it's been on the books for a long time so this is different then what's going to be happening in an interim policy basis until the joint land use study is completed. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Ron. Ronald Ripley: So, I think Mr. Scott can go through that. Dorothy Wood: Would you like that? Ronald Ripley: I don't know if you want to do it now or want to it later. Dorothy Wood: Well, he did it this morning. Robert Scott: It's very brief. The City Council appointed a special task force to achieve certain things regarding the AICUZ Program. One of the things that they were tasked to do is to come up with some intm-im policies for how to deal with matters just like this. What do we with applications as they come in? The task force did make a recommendation and sent it to the City Council. The City Council accepted that recommendation in a form of a resolution last night. Here is what the recommendation said. Now, you may like it or may not like. You may agree with it and you not agree with it but this is what it says. There are two parts to it. The first part says, "if an application was filed prior to February 3," which this application was, and it should be moved forward and decided on its merits based upon basically the Comprehensive Plan. And then it goes on with another section that does not apply here because the question is has part number one been answered. Part number 2 would say and it says a lot of things. But, had this application not been filed prior to February 3, 2004, the policy would have recommended because it's in a noise zone over 70 decibels in the 1999 map, that it be deferred until the joint landing studies is complete. But Part 1 rules in this case and part 1 rules says, because it was filed prior to February 3, 2004 we should go forward and decide it on its merits. The City Council adopted that by resolution last night. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Scott. Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 7 Eddie Bourdon: I failed to mention and 1 appreciate the opportunity to mention it before I sit down again and that is in the high noise zones under the 1999 AICUZ map, there are a total of well over 20,000 homes wherein close to 100,000 people reside. There are thousands of hotel, and timeshared units also that are now non-compatible under the new guidance. And, all totaled these 28 homes would be a less than a tenth of one percent of the total number units, timeshare, hotel/motel and residential that are in the high noise zone that are now with a unilateral change in policy that is only applicable, as I understand it to just the Navy level that would be non-conforming. So, my friends from CCAJN are here today. The idea that approving 28 homes, which is a tenth of a percent of the number of homes that are already in there that are non-conforming based on this one change that were previously conforming isn't going to cause Oceana to no longer exist. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any discussion'? We have opposition? I bet we do. Joseph Strange: Bobby Rountree. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Rountree. I'm sorry I almost forgot to call up on you. Bobby Rountree: ! would like to do that. Dorothy Wood: I saw you. Thank you for coming down and waiting all day. Bobby Rountree: Congratulations on your new position. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Bobby Rountree: Commission, Mr. Scott, Ms. Wilson, good afternoon. My name is Bobby Rountree, Executive Director for Regional Air Operations, which include NAS Oceana and Fentress. I am here today on behalf of Captain Keeley, who is unable to attend and who is the Commanding Officer of NAS Oceana. 1 would like to start offwith a few facts. The Transition Area Technical Advisory Commission (TATAC), and it has been said in other public forums that the Navy was a partner in TATAC's development of the Transition Area Guidelines. The Navy's only involvement was to sit in the audience and to observe. No interaction was requested of or provided by the Navy. The Navy's opposition to continued development in the Transition Area is not a result of the updated OPNAV Instruction but it's about the health, safety and welfare of future residents who will be impacted by the large numbers of very loud, single event noise operations where the majority of our flight tracks are located. The Virginia Beach AICUZ Task Force Interim Guidelines, which Mr. Scott read to us, it governs the applications for land development in AICUZ zones adopted last night by Council. The Navy had no seat at the table, nor any ability to voice concerns as those guidelines were revised after the Navy and staffdeveloped a mutually agreed upon draft guidelines. I'm here on behalf of the Navy and probably more important, on behalf of the future residents of this community Item//19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 8 that do not have the ability to speak out with regard to the high single event noise they will be subjected too. 1 am speaking in opposition to this planned development by VA- CAR Development. The site is located, as you see on the depiction, five miles southwest of Oceana and three miles north ofNLF Fentress in the 70 to 75 decibel day/night average noise zone. This site is directly aligned with NAS Oceana Runway 5, one of busiest runways. There are several key flight tracks that aircrafi use to navigate to and from Fentress at Oceana that concern us as they should concern you. In 2003, Runway 5 accounted for 42 percent of 201,000 flight operations. Aircraft on approach to NAS Oceana Runway 5 conduct straight-in instrumental approaches, overhead arrivals, inter- facility traffic within NAS OceanaJFentress as well as Runway 23 departures that would impact this subdivision. Ed Weeden: Mr. Rountree, you're just about out of time. Bobby Rountree: One flight track alone had 6,600 flight operations with decibels of 108 db's and F-18 Super Hornets would be a 114 db's. We ask that you please consider our concems on your way to a final decision. We view further development in this area as incompatible and new encroachment upon the Navy's and Joint Forces Operational Mission of NAS Oceana. In closing, Captain Keeley wanted me to advise you that he has recently been told that NAS Oceana is number one on the Department of Defense list of installations when it comes to encroachment. He also added that we did not get there through any "so called" partnership with the City and the Navy. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Rountree. Are there any questions for Mr. Rountree? Ronald Ripley: I've got a question. Mr. Rountree, were you at the meeting when these Interim Guidelines were worked on? Bobby Ronntree: No, I was not. Captain Keeley was there, and our Community Liaison Planner, Mr. Ray Firenze was there. Ronald Ripley: I was there. I'm one of the five that's on the Committee. Captain Keeley was there and Oceana had responded to the initial draft that Planning Department had prepared. It was pretty close to the same thing that the Planning Department had presented with the exception that it addressed flight paths, which is not defined anywhere. All that we had to deal with is AICUZ. That was the reason why the resolution deals with AICUZ's and not flight paths, because it was not defined. So it was real clear. As far as asking the Navy to the table, it maybe was asked to the table. They chose to sit and didn't want to come to the table, 1 would think, or they wanted to and they sat on the side and they were asked if you have any comments about the draft that we're proposing? And they said, "Not at this time." So, there was interaction there. The letter may be construed differently. I think there was interaction. I just wanted to put that on the record because every effort to cooperate has been made. I think Mr. Scott and his staff worked pretty hard with the Navy and the Navy worked pretty hard with them trying to work it out. Hopefully, what we came up with made some sense. Now perhaps Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 9 the guidelines that were operating on right now you don't agree with and maybe you don't agree with the Interim Guidelines. I don't know, but I think there has been a lot of effort to work that out. I know I spent three hours over here in that meeting just in that by itself. I don't know how many hours Mr. Scott spent on the proposal, but I imagine you spent some pretty good time. But all that is appreciated. I just want to put that on the record. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. ls there anyone else for Mr. Rountree? Thanks Bobby, appreciate you coming. Eugene Crabtree: Bobby, I'm going to ask you again similar to what I asked Eddie. Now, looking at your map here, it looks like we got some direct flight lines that are going over this proposed development. They are a little ways up from the actual dropping down into the landing pattern. Are they not? Bobby Rountree: Mr. Crabtree, this is the final approach course to Runway 5 at Oceana. This is the pattern at Fentress. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. Bobby Rountree: What you don't see is there are several tracks that go between here to final Runway 5. IfI take off of Fentress Runway 5, and it's five in the moming, I'm going to go a little left turn, climb to 1,000 feet, leave my landing gear and flaps down, produce a 108 decibels and I'm going to fly right up here and I'm going to go be right up there and get lined up on this runway and I'm going to right in the near vicinity of this property. Eugene Crabtree: When do you start dropping down in order to set down on the runway? Bobby Rountree: The descent will probably occur approximately in this area right here. Eugene Crabtree: Okay, so right about the edge of the property?. Right? Bobby Rountree: No sir, it would be over the property. It would be past the property. It would north east of this property were talking about. Eugene Crabtree: Just a little bit past that where the actual drop down occurs? Bobby Rountree: Out of that 1,000 foot, I'm going from Fentress to Oceana. There are several other flight tracks that if I'm coming back from Whiskey 72, which is offthe coast of North Carolina, I'm going to fly right over here and make a tum again to line up and come right here. Like I said, there are several flight tracks between these two blue lines but we just decided to give you a swath of tracks not depiction. Item #19, 20 & 2l VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 10 Eugene Crabtree: I'm just in my mind just trying to determine where the greatest accident potential would occur and if it occurs, if this noise is the problem over the property but the accident potential is closest to the runway. It makes a difference in my mind. Bobby Rountree: The actual accident potential zones as defined by guidelines, this is at APZ 1, up here, at APZ 2 comes out to here. This is APZ 1 & 2 down here at Fentress. Eugene Crabtree: So, basically this piece of property really is outside of our accident potential zone as we have it defined at the present moment. Am I correct? Bobby Rountree: Correct. Not in APZ. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Mr. Rountree. We appreciate you coming down. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate that. If you look at the existing APZ's, and I understand the new maps will change slightly but in terms of the impact of APZ's on this piece of property. There isn't any. It's about as centrally located away from the APZ's as you can get. It is on the outside of those lines. Again, the single event noise issue and there is no doubt and I'm not here to sit there and argue that there won't be some noise but I think it is quite apparent for a lot of different reasons that people in Virginia Beach do in fact, have any problem with jet noise. There are so many very expensive homes and those in the moderate price range that sell as soon as you put them on the market even though they are in a high noise zone that's the 20 something thousand homes I've talked about earlier. There is no difference in their marketability or their prices because they're in noise zones. And, one thing that I wanted to comment on is that Bobby mentioned is that he was here speaking on behalf of future residents. The City of Virginia Beach adopted quite a number of years ago at the recommendation of the Navy ordinance changes that require all contracts on all new homes and the sale of existing homes to have notification in there about the noise level that they're in. So, anyone buying a home in Virginia Beach, Oceana's existence is no secret. Every effort has been made that can reasonably can be made that I can even conceive of to make sure that they're on notice about the fact that they are in a noise zone. You have to be really out there not to know if you bought a house here that you're going to have some noise impact. But that noise impact is minimal from my perspective. I live in a high noise zone as do quite a number of other people. It's something you don't have a problem with at all. The number one encroachment list that was referred to and 1 will guarantee you that Oceana was never on any encroachment list under the guidelines and compatibility tables that existed prior to this change. So, that just confirms what I said numerous times that if Oceana's in peril, it has been imperiled by the change that made all these three and half billion dollars worth of real estate in Virginia Beach that's in those high noise zones now non-compatible. Dorothy Wood: Thank Eddie. We appreciate it. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Item #19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page l 1 Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? ls there any discussion? Do I hear a motion? Ronald Ripley: Do you want discussion? Dorothy Wood: I asked for any discussion. Ronald Ripley: I'll discuss. Dorothy Wood: Good. Ronald Ripley: Just keep in mind that this is being considered under the current Comprehensive Plan. To me, it classically fits within the Comprehensive Plan. 1 think the plan is a good plan. I think the plan itself, the way it's laid out with the open space and the way they've managed to clustered the housing so that it looks like there is no more than five that are clustered together at any one spot. The trail system and looking at the matrix and the City went through it and scored fairly high in those areas also. Given that and the proffers that have been presented that will ensure that the houses are nice houses, if you will and a pretty nice size. We're looking at 28 lots here. The AICUZ issue and it is in the AICUZ as most all the transition but it's in an AICUZ zone that's central to the two bases. It's not really peculiar based on other development that has been put into the area. I'm going to support it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Do we have a motion then? I'm sorry, Jan Janice Anderson: I'm just going to state that I'm agreeing with Ron. I think it is almost picture perfect from what they have for the Transition Area so far as 51 percent, connect ability with the roads to any other projects they may have, the trails system, the clustering, all those items. And, I think with following the direction of the temporary to consider this on it's merits, I think I would approve it. I would make a motion to approve it with the conditions. Ronald Ripley: I'll second it. Eugene Crabtree: Dot. I have one thing I want to say before we go. I agree that the plan itself and the layout with the 28 homes. The vision is outstanding in the way it's designed and everything. And, of course, I'm very much concerned with the planes and where they go. However, since this appears to be outside the actual accident potential zone, the noise doesn't bother me near as much as accident potential. It does bother me that somewhere in the future someone will complain to the noise as some of residents have done in the past even though they live in the noise area. i like the actual development. Since it is outside the accident potential areas, I think I'll support it. If it were inside the accident potential areas, I'd probably be against it. Item//19, 20 & 21 VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. Page 12 Dorothy Wood: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is the vote open? AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 3 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-0, the application of VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. has been approved. Dorothy Wood: As you know, we hope to have a new theatre in our City soon and this afiemoon from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., you are all invited to go to the Art Center and to vote on which of the two proposals that have been submitted that you prefer. That is at the Art Center from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. this afternoon. This meeting is adjourned. City of' Virginia Beach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5664 DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney FROM: B. Kay Wilso~ DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 23, 2004. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated November 1, 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/cms Enclosure PREPARED BY: ~ gYt~[S. ]~OURDON, AIt~RN & LEVY. P.C VA.-CAR DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company SAEED SALEEM TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of November, 2003, by and between VA.-CAR DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, Grantor; SAEED SALEEM, party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the third part, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a 1 acre parcel which is a portion of a larger tract of land located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, which parcel is designated and described as "Parcel Four" in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of three (3) certain parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 27.1 acres and described as "Parcel One", "Parcel Two" and "Parcel Three" in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which parcels along with Parcel Four, are herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part as the contract purchaser of Parcel Four 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-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-20 Residential District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and OPIN: 1484-31-9664 1484-30-8994 1484-40-2854 1484-31-8017 (PART) WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; PREPARED BY: ~Y~$.~OU~DON, Att~RN & I.l~Y, P.C WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that competing and sometimes ncompatible 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 Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have 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-20 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable c~)nditions 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 Grantors, for themselves, their 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 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, shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming nder or through the Grantors, their 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 of no more PREPARED ~ gYl([S, [~OUR. DON. AttERN & LEVY. P.C :hah twenty-eight (28) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit mtitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF BEL HORIZON, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA", dated 7-24-03, prepared by MSA, P.C., 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 14.44 acres of landscaped parklands and lakes featuring an extensive pedestrian trail system as depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. 3. When the Property is developed, the pedestrian trail system and open space improvements shall be constructed substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. 4. The community entrances and the proposed street section of the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the detailed plans on the Concept Plan. 5. 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 Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all common areao easements, including the community owned parklands, pedestrian trail, and the entrance features. 6. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2400 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 and a driveway (including apron) with a minimum of four hundred ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. 7. When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to ~reserve as many of the existing trees on the site as practical and a tree preservation 3 PREPARED BY! ~Y~E§.~OU~DON, A~Y~N & [[¥Y. P.C. plan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. 8. The Grantors recognize that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing fifty-one percent (51%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of fourteen and forty-four one-hundredths (14.44) acres of the Property to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the party of the first part agrees to contribute the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the party of the first part in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. The party of the first part agrees to make [that plat/p)yme?t.fOr each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of 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 R-20 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 Grantors 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 PREPARED BY: ~ SYI(~S. t~OURI)ON, A~ERN 8, L~Y, P.C 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 Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the 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 names of the Grantors and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: ~ SYI([S, I~OUI~DON. AttERN & I.kWY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Party of the First Part VA.-CAR DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. a Virginia limited liability company Newman, Managing Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /~?~ day of November, 2003 by Harry B. Newman, Managing Member of VA.-CAR Development, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. /~Nota}ry Public My Commission Expires: PREPARED BY: I '~YI~[~, t~OURDON. AtI[RN & L~VY, P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Party of the Second Part Saeed Saleem (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this November, 2003, by Saeed Saleem, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 14th day of EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL ONE: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situated in the Seaboard Magisterial District in the County of Princess Anne, Virginia, on the east side of the road leading from Princess Anne Court House, containing nine and sixty-three one hundredths 9.63) acres and bounded as follows: by the land of Milton Lee on the north, on the east by Anne Edmondson, on the south by Gideon Brockett and on the west by Salem Road to North Landing, and being a part of the same property conveyed by deed of bargain and sale dated on the 29th day of August, 1911, to Gideon Brockett, by Henry T. Murden, and Fannie Murden, his wife recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court, Princess Anne County, Virginia, in Deed Book No. 87, at Page 91. GPIN: 1484-31-9664 PREPARED BY: m§Y[[g.~0U~DON. AItERN & [.iVY, P.C PARCEL TWO: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and containing one acre, more or less, as depicted as Parcel G on that certain plat entitled "Survey of Property of Gideon Brockett Estate" and recorded as Instrument No. 200210033043211 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point located on the eastern right of way line of Salem Road, said beginning point located approximately 0.9 miles north of North Landing Road, thence, along the eastern right of way of Salem Road, along a curve to the right of 179.69 feet in length having a radius of 1,696.68 feet to a point, being the northwest corner of said property; thence, away from Salem Road N 76 degrees 12' 00" E 318.17 fee,t to,,a point being the northeast corner of said property; thence S 13 degrees 47 02 E 114.6 feet to a point, being the southeast corner of said property; thence S 64 degrees 52' 56" W 190.00 feet to a point; thence S 62 degrees 06' 47" W [/100.00 feet to the point of beginning, said point being the southwest corner of said /[parcel. Said parcel contains 1.01 acres, more or less, having GPIN Number 1484-30- 18994-0000. I/GPIN: 1484-30-8994 PARCEL THREE: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 16.359 Acres, as shown on that certain plat entitled, "SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF GIDEON BROCKETT ESTATE, GPIN 1484-40-2854, 16.359 ACRES (712,600 SQ. FT.) LOCATED ON SALEM ROAD, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA", made by TES, Inc., Technical and PREPARED BY: m §Y[(I;S. ]~OURI)ON, AIt[I~N & I.~VY. P.C. Environmental Services, Surveying Division, dated August 12, 2002, said plat being recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia as Instrument No. 200210033043211. GPIN: 1484-40-2854 PARCEL FOUR: All that certain piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being the easternmost one acre of a lot designated "Gideon Brockett, 2.0 ac" on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GIDEON BROCKETT, LOCATED IN PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.", dated August 24, 1967, prepared by W.B. Gallup, Surveyor and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 75, at Page 49. Said parcel being more particularly described ~s follows: Beginning at a pin in the eastern right of way line of Salem Road at the southwest corner of that lot designated "GIDEON BROCKETT, 2.0 ac" as depicted on the above referenced plat recorded in the above referenced Clerk's Office in Map Book 75, at Page 49; and from said pin North 76° 09' 46" East a distance of 126.04 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 07° 04' 54" East, 205,35 feet to a point; thence South 77° 04' 34" East, 426.00 feet to a Pin; thence South 76° 09' 46" West, 453.69 feet to the True Point of Beginning. GPIN: 1484-31-8017 (PART) CONDREZONE/VACARDEVELOPMENT/PROFFER5 REV. 11/11/03 John Williams & Ellen Wadsworth, Subdivision Variance AG-Z DATE I REQUEST ACTION 1 8/8/00 2 7/13/93 3 11/24/98 Subdivision Variance Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Granted Granted Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: John L. Williams & Ellen Lane Wadsworth - Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for John L. Williams and Ellen Lane Wadsworth. Property is located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, 1034 feet north of Pleasant Ridge Road (GPIN 24026353480000 - part of). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Considerations: The existing lot is 176.4 acres and is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. The subject site is predominately Iow flat land with a portion within the 100-year floodplain. The residual property is wooded and backs up to West Neck Creek. It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide an additional lot, consisting of 2.5 acres, out of the176.4 acres. In 2000, a 2-acre flag lot was subdivided for use by a family member. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an appropriate use for the site. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The property shall be subdivided substantially as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision of Residual Property E, Property of R. Ellen Wadsworth Et Als" dated October 9, 2003 by Midgette & associates, P.C. 2. The width and surface material for the driveway serving Lot F shall be subject to approval by the Fire Department. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map John Williams and Ellen Lane Wadsworth Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ¢~ City Manager: ~ ~--~ K15-210-SVR-2003 JOHN L. WILLIAMS & ELLEN LANE WADSWORTH Agenda Item # 5 February 11,2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information 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 LOCATION: Property is located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, 1,034 feet north of Pleasant Ridge Road. Williams & Ellen FFadsworth GPIN: Part of 24026353480000 WILLIAMS &WADSWORTH Agenda Item# 5 Page 1 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 7- PRINCESS ANNE Subject Parcel: 2.5 acres. Total Parcel: 176.4 acres. Agricultural - cultivated farm fields North: · South: · East: · West: · Farm field with occasional rural residential / Agricultural Districts AG-1 and AG-2 Farm field with occasional rural residential Agricultural Districts AG-1 and AG-2 Woods, West Neck Creek / Agricultural Districts AG-1 and AG-2 Princess Anne Road, farm fields with occasional rural residential/ Agricultural Districts AG-1 and AG-2 The subject site is predominately Iow flat land with a portion within the 100-year floodplain. The residual property is wooded and backs up to West Neck Creek. The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. Summary of Propo Existing Lot: The existing lot is 176.4 acres and is in the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide an additional lot (Parcel F) out of the 176.4 acres. In 2000, a 2-acre flag lot (Parcel D) was subdivided for use by a family member. WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item # 5 Page 2 40,000 I 103,672 tltem Lot Width in feet ~ot A~ee~ in -sq~aare feet *Variance required Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this property to be a part of the Rural Service Area. The siting of the structure over 700 feet from the road complements the rural setting without dominating its surroundings. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. 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. 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. 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. WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item# 5 Page 3 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. Conditions 1. The property shall be subdivided substantially as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision of Residual Property E, Property of R. Ellen Wadsworth Et Als" dated October 9, 2003 by Midgette & associates, P.C. 2. The width and surface material for the driveway serving Lot F shall be subject to approval by the Fire Department. INOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item# 5 Page 4 Supplemental Informati¢ ZonJnq History Williams & Ellen Wadsworth iff I DATE REQUEST Subdivision Variance I ACTION 1 2 3 8/8/00 7/13/93 11/24/98 Subdivision Variance Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Granted Granted Granted WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda item # 5 Page 5 Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a two lane undivided minor suburban arterial, it is designated on the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) as a 100 feet right of way (RNV) divided facility. There are currently no CIP projects to upgrade this roadway at this time. Adequate RRV should be dedicated from the center of the existing RNV to achieve the ultimate RNV of 110 feet. The submitted plat does not depict the existing RNV width in the vicinity of this property, which is the responsibility of the consultant to provide. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 13,000- Existing Land 15,000 Use 2_ 10 ADT Princess Anne 9,000 ADT ~ Road ADT ~ Level of Proposed Land service Use 3_ 20 ADT 2as defined by one single-family home defined by two single-family homes Public Utilities City sewer and water are not available. The proposed new building will require a well and septic system. Public Safety I Police: I No comments. Fire and Rescue: Structure must be within 150 feet of road surface for Fire Department access. Access must provide an all weather road surface for Fire Department. Minimum fire lane (access road) width to be not less than eighteen feet. Agriculture A.qriculture: Loss of 2.5 acres of productive farmland. The residual parcel would be an excellent addition to the Virginia Beach WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item# 5 Page 6 Agricultural Reserve Program and would greatly benefit the land owner. WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item# 5 Page 7 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item # 5 Page 8 Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item~ 5 Page 9 NOIg¥3I~I~ ~[3N~I~A NOI$I3.I(lllflS Exhibit E Disclosure Statement WILLIAMS & WADSWORTH Agenda Item;# 5 Page 10 Item #5 John L. Williams & Ellen Lane Wadsworth Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance West side of Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne February l 1, 2004 CONSENT William Din: The second item is Item #5 John L. Williams and Ellen Lane Wadsworth. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Vice Chairman. Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicants. The conditions are acceptable. I just want to take one second to make sure it's clear. It is with us, and staff but I want to put this on the record. The second condition dealing with the width and surface material for the driveway involves the existing driveway that was put in when her sister's house was built. There was some confusion at that time when that project went forward. They did not need a driveway but were required to put one in because they were using the other driveway. No one wants to see yet another driveway put in. Condition #2 is intended to specify that the existing driveway would meet those requirements not that we put yet another driveway on this piece of property. William Din: Is that acceptable to you Stephen? Yes, okay. Thank you. Is there any opposition to this item? Hearing none, we'll move on to the next item. I'm sorry. I'd like to move back to Item #5, Jan, I'm sorry. I skipped you on that one again. Janice Anderson: No problem. This is the application that we just heard with regard to a subdivision variance. They're requesting to subdivide this parcel. We have a 2.5-acre parcel where a residential house would be located. We believe that this is an appropriate use of this area and has a unique situation since the original lot is 176 acres. Right next to it is a pre-existing flag lot that was formed and family members live on that lot, also. The Committee believed that this was an appropriate use for the subdivision variance and recommended approval. William Din: Thank you Jan. Ms. Wood, I'd like to make a motion to approve the following consent item, Item #5 John L. Williams and Ellen Lane Wadsworth with two conditions. It's a subdivision variance at property located west side of Princess Anne Road. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Eugene Crabtree: Second. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is the vote open? Item #5 John L. Williams & Ellen Lane Wadsworth Page 2 AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, this consent agenda itcwn passes. ABSENT 2 ABSENT ABSENT MAYOR OBERNDORF: February 24, Please. 2004 CAPTAIN KEELEY: Item L-8, Mr. John Wallet's property. Legally he could have built residential property there, but after discussion he decided to go to light industrial, which is by our instruction completely compatible and would like to commend everybody on that. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you, Captain Keeley. COUNCII~4AN ~ADDOX: Thank you, Captain Keeley. would like to make a motion this Planning Item until March 23rd. Madam Mayor, I that we defer COUNCIL~3~N REEVE: Second. MAYOR OBEP~DORF: March 23rd. Are we There's a motion and a second to defer the Virginia Beach Soccer Application until ready for the question? CITY CLERK: Beach Travel Soccer Team. By a vote of 10 to 0 you have deferral until March 23rd for approved the the Virginia COUNCIL~A~N REEVE: February 24, 2004 Actually, it's Mr. Maddox's District. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Oh, I'm sorry. COUNCILMAN MADDOX: Captain Keeley, do you have any remarks to make about this Application? CAPTAIN KEELEY: Madam Mayor, Mister Vice Mayor, Council Members, Mr. Meyer and Mr. Lilley. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this. Even though it is going to be deferred from the Agenda tonight, I am here in favor of this development around Oceana where you take a rezoning of agricultural to something that is compatible with our air field operations. It is in a high nose zone. It is in an Accident Potential Zone 1 and 2, since it lies directly beneath our landing pattern. But by our instruction, this is a compatible use. Recreational facilities are generally considered compatible. I wrote a letter to the Planning Commission on the 12th of January outlining some conditions -- that we not hold the World Cup of Soccer there so-to-speak, because that would greatly increase the intensity. But, a clubhouse or other issues like that that would really draw lots of people. Normally these facilities are used on the weekends where you will have groups come in to play soccer and it is compatible. So, I would like to commend the developer, the landowner and the City Staff for planning something such as this. Also, on the Agenda tonight, if I may add. February 24, 2004 FOP/~A~ SESSION MAYOR OBEP~NDORF: VICE MAYOR JONES: Okay. Mr. Jones. Well, the next item is the Planning Item L-2. CITY CLERK: MAYOR OBERNDORF: The Virginia Beach Travel Soccer. Oh, Virginia Beach Travel Soccer. Yes, Mrs. Smith. CITY CLEP~K: The Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Incorporated, for a Conditional Use Permit for the soccer fields at Shipps Corner. Mr. Bourdon is representing the Applicant and Captain Keeley would like to speak to the Application. EDDIE BOb~RDON: This is one that Captain Keeley and I are in total agreement on. However, we have to ask for a deferral. We need to defer this until March the 23rd. I think this one will be on the Consent Agenda for March the 23rd. There is an issue with regard to the Chesapeake Bay Act that I am quite confident will be totally resolved by the 23rd of March, but we would request that it be deferred until the 23rd of March. Captain Keeley and I have spoken and he's aware that that's happening. MAYOR OBERNDORF: March 23rd? Thank you, Mr. Reeve, Mr. Bourdon, we appreciate it. do you want to defer this until 2 Virginia Beach City Council February 24, 2004 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood Mayor At-Large Bayside District 4 Kempsville - District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - District 5 CITYMANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hedges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Item of V~rginia Beach Travel Soccer, Incorporated Item V-L.2. ~ 44 - PLANNING ITEM # 52271 Attorney Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, 5'^ Floor, Phone: 499-8971, requested DEFERRAL Captain Tom Keeley, Commanding Officer - NAS Oceana, Phone: 433-292, advised support as this use is compatible with Oceana's new Instructions since this is for recreational purposes. Upon motion by Councilman Maddox, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of March 23, 2004, an Ordinance upon application of VIRGINIA BEACH TRA VEL SOCCER, INC., a Virginia Corporation T/A BEACH FC for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDiNANCE UPON APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION T/A BEACH FC FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITFOR A RECREATIONAL FACILITY OFAN OUTDOOR NATURE (SOCCER FIELDS) Ordinance upon Application of Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc., a Virginia Corporation T/A Beach FC for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility o fan outdoor nature (soccer fields) on property located on the south side of Shipps Corner Road, east of Holland Road (GPIN 14953733290000). DISTRICT 6- BEACH Voting: 10-0 (By Consen0 Council Members Voting Aye: Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. done& Reba Si McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Jim Reeve, Peter Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Harry E. Diezel February24,2004 M.p .-,o Va Beach Travel Soc, Inc. B-2 CUP - Outdoor Recreation DATE I REQUEST ACTION 1 6-25-02 2 3 4 5 8-14-01 10-28-91 9-21-87 12-14-93 2-25-92 10-28-91 4-23-90 12-2-03 12-2-03 12-2-03 2-1-00 1-23-89 Conditional Use Permit (lodge for fraternal Granted organization) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to A-12 Apartment Denied with PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay) Rezoning (B-2 Business to AG-1 Agricultural) Granted Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to B-2 Business) Granted Conditional Use Permit (church) Denied Conditional Use Permit (golf driving range) Granted Rezoning (I-1 Industrial to AG-1 Agricultural) Granted Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Granted Industrial) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Granted Industrial) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional B-2 Granted Business) Conditional Use Permit (car wash) Granted Modification of Proffers approved with 1-23-89 Granted Zoning Change Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural to Granted conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, a Va. Corp., T/A Beach FC - Conditional Use Permit (recreational facility of an outdoor nature - soccer fields) MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc., a Virginia Corporation T/A Beach FC for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer fields) on property located on the south side of Shipps Corner Road, beginning at a point approximately 1100 feet east of Holland Road (GPIN 14953733290000). DISTRICT 6- BEACH This matter was deferred on February 24 by the City Council at the request of tho applicant. Considerations: The applicant proposes to create six lighted soccer fields of varying sizes as well as a paved parking area of approximately 180 spaces. The parking area is shown entirely within the 120-foot Dominion Power easement that lies along the western border of the property. A small building for restrooms is shown adjacent to the parking lot. Although not specified on the plan, a building or shed may also be necessary for storage of recreational equipment. A three-foot berm is shown along the frontage of Shipps Corner Road outside of the reservation area. The berm will be landscaped with shade trees and evergreen shrubs. The berm is intended to contain soccer balls on the property and to aesthetically enhance the property. The eastern third of the property is considered wetlands and will remain undisturbed. A 100-foot buffer adjacent to the wetlands, which is considered the Resource Protection Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, must also be left in a natural state. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. · Recommendations: Virginia Beach Travel Soccer Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: The applicant shall request a variance from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board if the Planning Director or his designee determines that this is required. The fields shall be used only for practices and not for any other event that would draw spectators. No bleachers or spectator seating is permitted on the property. A right-of-way reservation shall be provided along Shipps Corner Road as required for the Shipps Corner Road Bridge Replacement plan CIP 2-174 and as called for in the Master Transportation Plan. Right and/or left turn lanes shall be constructed on Shipps Corner Road if Public Works Traffic Engineering determines that they are required during the detailed plan review process. Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall be no higher than 14 feet and shall be directed downward and shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises and away from adjoining 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 City Manager:~~_, ~ H09 - 211 - CUP - 2003 VA. BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER, INC. Agenda Item # 9 January 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Ashby Moss The foflowing report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer practice fields) LOCATION: Property located on south side of Shipps Corner Road, approximately 1100 feet east of Holland Road ,,-,o Va Beach Travel Inc. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 14953733290000 6 - BEACH VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item:,.~ 9 Page I SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 21.733 acres Formerly cultivated fields; the property is now vacant and zoned AG- 1 Agricultural District. North: South: East: West: · Across Shipps Corner Road, Cardinal Estates mobile home subdivision · Vacant land / I-1 Light Industrial District · Wetlands and natural drainage area / AG-2 Agricultural District · Vacant property / recently rezoned to conditional I- I Light Industrial District The eastern third of the property is wooded and contains wetlands leading to a natural drainage area that eventually leads to the Chesapeake Bay. Due to fertilizers, pesticides, and routine mowing, the fields cannot be located in the Resource Protection Area RPA. The plan must be modified to move the proposed fields outside of the RPA. If buffer restoration (planting of trees and shrubs) is provided within the seaward 70 feet of the RPA, the remaining 30 feet can be used for soccer practice fields. The western end of the property is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana, but the majority of the property is in the greater than 75 dB Ldn noise zone. Most of the property is also located within Accident Potential Zones I and 2. The Navy's AICUZ Program map, dated 1999, lists outdoor uses, including playgrounds, neighborhood parks, golf courses, and riding stables, as compatible in APZ 2 and conditionally compatible in APZ 1. As of the date this report was printed, the Navy has not provided comments on this request. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item # 9 Page 2 Summary The applicant proposes to create six lighted soccer fields of varying sizes as well as a paved parking area of approximately 180 spaces. The parking area is shown entirely within the 120-foot Dominion Power easement that lies along the western border of the property. A small building for restrooms is shown adjacent to the parking lot. Although not specified on the plan, a building or shed may also be necessary for storage of recreational equipment. Vehicular access is shown at a single point on Shipps Corner Road leading into the parking area. A variable width right-of-way reservation is also shown along Shipps Corner Road. The Traffic Engineering Division of the City's Department of Public Works is requiring right and left turn lanes on Shipps Corner Road due to the projected right and left turn volumes that exceed the minimum hourly turning vehicle volumes of 35 right turning and 30 left turning vehicles during any hour (Sections 3.11.2 and 3.11.7 of the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual). A three-foot berm is shown along the frontage of Shipps Corner Road outside of the reservation area. The berm will be landscaped with shade trees and evergreen shrubs. The berm is intended to contain soccer balls on the property and enhance the property aesthetically. The eastern third of the property is considered wetlands and will remain undisturbed. A 100-foot buffer adjacent to the wetlands, which is considered the Resource Protection Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, must also be left in a natural state. The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Compatibility of proposed use with Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and Comprehensive Plan. · Compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item;# 9 Page 3 Comprehensive Pla This parcel lies within Strategic Growth Area #10 under the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The western portion of Area #10 where the subject property is located is planned for nonresidential uses to include a mix of light industrial, Iow-rise office and limited retail. Limited vehicular access points and parcel consolidation are encouraged to achieve a more unified well-planned development. As always, attractive, high quality design is encouraged, particularly as the development is seen from Dam Neck, Shipps Corner, and Holland Roads. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request subject to conditions. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses most of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposars strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) Although the proposed soccer practice fields aren't listed as a desired use for Strategic Area #10 in the Comprehensive Plan, the severe AICUZ and environmental constraints on this property constrict many potential uses. Further, the few capital improvements that have been included in the applicant's proposal will not preclude an easy future "redevelopment" of the property when circumstances may allow for it. (2) Although the Navy has not officially expressed support for the proposal, parks and similar outdoor uses are listed as compatible and conditionally compatible in the Accident Potential Zones that are present on the subject site. The applicant VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item# 9 Page 4 has also agreed to use the fields for practices only and not to provide any spectator seating on the property. However, the proposars weaknesses in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The site plan shows soccer fields within the Resource Protection Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Although sports fields are pervious, they are limited in their ability to filter pollutants and sediments before reaching water. They are also typically chemically treated and heavily mowed. Since this area was previously cultivated, the RPA has been stripped of any natural vegetation other than grasses. Buffer areas provide the best protection for water bodies when they are vegetated with trees and shrubs and left in a natural state. Therefore, if the 70-foot seaward area is restored with trees and shrubs, the remaining 30-foot landward portion of the buffer can be used for sports fields. (2) Traffic Engineering has determined that right and left turn lanes are required due to anticipated turning volumes during practice start and stop times. The turn lanes are not shown on the site plan. Since these weaknesses can be overcome through conditions attached to the Use Permit, Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions The applicant shall request a variance from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board if the Planning Director or his designee determines that this is required. The fields shall be used only for practices and not for any other event that would draw spectators. No bleachers or spectator seating is permitted on the property. A right-of-way reservation shall be provided along Shipps Corner Road as required for the Shipps Corner Road Bridge Replacement plan CIP 2-174 and as called for in the Master Transportation Plan. Right and/or left turn lanes shall be constructed on Shipps Corner Road if Public Works Traffic Engineering determines that they are required during the detailed plan review process. Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall be no higher than 14 feet and shall be directed downward and shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises and away from adjoining properties. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item# 9 Page 5 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. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item # 9 Page 6 Supplemental Informatior Zoning Historv Map H-lO Va Beach Travel Soc, CUP - Outdoor Recreation DATE I REQUEST 6-25-02 8-14-01 10-28-91 9-21-87 2 12-14-93 2-25-92 10-28-91 4~23-90 Conditional Use Permit (lodge for fraternal organization) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to A-12 Apartment with PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay) Rezoning (B-2 Business to AG-1 Agricultural) Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to B-2 Business) Conditional Use Permit (church) Conditional Use Permit (golf driving range) Rezoning (I-1 Industrial to AG-1 Agricultural) Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Industrial) ACTION Granted Denied Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted Granted VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item# 9 page 7 3 12-2-03 4 12-2-03 12-2-03 5 2-1-00 1-23-89 6 1-23-89 7 3-20-78 8 8-13-79 9 2-1-88 10 10-14-03 10-29-02 11 11-20-78 12 9-12-66 7-8-63 7-8-63 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Granted Industrial) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional B-2 Granted Business) Conditional Use Permit (car wash) Granted Modification of Proffers approved with 1-23-89 Zoning Granted Change Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-2 Granted Heavy Industrial) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-2 Granted Heavy Industrial) Conditional Use Permit (board horses) Granted Conditional Use Permit (garden shop and nursery) Granted Conditional Use Permit (service station) Granted Modification of Conditions to 10-29-02 CUP Granted Conditional Use Permit (church) Granted Rezoning (A-1 Apartments to A-2 Apartments) Granted Conditional Use Permit (modification to CUP for Denied mobile home park granted 7-8-63) Rezoning (A-R Agricultural Restricted to M-13 Granted Manufacturing/Industrial) Conditional Use Permit (mobile home subdivision) Granted Public ARency Comment- Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Shipps Corner Road in the vicinity of this application is a two-lane undivided collector. The MTP designates future improvements of this road as an undivided road with a bikeway within a 70-foot right-of-way. The Shipps Corner Bridge Replacement Project, CIP 2-007, is listed in the current adopted CIP to replace the bridge located approximately 1,000 feet west of London Bridge Road with another two-lane structure. Although not in the current adopted CIP, the Shipps Corner Road project CIP 2-865 to widen this road to four lanes has been requested but not funded. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item:# 9 Page 8 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z Shipps Corner 7,617 6,200 - - 0 ADT Road ADT 1 9,900 ADT ~ Pro, posed Land Use °- 180 ADT ' Average Daily Trips as defined by agncultural fields Estimated based on six fields with 15 team members on each field, two practice times per day Water: is needed, this site must connect to City water. Public Utilities There is a 12-inch City water main in Shipps Corner Road. If water IThere is no City gravity sanitary sewer in the vicinity of the site, and the site is not within an existing pump station area. Health Department approval is required for septic systems. Private grinder pumps and force mains may be an option. Sewer: Police.' I No comments. Public Safety Fire and Rescue: I No comments. Private A.qenc¥ Comments Dominion Power: Dominion Power is not opposed to the use of their easement for parking as long as no permanent structures or buildings are placed within the easement. Any obstructions blocking maintenance access to power facilities must be cleared immediately or a new easement must be granted to Dominion Power and the cost of relocating facilities must be paid by the property owner. Finally, any landscaping planted within the right-of-way must be in compliance with the list of acceptable species provided to the City of Virginia Beach. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item# 9 page 9 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item# 9 Pagb 10 Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item'# 9 Page 11 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item ~¢ 9 Page 12 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item # 9 Page 13 Item #9 Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. Conditional Use Permit South side of Shipps Comer Road District 6 Beach January 14, 2004 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #9 the Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. It's an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature on property located on the south side of Shipps Corner Road beginning at a point approximately 1100 feet east of Holland Road with five conditions. I believe these conditions have been modified today. Sir. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. For the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant Beach Football Club of Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. We do agree with the five modified conditions that I believe you have. I want to thank both Mr. Scott and Ms. Moss for working with us, to do I think, to come up with a far more common sense way to deal with the issue. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: We're in full agreement with the five conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any opposition to Item #9, the Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc.? Hearing none. Gene, would you please comment on that item. Eugene Crabtree: I'll be glad too. First off, let me say that these soccer fields and practice fields are drastically needed within the City. These are planned to be developed at no expense to the taxpayer. This property is once again within the noise zone of Oceana and the airfields and accident zones. So, therefore, being a practice field and used for this type of use is suitable with the Comprehensive Plan, and would be conditionally compatible with the Navy's Accident Potential Zone and potential noise zone in the future. The vehicular increase on Shipps Comer Road has been addressed and I think it's going to be no problem. There is a berm going up along the road and landscaping which will make it very nice and very neat. I think it would be attractive. Therefore, we think this is a very good land use for this and the Comprehensive Plan. So therefore, we have put it on the consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition? Hearing none. Mr. Ripley, 1 would move to approve this item on the consent agenda, Item #9 with five conditions. Ronald Ripley: Before the motion is concluded, there were revisions made to two of the five conditions on item #9. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do we have a second? William Din: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Will Din. Any discussion? Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item #9. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. So noted. Does anybody else have any comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT I ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 8-0 with the abstention noted, this consent agenda item passes. K. Francis, Inc. Lynnhaven River CUP - Parking Lot I#1DATE IREQUEST I ACTION 1 10/10/00 2 6/11/96 3 5/24/94 4 4/30/90 4/25/88 5 8/9/94 12/21/81 Street Closure Street Closure Conditional Use Permit (Commercial Marina) Conditional Use Permit (Carwash) Conditional Use Permit (Carwash) Rezoning (R-10 Residential to B-4 Resort Commercial) Street Closure Approved Approved Approved Withdrawn Withdrawn Approved Approved CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. - Conditional Use Permit (off-site parking lot) MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot on property located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN 14898893040000). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Considerations: The applicant proposes to develop the site with a parking lot to accommodate parking for a proposed restaurant planned directly across the street. The conditional use permit is for the parking lot only; the restaurant is not part of this application. The submitted conceptual site layout and landscape plan depicts 18 parking spaces proposed for the site. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District requires a 15-foot setback along property lines adjacent to any district in which dwellings are permitted as a principal or conditional use. Category IV screening is also required within the setback. The submitted conceptual plan does not depict the required setback or landscaping along the northern and southern property lines. In order for the applicant to develop the site as submitted he will have to obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The proposed parking lot will be developed under certain provisions of the City Code section pertaining to Commercial Parking Lots, Section 23-58. The applicant proposes to retain the live oak trees that currently exist on the site. In the event that the live oaks cannot be retained, the applicant has volunteered to donate funds to the Tree Restoration - Shore Drive Area Trust Fund. Street frontage landscaping will consist of a mix of live oak trees and beach grasses. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the request. Recommendations: The applicant has requested a deferral of this application to April 27. The additional time will be used to meet with the civic league and adjoining property owners regarding the request. Jeffrey Francis Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: The site shall be developed and landscaped substantially in accordance with the submitted Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Vista Circle Restaurant, prepared by MSA. P.C., dated 12/01/03, provided the applicant obtains a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the required setback and landscaping. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. If the applicant does not obtain a variance then the site layout shall be redesigned to meet the required setback and landscaping. The parking lot shall be developed in accordance with the City Code section pertaining to Commercial Parking Lots, Section 23-58, subsection (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4), (f)(5), and (f)(8). Alternative pavement treatments may be allowed in order to protect and save the live oak trees on the site. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for the parking for review by staff. The lighting shall be Iow level and designed so as not to spillover onto adjacent properties or the City right-of-way. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends deferral to April 27. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: lanning Department',~,.~-~____ G03-215-CUP-2003 JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item # 7 February 11,2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: LOCATION: GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Conditional Use Permit for a Parkinq Lot Property located at 2149 Vista Circle 14898893040000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 7,240 square feet CUP - Parking Lot K. Francis, Inc. JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item#7 Page 1 EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: A vacant, undeveloped parcel. North: South: East: West: · Single-family dwellings / B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial / Shore Drive Corridor Overlay · Vista Circle · Across Vista Circle is a single-family dwelling (proposed restaurant site) / B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial / Shore Drive Corridor Overlay · Multiple-family Condominium / B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial / Shore Drive Corridor Overlay · Vista Circle · Across Vista Circle is a single-family dwelling (proposed restaurant site) / B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial / Shore Drive Corridor Overlay There are live oak trees on the site. The applicant proposes to retain the trees and incorporate them into the site design. If the trees cannot be saved, the applicant has volunteered to donate funds to the Tree Restoration - Shore Drive Area Trust Fund. The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary of Pro The applicant proposes to develop the site with a parking lot to accommodate parking for a proposed restaurant planned directly across the street. The submitted conceptual site layout and landscape plan depicts 18 parking spaces proposed for the site. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District requires a 15-foot setback along property lines adjacent to any district in which dwellings are permitted as a principal or conditional use. Category IV screening is also required within the setback. The submitted conceptual plan does not depict the required setback or landscaping along the northern and southern property lines. In order for the applicant to develop the site as submitted he will have to obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The proposed parking lot shall also be developed under certain provisions of the City Code section pertaining to JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item# 7 Page 2 Commercial Parking Lots, Section 23-58. The following subsections sections are applicable: (f) Commercial parking lots shall at all times, whether or not they are in operation: (1) Have a paved surface, inclusive of all drive aisles, which meets the requirements of the Specifications and Standards of the Department of Public Works and the Site Plan Ordinance; (2) Contain perimeter landscaping meeting the requirements of section 5A of the Parking Lot Landscaping Specifications and Standards where adjacent to any public right-of-way or other publicly owned property. The perimeter may also be enclosed by fencing meeting the requirements for fences set forth in section 201(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance; provided, however, that such fencing shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and shall consist of materials, such as black vinyl-coated chain link, white vinyl picket or black wrought iron, which are generally recognized within the industry as maintenance-free. Wood split-rail fences shall not be permitted. Such fencing and landscaping shall at all times be maintained in good condition and repair; (4) Be secured at all points of ingress and egress by a gate, consisting of materials, such as black vinyl-coated chain link, white vinyl picket or black wrought iron, which are generally recognized within the industry as maintenance-free, except during hours of operation; Contain no less than one (1) trash receptacle, plainly visible and marked as such, for every three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet of lot area or fraction thereof; Be in compliance with all other applicable requirements of federal, state and local law including, without limitation, the handicapped parking space requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. (5) (8) The applicant does propose to retain the live oak trees that currently exist on the site. In the event that the live oaks cannot be retained the applicant has volunteered to donate funds to the Tree Restoration - Shore Drive Area Trust Fund. Street frontage landscaping will consist of a mix of live oak trees and beach grasses. JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item# 7 Page 3 The foflowing represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Consistency with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Plan. · Compatibility with the surrounding uses. Comprehensive The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Primary Residential Area. The land- use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable residential neighborhoods located within this area. However, this particular site is located within the Waterman's Walk sub-area. A variety of appropriately scaled mixed uses including marinas, restaurants, multiple-family units, and limited specialty retail shops are envisioned for the area. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The request to establish a parking lot for the proposed restaurant directly across Vista Circle is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan / Shore Drive Corridor JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item# 7 Page 4 (2) policies and uses recommendations for the designated Waterman's Walk sub- area portion of the Shore Drive corridor. The proposed restaurant and off-site parking lot will promote the level of community aesthetics, economic vitality, quality physical environment, and quality of life that the Plan policies envision for this area. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding mix of resort uses such as restaurants, marinas and multiple-family condominiums. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions. Conditions The site shall be developed and landscaped substantially in accordance with the submitted Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Vista Circle Restaurant, prepared by MSA. P.C., dated 12/01/03, provided the applicant obtains a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the required setback and landscaping. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. If the applicant does not obtain a variance then the site layout shall be redesigned to meet the required setback and landscaping. The parking lot shall be developed in accordance with the City Code section pertaining to Commercial Parking Lots, Section 23-58, subsection (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4), (f)(5), and (f)(8). Alternative pavement treatments may be allowed in order to protect and save the live oak trees on the site. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for the parking for review by staff. The lighting shall be Iow level and designed so as not to spillover onto adjacent properties or the City right-of-way. 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. JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item# 7 Page 5 Supplemental Inform~ M~ 6-3 Zoning History IC Francis Inc. Lynnhaven River CUP - Parking Lot DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 10/10/00 2 6/11/96 3 5/24/94 4 4/30/90 4/25/88 5 8/9/94 12/21/81 Street Closure Street Closure Conditional Use Permit (Commercial Marina) Conditional Use Permit (Carwash Conditional Use Permit (Carwash Rezoning (R-10 Residential to B-4 Resort Commercial) Street Closure Approved Approved Approved Withdrawn Withdrawn Approved Approved JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item# 7 Page 6 The applicant has been before the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Board and obtained a variance for the location of the proposed restaurant across the street. Public A.qency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Vista Circle in front of this site is a two-lane local road. There are no improvements anticipated for this roadway within the next five years. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Volume Capacity Traffic No traffic Existing Land volume Use 2.0 Vista Circle counts 6,200 ADT ~ are Proposed Land available Use 3. 390 ~ Average Daily Trips 2as defined by no existing development on the site. 3 as defined by the proposed restaurant across Vista Circle Public Utilities Water: I The site is served by City water. Sewer: I City sewer serves the site. 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. Fire and Rescue: I There are no Fire Department concerns for this site. JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item;# 7 Page 7 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item# 7 Page 8 Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INc. Agenda Item# 7 Page 9 NOI~¥gITddY ~LIl~gtl ~[Sfl qYNOIZIQN03 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement JEFFREY K. FRANCIS, INC. Agenda Item# 7 Page 10 Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Conditional Use Permit 2149 Vista Circle District 5 Lynnhaven February 11, 2004 CONSENT William Din: The next item is Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Is there a representative here or applicant? Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Vice Chairman, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. We're fine with the conditions but I do believe there may be someone here who wishes to speak. William Din: Okay. Is this in favor or opposing us? Is them opposition to this item? Joseph Strange: Yeah. We have two people signed up. William Din: We'll have to drop this down to the regular agenda item. REGULAR Dorothy Wood: Next item please. Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #7, which is a Conditional Use Permit for a parking lot and the applicant is Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Madame Chairperson, again for the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Mr. Jeff Francis who is here this afternoon. I understand the confusion since it was on the consent agenda previously. This piece of property subject to this application is in the B-4 Zoning District. It is located on the east side of Vista Circle. The applicant, as you all heard this morning and is written up in your staff evaluation is developing a restaurant on the Lynnhaven River on the piece of property across the street from the subject property. That development is consistent with the recommendations of ULI Shore Drive Corridor. This is the area that is characterized as Waterman's Walk sub area. The Chick's Oyster Bar/Restaurant is located in this area along with some other restaurants over to the west. The area does have some parking problems and my client has acquired this piece of property here that does not have a building on it as is depicted. However, the owners of this property did have approval for a duplex to be constructed there and that's obviously won't happen which given the circumstances, this situation I think is a betterment. It is certainly more consistent with Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 2 what the City's vision for this area is as opposed to putting yet additional residential development in here. The staff has recommended approval of this use, which will just be a parking lot for the restaurant. The conditions as were discussed this morning and I had the same comments that you all heard regarding the desire of my client to save at least some of the Live Oak trees that are on the property. In order to be able to do that it will be necessary, in our opinion to be able use some alternative pavement treatments on site. Maybe not in total but in some areas of the site in order to protect the root system of some of the trees that are present. My client is accepting of Condition #2 as amended. So, all the conditions are acceptable. We will be proceeding to the Board of Zoning Appeals as well, which has been set forth in your write up. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I would say also that the Chesapeake Bay Board has already approved the plans for the restaurant on the property across the street. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Ron? Ronald Ripley: My question is mainly related more to the restaurant. It's curiosity. The Waterman's Walk concept vision's possibility of time, you know connectivity along the water. And my question is this, is the application thinking in those terms? Are they receptive to that idea if that were to materialize? I realize there's nothing materializing at the moment but it's a vision of the plan. Eddie Bourdon: They certainly are and we got a significant area that is shown here which will be an open area behind the restaurant where there could be connections made through at some form or fashion if that comes about but in the meantime we're obviously going to be using it for space. He is certainly opened to that concept. The question is when it will be able to come to pass. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: It can put additional area on the back if the Chesapeake Bay Board will allow it. If there's a project that comes in to allow connections along the water, that will be a uniform type situation and we will certainly be able to do it. The thought process that I've heard spoken of is that it will be along the water. We're certainly willing to do that. Ronald Ripley: I have another question too? Dorothy Wood: Go ahead. Ronald Ripley: Regarding the site itself, the topography of the property is it below the grade it needs to be or above the grade? The reason why I ask is because if the applicant is going to attempt to use some alternative surface cover for the purpose of trying to save the Live Oaks in there, if fill needs to be brought in that would probably be good. We have to cut it out. My question is do you know the elevation of the site at this point? Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 3 Eddie Bourdon: The piece of property is not a low piece of property. It is one that should not involve any significant amount of fill at all. It's on a dune, if you will and I've been on the site. It doesn't appear to me, of course, everything is very sandy so you don't have water standing anywhere. There's a lot of absorbsion to begin with but it is definitely not a low piece of property. Ronald Ripley: I hope if this is approved, I hope the City can find a way to work with the applicant to try to preserve that because it is a very important aspect of Shore Drive and I'm on the Shore Drive Committee. It's a topic that is discussed every month. Eddie Bourdon: You don't have to tell me about it. Ronald Ripley: Every month it's discussed. In fact, they just finished counting all the Live Oaks along the corridor so they could have a pretty good idea of the pattern of growth of Live Oaks in that area, so attempting to preserve and I would encourage it. Eddie Bourdon: This property, and not to disagree in any way with your observation Mr. Ripley, it clearly doesn't have much visibility back where it is but we would certainly like to work to preserve the trees. That was stated in the application and we appreciate it. We had already brought it to the attention of the Planning Department conflict that exists when you start talking about asphalting parking lots with the root system of Live Oaks. Ronald Ripley: I think you might see the rest of the neighborhood participating in counting the rest of the Live Oaks that are off the corridor. That's the next discussion. Eddie Bourdon: The issue and I'll put it all on the table. I'm fairly comfortable that some of the other restaurants in the area have had to pave their parking lots. You may have some objection to this one not being paved but we would prefer to try work to save the trees and we understand and agree with blanket paving could create problems in that regard. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Din? William Din: Mr. Bourdon could you sort of address if you pave this area how the parking will be arranged in there to keep it orderly? Eddie Bourdon: Well the plan that is shown which is not fully engineered but if it is approved which does require variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. If they are not granted then we must have a greater buffer on the sides. Mr. Harness who's here will talk to you about his property here. This property is up against the parking lot for a high- rise condominium. We believe that the Board of Zoning Appeals and with staffs okay with the variance to get it closer. The configuration is that you got drive out and you got marked parking spaces. There will not be parking there. There will also be a fence. It will be maintenance free, fifty percent opaque fence with landscaping all the way around Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 4 as one of the conditions requires that we have a gate. It's a portable gate so it will be a secured lot so there won't be people parking here on other people's property what have you but between the landscaping, the fencing and then depending upon the surface of the parking lot the ability to actually put marked lines out may be somewhat compromised. But because it's not a parking lot for just general public, it's just for the restaurant and more than likely if the restaurant is successful you'll see it will be valet type parking so it's all controlled by the property owner. The situation that has existed down there does exist today with people just parking on vacant lots and parking all over the place, which I think Mr. Harness has one of that as his concerns. William Din: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Do we have any other speakers Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: We have two speakers in opposition. The first speaker is Howard W. Harness. He's representing the Lynnhaven Colony Civic League. Dorothy Wood: Welcome Mr. Harness. Howard Harness: Good afiemoon Madame Chairman and Board members. My name is Howard Harness and I live a 2001 Cove Road, Virginia Beach. I'm really here wearing two hats. I own the adjacent property. There are two lots right here and I own both of those and they have little houses on them. My concern is that I'm not against him putting parking there and I think it's an addition to the neighborhood. What I am against is that under the Shore Drive Overlay and a Conditional Use Permit I should be allowed 15 foot of green along all property lines. That is what I'm really looking for. The Oaks that they speak about fight here, that Oak tree is approximately four feet offmy property line, which would mean it's probably ten feet if you got the setbacks. There would be plenty of room for that Live Oak without anything and giving me my setbacks. Up here at this comer most of that is Pine and most of those are actually on my property and the right-of- way for the City. The Oak tree right here sits right on the right-of-way of the City and the property owner. I don't know whether or not you got my letter with the pictures and stuff on them. Did you get a copy of it? If you look at those pictures, you can see how critical parking is. During the summer those people park on my property, in front of my house. You know the problem? So, what were asking is not only myself but also the Lynnhaven Colony Civic League is asking that you have designated parking there and a hard surface. We would not like gravel. If you put a hard surface in you can do it with pavers or bricks but different type pavers you can make the lines with and if we're looking at 18 parking places on this lot there should not be a problem. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Harness. Howard Harness: Thank you. Are there any questions? Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions for Mr. Harness? Ron? Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 5 Ronald Ripley: You say you own both of those parcels? Howard Harness: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Do you live in those parcels? Howard Harness: No sir, I don't. Ronald Ripley: You rent them out? Howard Harness: Yes, school teachers live there. Ronald Ripley: You have some tenants in there basically? Howard Harness: All the time. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Howard Harness: Two year lease. They don't change and usually it's one school teacher after the other. Are there any other questions? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Harness. I'm son'y, Jan? Janice Anderson: Thank you. You don't have a problem with the use next door being a parking lot? Howard Harness: Not ifI get my setback. Janice Anderson: Just the setback. Howard Harness: Without the setback the noise and everything and I have complaints from the tenants that at 2 o'clock in the morning they're starting their cars, they're loud. When they back out the lights shine through the windows and things like that. He has his setback. I have no problem. He's got the right to use his property anyway he sees fit. Janice Anderson: They're parking on this property now? Howard Harness: Before Mr. Francis chained it off, Chick's patrons use to use it. If you look at those pictures, I mean there were hundreds of cars parked on that lot if you could believe that but they're parked on my property and anywhere else they can park. Janice Anderson: With the proposal would it being fenced in don't you think that would keep them from parking on your property if it's a fenced in designated parking? Item//7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 6 Howard Harness: The fence would stop them fi'om driving over the property but that's not going to stop them from doing whatever. When it's a parking like it is now, it's a gravel parking lot, there's all kinds of bottles, trash out there all the time. I mean everything from oil containers to baby diapers. That's not right. The Overlay was there to protect the residential area from the commercial area. He can get his 18 parking spots there and give me 15 feet there. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: Do you have anyone else in your group that would like to stand in support? Howard Harness: The Condo Association is here in support. Joseph Strange: How about from your group? Howard Harness: No. I'm speaking for the Lynnhaven Colony Civic League and also for myself as the adjoining property owner. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Harness. Will you please call the next? Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Jacob W. Miller. He is the President of the Lesner Cove Condominium Association. Dorothy Wood: Good aflemoon Mr. Miller. We're happy to have you with us. Jacob Miller: Madame Chairperson, I'm Jacob W. Miller as you indicated. I'm the President of the Lesner Cove Condominium Association. The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24-unit condominium. One of the pictures showed the side of our building. It's a five-story building with parking on the first floor and remaining four floors are the living units. I'm the owner and occupant of one of the condo units and we're situation directly across from 2149 Vista Circle, which is the property that the restaurant building will be built upon. I'm aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Waterman's Walk portion, which deals with development in Vista Circle area. My association finds it commendable that the City is seeking a way for responsibility development of this entire area. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which two members of our association find objectionable. First there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which has been mentioned previously. Now, one of the previous speakers spoke that our condominium backs up to the parking lot. We back up just to our parking lot. It's a parking floor. The first floor of our entire building is a parking facility and there are four units on the floors above there. Ed Weeden: You're just about out of time. Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 7 Jacob Miller: Okay. I'll say this. We would like to object to the 15 foot and we will object to this at the Board of Zoning Appeals. Also, we too, are strongly in favor of a hard surface parking lot. If you act favorably on this request, we hope that you include the provisions that your staff has suggested. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. Jacob Miller: Madame Chairman, let me say that I did bring along with me letters from each of our occupants that support this position. Who shall I give them too? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Weeden will take them. Thank you. Joseph Strange: No other speakers. Dorothy Wood: No other speakers? Mr. Bourdon, would you like to speak to us again? Eddie Bourdon: Just briefly. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: The statements that were made with regard to the trash and the people parking on the property, Mr. Francis has not had control of this piece of property. He did not own the property when those uses were taking place or those problems were occurring as Mr. Harness has so indicated to me this morning. Since Mr. Francis has kept the property secure people aren't parking there. I just wanted to make sure that you all understand that he's not one that permitted issues that may have existed in the past. I think Mr. Harness will agree he has been a good neighbor in that regard. He's cleaned up the situation. There's a parking lot here with landscaping and completely enclosed and fenced in with trash receptacles present. Those problems that he's speaking of won't exist. As far as the Lesner Cove situation is concern, they do have some outdoor parking that does adjoin the property but Mr. Miller is correct in saying that the first floor of the building is all parking, which adjoins his property as well. And, parking is what this area needs. It certainly needs a lot more than it needs another condominium on this particular piece of property. We are trying to create as much parking as we can, that would be controlled parking. At the same time trying to preserve the trees. If you conceive asphalt out there the trees are definitely knocked out. They won't be able to be preserved. The bottom line that this Board is going to deal with is the land use and I think everyone and the speakers as well, concluded and concur that using this property for controlled parking is the best land use for this piece of property in this area given the recommendations of our Comprehensive Plan. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, the setbacks will go to another Board will it not? Eddie Bourdon: That is correct. That is a subject of an application that will go to the Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 8 Board of Zoning Appeals. Both the gentlemen that spoke are fully aware of that process. This is not the fomm where that will be determined. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Din? William Din: Eddie, if you go back to the plan drawing, it doesn't show any landscaping on the edges where it abuts, is there landscaping there? Eddie Bourdon: There would have to be. Yes sir. What is shown there is just a drawing that was done. Personally, what we had intended to do was to put a fence up but I'm certain that even the Board of Zoning Appeals is going to, if they permit us to have any variance in to that 15 feet, they're going to require landscaping to go in. Adjacent to the condominium over here, they already, as you all saw in one of the pictures, they got a solid privacy fence that's already up there. It is somewhat questionable as to what benefit would accrue putting landscaping up against that fence? But, that will be something that the Zoning Administrator and her staff and the BZA will be determined as to what they want us to do in that area. Against Mr. Harness' property, there is no fencing and it clearly does need to be something probably more down there but the specifics we will have to work out. I am confident that along here we will be doing some heavy landscaping along Mr. Hamess' property but I'm not sure what ultimately be the determination as to how best to deal with the portion of the parking lot that adjoins the condominium and their privacy fence. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? William Din: Can you point out where Shore Drive is on that? Eddie Bourdon: Do we have an overall map? William Din: I guess the access to the parking lot. Can you just show me that? Eddie Bourdon: This is Vista Circle and Shore Drive is out here. William Din: I meant just Vista Circle. Eddie Bourdon: Oh okay. These are the two access points that are shown on the plan to Vista Circle here and here. William Din: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: This is the restaurant, the parking lot for the restaurant and Vista Circle and the extra parking directly across the street. William Din: Thank you. Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 9 Dorothy Wood: Ron? Ronald Ripley: How much land area would you be able to provide for landscaping and those two proposed fenced areas? One is an existing fence. Eddie Bourdon: It will depend on what we can obtain approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Shore Drive Overlay District, which I won't get into all of what is intended, I really don't think that is what they were looking at but if we have to provide 15 feet then we have to provide 15 feet. More than likely, along Mr. Harness' side we'll be providing less than 15 but we'll have to provide something, whether it's five, ten, we don't know. Along the side with the five story condominium and the existing solid privacy fence, me personally, I don't see that is nearly as crucial when you compare the need for parking and the need to try to preserve the trees. And the preserving of the trees taking some land as well. The area needs parking and it's trying to strike a balance as to what we want more. The trees? The green space where they're no trees? Where there is a tree we're going to create green space. That's the whole idea. We feel that is more important especially against the project. That is something that will begin with staff at the BZA. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Gene, did you have a question of Mr. Bourdon? Eugene Crabtree: No. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Jan? Janice Anderson: Is there a requirement for fencing? Eddie Bourdon: That is a requirement. That is one of the conditions. Yes. It's Condition//2, I believe it's (0(4) that deals with fencing. Janice Anderson: It was just under that number. I didn't see it specifically. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any discussion? Jan? Janice Anderson: I believe it's a proper use in the area and there are several reasons. First of all, the zoning is B-4. It is in a mix use district at Waterman's Walk. They're suggesting restaurants, condos. Marina is that kind of use there. I think it would alleviate the parking problem that they have now by designating area for parking rather than not having this site as a parking lot. Then you would have it up and down the streets and all over the neighborhood. There are existing restaurants on the other side of the property. I believe that the property will probably be a valet parking and that will help and relieve the concerns of the neighbors. If you have valet parking, then you have a couple of people from the restaurant, taking the cars over there, and the two bring it back. You' re not going to have your client customers coming out of the restaurant running next door through the properties. So actually that will probably be a valet system. All you Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 10 will have will be the one or two employees going to that parking lot and dropping the car off and picking it back up. So probably right there you alleviate the noise problem from many that parking there or any trash problems or anything like that. With it being fenced it in I think it will help the situation that it is now. The gentleman that is doing the application didn't have this property before, but it was being used as a parking lot by every body anyway. I do understand that the next-door property owners concern with the setback but I think that will be more property addressed at the Board of Zoning. But so far, as a use of a parking lot, I think this is a proper use in that district and will actually help the area. I would be supportive in leaving in the change that we had suggested about alternate paving especially in that area. It's all sand and those Live Oaks and I guess your balancing two concerns that people have but I think if we're not asking for all to be alternative parking but in designated areas where you could possibly save those Live Oak and I think it should be used. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Gene? Eugene Crabtree: I agree with Jan. As far as the alternative parking surfacing is concerned and the Live Oak trees, we got to start somewhere. So, I think this is the place to strut and recommend an alternative surfacing so we can preserve the trees. I realize that it hasn't been done in the past but if we don't start somewhere it's not ever going to get started. Therefore, I think this is an appropriate place to do that. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ron? Ronald Ripley: I think the word "trade-off' is probably a good term. I think landscaping guidelines are excellent. I think we have some real good landscaping guidelines that are being deployed around the City. As Mr. Scott has pointed out to us many times the infill sites are very difficult to develop. They do require some flexibility, I believe. I think with the trade-off of attempting to save these trees, it's far more beautiful than some little low lying bushes along the edge of a fence. I think, by right, you can cut those trees down anyway. He doesn't need to ask anybody. He can just go and cut them right down and be done with it, so there's an attempt here to really try to maintain the character of the neighborhood. It's an appropriate use for the restaurant. I believe the restaurant requires this for their parking, I would think to meet the size of the restaurant that's intended to go there. And, I'm respectful of what the two gentlemen spoke. I think given the intensity of this little area, I think this is a very appropriate use and I think it will fit in well and I'm going to support it also. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: I did take it before the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and advised them of it coming up. I didn't hear anybody having any great heartburn with it. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Do I hear a motion? Item #7 Jeffrey K. Francis, Inc. Page 11 Eugene Crabtree: I'd move that we approve the application as submitted with it's proffers and conditions. Janice Anderson: Second. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from this item. My firm is working on this project. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Miller. Ronald Ripley: I didn't take it before the Committee, I just advised the Committee that this was on the agenda. I'm sorry. Dorothy Wood: Is the vote open? AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-0, with one abstention, the application of Jeffrey Francis, Inc. has been approved. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Dept. Of Planning Atm. Ms Faith Christie Subject: Conditional use permit Encl. (1) pictures Jan. 31, 2004 Howard Harness 2001 Cove Rd. 23451 I am the adjacent property owner, owning parcel ( B gpin 1489-88-4911 ) and parcel ( C gpin #1489-88-8440) to the application of Jeffrey Frances, INC. (#G03-215- CUP-2003 ) for a conditional use permit for an offsite parking lot. First let me say that I'm against a parking lot next to my two residential lots, I believe it decreases my properties value. But Mr. Frances, has a right to utilize his property as is best for him. (Within the City guide lines and without variances.) The City and Planning Dept. has setup protection for the home owner in the Shore Drive Overlay District ( SEC.1704 Item B ) requiring a fifteen foot minimum yard ( Setback ) shall be required along all lot lines with category IV landscape screening, shall be required no other uses or structures shall be permitted, within the yard. If the Planning Commission grants the offsite parking lot, I expect the Planning Commission to enforce the fifteen foot yard set back and allow no variance. Now let me address the parking lot, the drawing I saw at the Planning Dept.. shows a gravel parking lot ( no 15' setback along lot lines) for ( 18 ) spaces. I would hope that the city code requires paved parking with defined parking spaces. ( It should be the same as the beach area) If it's not it tums out to be a mess, People Park everywhere, even on my property. (I've enclosed a couple of pictures incl-1 ) These pictures were taken before Mr. Frances, roped offhis property it was being used by the Chix, patrons. You can see that the cars were everywhere including on my property. I would appreciate your attention in this matter, I'm not against the restaurant being built, and I think it will be a good addition to the area. But if the Planning Commission gives him the offsite parking, I would expect the Planning commission and the City to enforce the existing regulations on setbacks and allow no variance, and to make the parking area paved and stripped.(it could and should be attractive) Sincerely Howard Harness Copy to: Planning Director, Mr. Scott Planning Commission Lyrmhaven Colony Civic League 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~20 Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey KFrancis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP~2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GP1N14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement ora 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waRRing to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Traci Simons 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~t3~, Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick' s Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Simone 2140 Vista Circle, Unit Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Cemer Building 2, Room 21 $ 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: rc~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GP1N14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupam of one of the condominiums. Our property is ~ituated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurams. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible developmem of our community. However, the plan for developmem of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requiremem of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the presem plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in from of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking Chick's Oyster Bar We have coumed as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Christopher Levari 2140 Vista Circle, Unit Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect atwo story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Sheets 2140 Vista Circle, Unit 7~O "~ Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Barbara K. Old & ,James T. ~ld 2140 Vista Circle, Unit 3o Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick' s Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. William Augustus Brown Jr., M.D. 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~ Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# GO3-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GP1N14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick' s... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. 2140 Vista Circle, Unit to] Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans fqr responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Unit 303 ~rginla Beach, VA 23451 2140 Vista Circle, Unit,~t'( Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey KFrancis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, 1 am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick' s Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. William A. Mahoney 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~30~~'~ Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPINI4898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this heating and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement ora 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where dearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Maryellen Jaques 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~c_J Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03 -215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waking for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Lisa Mattsson 2140 Vista Circle, Unit Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprim. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicam seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible developmem of our community. However, the plan for developmem of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is locmed adjacem to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement ora 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the presem plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurams located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in from of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicam's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for ygur consideration. Dr. Wallace Shearon 2140 Vista Circle, Unit q O Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: leffrey KFrancis, Inc. (g G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN 14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across fi.om 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement ora 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, 1 hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and l0 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank~,ou f,o)'ffour consideration. John 2140 Vista Circle, Unit q~ Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement ora 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where dearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends thxoughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Dale Thomas Mars§ & Vi~fki Kay Marsh 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~t~ Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: fez Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect atwo story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where dearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. B~ty less 2140 Vista Circle, Unit Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: rez Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GP1N14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waking to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick' If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. ~L Virginia L. tatroe & Lyle 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~'o Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN 14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot a~ 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restanrant The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Ckcle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which 1 understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback ~om the street7) Seca>nd, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware &the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot Thank you for your consideration. A~n d~Y~' 2140 Vista Circle, Unit .~K-O 7,. Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the . ~, occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement ora 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. 2140 Vista Circle, Unit Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect atwo story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick' s Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Bernadette E. Leide'l, M.D. 2140 Vista Circle, Unit ~ Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re: Jeffrey KFrancis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GP1N14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. Marie A. Madel 2140 Vista Circle, Unit Virginia Beach, VA 23451 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# CJ03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which I am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants~ I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick's... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thank you for your consideration. ~ .lohn P. Lewis & Catherilfe Lewis 2140 Vista Circle, Unitg" ~ Virginia Beach, VA 2345 February 10, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 215 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Members of the Planning Commission: re~ Jeffrey K.Francis, Inc. (# G03-215-CUP-2003) Application for Conditional Use Permit for an off-site parking lot located at 2149 Vista Circle (GPIN14898893040000) The property located at 2140 Vista Circle is a 24 unit condominium and I am the owner and occupant of one of the condominiums. Our property is situated across from the lot at 2149 Vista Circle that is the subject of this hearing and upon which 1 am told the applicant plans to erect a two story building with a 2995 square foot footprint. As I understand it, the building will house a restaurant. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit which will allow him to utilize the lot directly across from 2149 Vista Circle for additional parking, thus providing the spaces necessary for compliance with applicable regulations dealing with restaurants. I am aware of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and of the Fisherman's Walk portion which deals with development in the Vista Circle area. I find it commendable that the city is making long range plans for responsible development of our community. However, the plan for development of the parking facility has two features which I find objectionable. First, there is no provision for the 15 foot landscaped setback, which I understand is required when property such as this is located adjacent to residential property. (Is there not also a requirement of a 10 foot setback from the street?) Second, the present plans provide for only a gravel surface where clearly delineated parking spaces cannot be provided. There are already two restaurants located on Vista Circle, and while I do not object to a third, I am aware of the parking problem which occurs every evening during the summer and on weekends throughout the year when automobiles line up in front of the property being developed, waiting for valet parking at Chick's Oyster Bar We have counted as many as 120 vehicles parked or waiting to be parked in the two lots utilized by Chick' s... If the Planning Commission does decide to act favorably of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, I hope that you will take my comments into consideration and require that (1) the 15 foot and 10 foot setbacks provisions will be required, and. (2) the applicant will be required to pave and stripe the lot. Thankyouforyourconsideration.~~Lynanne Gornto T-Mobile Gpin 2407-08-3432 DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 07-05-00 08-11-98 2 08-11-98 05-23-83 3 02-25-97 4 09-14-81 Change of Zoning (Conditional B-1 Business District to O-2 Office District) Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to Conditional B-1 Business District) Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) Conditional Use Permit (beauty shop) Conditional Use Permit (convalescent home) Street Closure Granted Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Omnipoint (T-Mobile) - Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Omnipoint (T-Mobile) for a Conditional Use Permit for a communications tower on the east side of North Great Neck Road, approximately 240 feet north of Plantation Road (GPIN 24070834320000). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Considerations: This request is for the installation of an antenna on top of an existing tower; the request is not for a new tower. The applicant is proposing to install a seven (7) foot high antenna extension to the top of an existing Dominion Virginia Power transmission tower. The center of the antenna is proposed 77 feet from the base (ground). Equipment to be located at the base of the tower and an access way from Great Neck Road are also proposed. The submitted plan depicts the height and location of the existing transmission tower, the proposed equipment and fencing, and required landscaping. A conceptual elevation was submitted that illustrates the installed antenna at the top of the transmission tower. The Landscape Plan depicts shrubs around the base of the tower. Additional landscaping is recommended to aid in screening the site as one travels along Great Neck Road. The preservation of the existing trees on the site is important to maintain the visual integrity of the site as it relates to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The existing tree stand serves as a visual screen for the tower from the single-family homes immediately adjacent to the east and south and the townhouses to the north. The trees also serve as a screen from Great Neck Road. These issues are addressed in the conditions recommended below. The tower must meet the required setback from Great Neck Road of 50 feet and the required setback from existing residential structures of 200 feet. It appears that the facility does meet the front setback requirement; however, the tower is approximately 169 feet from the closest residence. As such, a Board of Zoning Appeals variance is required. Omnipoint (T-Mobile) Page 2 of 3 The applicant has provided the required information on Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) levels and the towers will not exceed the FCC level established. A letter has been provided that insures the structural integrity of the facility. · There is an existing communications tower to the west across North Great Neck Road that was approved by City Council on August 11,1998. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this is a minor addition to an existing tower. Staff recommended approval. No one appeared at the hearing in opposition to the request. One letter of concern was received and one letter voicing opposition was received. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The project shall be developed as a single antenna extension not to exceed ten (10) feet above the existing transmission tower as indicated on the submitted site plan entitled "VEPCO - VIRGINIA BEACH, VA - 10445A, North Great Neck Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23454," prepared by MAX Engineering, L.L.C., dated November 14, 2003, and the associated plans and drawings submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application. These plans have been exhibited to City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. In addition to the landscaping depicted on the plan identified in condition #1 above, a row of evergreen shrubs, reaching a minimum height of eight (8) to ten (10) feet at maturity, shall be installed parallel to and the entire length of the frontage of North Great Neck Road (other than where access will be provided), avoiding the eight (8) foot wide utility easement identified on the plan. 3. The overall height of the proposed tower extension with a seven (7) foot antenna shall not exceed 80 feet. The existing stand of trees located on the site as well as the existing vegetation in the Resource Protection Area shall not be disturbed and shall be noted as such on the final site plan. The silt fence shall be repositioned, other than the staging area, on the site to be placed no farther than 10 feet, in any direction, from the 25 foot by 25 foot lease area and the access road identified on the said plan. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended Omnipoint (T-Mobile) Page 3 of 3 user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the user of this tower, the user shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. 7. Should the antenna cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antenna and related equipment. · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~J]~ City Manager: ~'~ [~-, ~~ 106-210-CUP-2003 OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 February 11,2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower (antenna). LOCATION: Property located on the east side of Great Neck Road, 240 feet north of Plantation Road. T-Mobile GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: EXISTING 24070834320000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 25,526 square feet OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 1 LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: This parcel, owned by the City of Virginia Beach, is zoned R-7.5 Residential District and has a 30 foot wide Virginia Power easement bisecting the site. There is an electric transmission tower on the site. North: South: East: West: · Wolfsnare Creek, townhouses / A-18 Apartment District · Plantation Road, single family dwellings / R-7.5 Residential District · Single family dwellings / R-7.5 Residential District · Great Neck Road, office, marsh / O-2 Office District The site is within the Resource Protection Area (RPA) of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. The RPA is stringently regulated as it characterized as sensitive due it the topography and proximity to sensitive environmental features. There is established vegetation along the northern property line adjacent to Wolfsnare Creek. Mature trees are also located on the site but not under the existing power lines. These trees do provide some screening to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The base of the tower is devoid of any vegetation and is not pleasing as one travels along Great Neck Road. The site is in an AICUZ of 70 - 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary of Site Plan / Conformance with Section 232 · The applicant is proposing to install a seven (7) foot extension with an antenna on the top of an existing Dominion Virginia Power transmission tower. The center of the antenna is proposed 77 feet from the base (ground). Equipment to be located at the base of the tower and an accessway from Great Neck Road are also proposed. The submitted plan depicts the height and location of the existing transmission tower, the proposed equipment and fencing, and required landscaping. A conceptual elevation was submitted that illustrates the installed antenna at the OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 2 top of the transmission tower. The Landscape Plan depicts shrubs around the base of the tower. Additional landscaping is recommended to aid in screening the site as one travels along Great Neck Road. The preservation of the existing trees on the site is important to maintain the visual integrity of the site as it relates to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The existing tree stand serves as a visual screen for the tower from the single-family homes immediately adjacent to the east and south and the townhouses to the north. The trees also serve as a screen from Great Neck Road. The tower must meet the required setback from Great Neck Road of 50 feet and the required setback from existing residential structures of 200 feet. It appears that the facility does meet the front setback requirement, however, the tower is approximately 169 feet from the closest residence. As such, a Board of Zoning Appeals variance is required. The applicant has provided the required information on Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) levels and the towers will not exceed the FCC level established. A letter has been provided that insures the structural integrity of the facility. There is an existing communications tower to the west across North Great Neck Road that was approved by City Council on August 11,1998. The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Compatibility to the surrounding land use. · Setback distances to residential dwelling units. OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan policies for the Great Neck Planning area recognize that a mixture of non-residential uses can coexist with residential uses, with more intensive commercial uses along the Great Neck Road corridor. To ensure that this relationship continues in a harmonious manner and does not impose any pronounced impacts on the residential area, all nonresidential development must be done in harmony with the concept of providing an attractive, safe and well-maintained physical environment. The existing neighborhood character must be protected at all times from inappropriate land use intrusion that does not provide a legitimate purpose to the surrounding community. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) Due to the existence of the existing large transmission tower, staff feels that the addition of the antenna would not exacerbate negative visual impact for surrounding properties and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. This alternative is preferred over the construction of an additional, freestanding tower. (2) The applicant proposes to lease a 20 foot by 15 foot area from the City of Virginia Beach to house the related equipment for the operation of the facility. This lease area will be surrounded by a six (6) foot high, green, vinyl clad chain link fence and evergreen shrubs to provide additional screening to the site. A condition is recommended that increases the minimum landscape requirement as the equipment required for operation of the tower will be highly visible from Great Neck Road and the surrounding residences. OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 4 Conditions The project shall be developed as a single an antenna extension not to exceed ten (10) feet above the existing transmission tower and landscaped as indicated on the submitted site plan entitled "VEPCO -VIRGINIA BEACH, VA - 10445A, North Great Neck Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23454," prepared by MAX Engineering, L.L.C., dated November 14, 2003, and the associated plans and drawings submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application. These plans have been exhibited to City Council and are on file in the Planning Department. In addition to the landscaping depicted on the plan identified in condition #1 above, a row of evergreen shrubs, reaching a minimum height of eight (8) to ten (10) feet at maturity, shall be installed parallel to and the entire length of the frontage of North Great Neck Road (other than where access will be provided), avoiding the eight (8) foot wide utility easement identified on the plan. 3. The overall height of the proposed tower extension with a seven (7) foot antenna shall not exceed 80 feet. The existing stand of trees located on the site as well as the existing vegetation in the Resource Protection Area shall not be disturbed and shall be noted as such on the final site plan. The silt fence shall be repositioned, other than the staging area, on the site to be placed no farther than 10 feet, in any direction, from the 25 foot by 25 foot lease area and the access road identified on the said plan. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF Study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the tower and all subsequent users. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the user of this tower, the user shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 5 7. Should the antenna cease to be used for a period of more than one (1) year, the applicant shall remove the antenna and related equipment. 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. OMNIPOINT (T-MOB!LE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 6 Supplemental Informat ZoninR History T-Mobile !nt Gpin 2407-08-3432 DATE I REQUEST ACTION 1 07-05-00 08-11-98 2 08-11-98 05-23-83 3 02-25-97 4 09-14-81 Change of Zoning (Conditional B-1 Business District to Granted 0-2 Office District) Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to Conditional B- Granted I Business District) Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) Granted Conditional Use Permit (beauty shop) Denied Conditional Use Permit (convalescent home) Granted Street Closure Granted OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 7 Public A,qency Comments Public Works There will be no measurable impact on traffic due to the proposed communication towers. No water or sewer connections are necessary for the proposed use. Public Utilities 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. Fire and Rescue: I Adequate, no comments. OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 8 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Sit~ Location OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 9 Exhibit [] Proposed Site Plan OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item ~ 18 Page 10 iNSTALLED iN (N) ~,. \ \ Exhibit C Proposed Tower Elevation OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 11 Exhibit D Disclosure Statement DI- LOSUR£ stateme -- j] Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: cit-y of PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ~f the propedy owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessa~) If the propeRy owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list ~lt membem or p~nem in the organization bebw: (Attach list if necessa~) ~n Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other incorporated organization, II the applicant is not the current owner of tile property, complete the Applic~nt Disclosure section be/ow: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION. ~ist 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 organizatioo. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. nature Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 12 VoiceStream® Wireless Fact Sheet Marketa~ Technology 1994 Belk-vue, Wa~., USA John Sta~t~m, ~ ~, G~b~ System tot Mobile Con-.m,.mrcatiora (GS.M), tb.e tnten~tienal st~nd~d lot digt~I wtrele~a co~micati~r~ OMNIPOINT (T-MOBILE) Agenda Item # 18 Page 13 Item #18 Omnipoint (T-Mobile) Conditional Use Permit East side of N. Great Neck Road District 5 Lynnhaven February 11, 2004 CONSENT William Din: The next item is Item//18 Omnip0int (T-Mobile). This is a Conditional Use application for a communications tower on the east side of N. Great Neck Road. Bill Gambrell: Good aftemoon and congratulations. Thank you for letting me be on the consent agenda. We've read the conditions. My name is Bill Gambrell. I represent the applicant. All the conditions are acceptable. Thank you very much. Congratulations. William Din: Thank you Mr. Gambrell. Is there any opposition to this item? If not, Don Horsley will explain this item. Donald Horsley: It's a pretty simple application really when you look at it. Anytime you can take an existing structure and modify it to get away from building another new structure in a neighborhood like this, I think it's a plus. The applicant has figured out a way to do this. He's going to put a seven-foot extension on top of a Virginia Power transmission tower. The overall height will be 77 feet. At the base of this tower will be the mechanisms that make the tower operate. It will be fenced in with a chain link fence and adequate buffering around the fence with landscaping. So, we don't think it's going to have any negative visual impact on what's already there. You see the tower on the screen. Staff had a favorable recommendation and we hadn't anticipated any opposition to this so we felt it deserved consent status. Thank you. William Din: Thank you Don. Ms. Wood, I'd like to make a motion to approve the following consent item, Item #18, Omnipoint (T-Mobile), this is a Conditional Use Permit for a communications tower with seven conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Eugene Crabtree: Second. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is the vote open? AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE Item #18 Omnipoint (T-Mobile) Page 2 HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the consent agenda item passes ABSENT ABSENT Rev. Marcus T. Jennings, Sr. 1260 Church Slreet Virginia Beacl~ VA 23464 The City of Virginia Beach Planning Commission. Building 2, Room 115 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 11 February 2004 Please be advised that I am 100 percent against any one putting a cell tower next to my property. This is a residential community and such a structure, in my opinion, would take away from that and make it look more like an industrial park. Please do not allow it to be built here. Sincerely, Rev. Marcus T. Jennings, Sr. Randall S. & Margo L. Burris 552 W. Plantation Road Virginia Beach, VA 23454 City of Virg'mia Beach Current Planning Division Municipal Center Building 2, Room 1 t5 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 February 6, 2004 Virginia Beach Planning Commission: This letter is in response to the Application of Omnipoint (T-Mobile) for a Conditional Use Permit for a communications tower on the east side of N. Great Neck Road, which is adjacent to our home. We are concerned and have a few questions concerning this new proposed tower. 1. Location of the tower? Will it be close to the O/H Transmission Line Tower that is currently on the city property a few yards away t~om the back of our property line? 2. Will there be any lights on the tower? 3. Will there continue to be additions added on to this new tower? 4. Is the land being purchased or is T- Mobile renting the property? How does this affect the clean-up after Hurricane Isabel? This section of property has been ignored and continues to be an eyesore. Even before the hurricane we extended the lawn maintenance of our property to this section in order to enjoy the beauty of our home and neighborhood. Margo L. Burris March 9, 2004 written disclosure regarding City Council discussion and vote on the Kramer Red Mill %20, L.L.C. Application for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile repair establishment on property located on the south side of Nimmo Parkway approximately 291.77 feet east of Upton Drive. The property is owned by Lakeside Construction Corporation. Lakeside Corporation is a client of Goodman and Company and my husband is a principal at Goodman and Company. My husband personally provides services to Lakeside Construction Corporation. I wish to disclose my interest in this transaction abstaining from City Council's consideration of the matter. I will make this part of the official records. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. 10 March 9, 2004 WAR~EN TISDALE: Yes, that certainly would be agreeable to us if we were to be heard on the 23rd. I could initiate contact with Mario or we could at least discuss and let them know that it's going to come up at that meeting, so they can speak to that. COUNCILMAN REEVE: I appreciate that. I think that would go a long way to making sure the trust factor is still there. There were some concerns about this being the closest facility to the neighborhood, but I think overall they were appreciative of the efforts that Kramer Tire had put forth. I think this would go farther to strengthen the relationship with them. WARREN TISD;tLE: That's a strong civic us being perceived as something in, we certainly don't want that. league. Rather than trying to slip COUNCILMAN REEVE: Yes, sir, I agree with you. With that, Madam Mayor, I would like a motion that we defer this Application until March 23rd. to make COUNCILMAN WOOD: Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: Kramer Red Mill. By a vote of 10 to 1, until March the 23rd, you have deferred the Application of MAYOR OBEI~NDORF: Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I have a disclosure. I'm executing this March 9, 2004 that unfortunately none of the residences are here to speak on their behalf and none of them have contacted me about this Application. But, that when the Planning Commission was done, it was decided that it was not Sunday up to Saturday and I think that's what the residences are thinking is going to be approved tonight. My concern on changing that tonight is that they might feel that they did not get an opportunity to voice their concern until it was being changed. I would like to hear what other Members of Council have to say. I think Kramer Tires is a great asset to the community. I see no reason why they will not be an intricate positive part of the Red Mill Shopping experience and provide a service out there that is needed and will be utilized by a lot of the community. My only concern is that the residences that did express concern went away from the Planning Commission thinking that Sunday would be an off day to a business that is the closest to their houses. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Wood. COUNCILMAN WOOD: I would agree with what Mr. Reeve says. I think to change this without notifying the residents in advance would not be fair to them. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Would you be willing to defer this until the 23rd so that Mr. Reeve could contact the civic league and let them know? WARREN TISDALE: May I confer with my client? We do have a deadline. (Whereupon, Mr. Tisdale discusses the deferral with his client.) March 9, 2004 Number 9 be admitted simply by saying after Saturday and from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you. I appreciate the time you spent going over the Application with me and discussing some of the concerns that were raised at the Planning Commission Meeting from some of the residents. Members of Council, as you see there has been a new Condition 11. On that drawing, just to orient you, the bottom section where it says Kramer Red Mill %20, in that direction is where the houses will be. As you can see on this particular drawing, there is one row of wax myrtles. Then the fence is shown and the parking lot begins. Across the parking lot will be the back side of the bay doors, which will have activity going in and out. If you read the verbatim, you saw that the concerns that were raised by the residents were not of aesthetics. They thought they did a very good job of producing a quality product. The concern was the noise that would transfer towards the properties. My concern is seeing that the wax myrtles are not very substantial bushes my thought is to produce a stronger type buffering as you see on the left side, which would be facing the new apartment complex that's currently under construction. In talking with Mr. Tisdale, they did agree to increase the type of planting to possibly leland cypress or other trees. Ones that are larger in nature and provide a greater buffer. In regard to the Sunday operating hours, Red Mill as you know is a very active commercial center. This commercial entity would be closest to the residences. My concern in changing this tonight is 7 December 9, 2003 I would like to consider whether or not the Sunday restriction is appropriate under the circumstances. Kramer Tire has six other locations in the City of Virginia Beach and there is no limitation as to those properties with respect to hours of operation or having no Sunday hours. Three of those locations: Independence, Holland and Indian River are fairly close to residential property. I can also say that Kramer does not operate on Sunday currently and has no intentions to do so. I think Ronnie Kramer, like any good businessman, needs to plan for flexibility and with the competition in the industry it would be very difficult for him to be in a situation where if his competitors emphasis operation on Sunday to the extent that it hurts his business he would like to be in a position to respond without having to come back before City Council for a modification to the use permit. So, it's really an issue of competition and an issue of fairness. Added to that, one of the other recommendations which the Planning Commission made that I think turned out to be a good idea was to keep the doors closed. You're dealing with a facility with the doors down. You're dealing with a facility with a wall with enhanced landscaping outside the wall. It really would seem that the kind of activity that would go on under those restrictions would probably be less onerous or less burdensome than a lot of general B-2 uses that could be operated there under standard zoning without giving City Council and the Planning Commission a chance to add conditions. I, at least, would like to open the discussion to whether or not that restriction is necessary and propose that I understand the Walmart nearby has Sunday hours for tire sales and tire service. I think their hours are 10:00 until 4:00. So, I guess what I would propose at least for discussion for your consideration would be that Proffer December 9, 2003 It's what was required for the Exxon next door. If you look at the landscaping along the back where the apartment garages are, the down portion of this, you will see that the landscaping -- I'm sorry. The other side. It's turned around. On that side, then it's exactly the same. It's a follow-through with the rezoning that was required for the Exxon facility. So, with those sort of controls in place we basically were compelled to develop the side reserve restrictions. I note that the impervious surface only covers about .57 of the lot, so it's a very small commercial facility on a lot and there is a lot of green area and a lot of space to be used. We did draw the facility towards the Exxon facility drainage right-of-way on the other side. The other were standard-operating proffers like the ones that Exxon. and away from the group of proffers exist for the The third group of what I call the operational proffers, when we went to the Planning Commission we proposed that we would not -- our operating hours would be from 7:30 until 7:00, that there would be no outside storage of vehicles, no storage of parts or materials outside. The Planning Contmission added as part of its recommendations that the doors on the eastern side be closed or not open to ]_et cars in and out. They also ask that cars being dropped off prior to the workday be clearly marked. Then, finally, they said that they wanted to not allow us to operate on Sunday. The last is stated sort of positively in Proffer Number 9 where the hours of operation be from 7:30 until 7:00, Monday through Saturday. 5 March 9, 2004 for apartments and the two parcels, Parcel 6 and Parcel 7 were in fact zoned to B-2. In August of last year, City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit for the Exxon Convenient Store facility for the lot right next to the one we're talking about today. There's a convenient store with eight pumps there. In terms of site presentation just to underscore a couple remarks I'm going to make in a few minutes, you will note that to the southeast of the site there is 100-foot right-of-way for a drainage easement. I say easement, but I understand it's actually not based on an easement. It's actually owned, so that our site does not actually abut the three or four backyards that you see there directly. Based on the plan that's in your materials from the property line, that is from where the boundary of the property is with the drainage right-of-way, it's about 60 feet to where our parking lot begins and then another 50 feet before the building is. So, we're talking about 210 feet from the rear of the residential yards there to the building. We also -- if you notice in the materials, we proffered a 6-foot masonry wood-panel fence and with a fairly recent addition to the proffers we've changed the type of tree that's going to be put there to what we had initially proposed, the wax myrtle to a faster growing cedar, which we think is a good addition to the Application. Not to waste anymore time, the proffers were basically divided into three groups with standard connections to the site plan and to the architectural elevations that we provided. This property, because of residual controls by the developer some of the rezoning conditions gave the City and the developer a good deal of say-so about what went on on the site. So, if you look at the landscaping along Nimmo Parkway, what you are going to notice is that it's exactly the same. COUNCILMAN REEVE: COUNCIL LADY EURE: COUNCILMAN REEVE: COUNCIL LADY EURE: VICEMAYOR JONES: MAYOR OBERNDORF: March 9, 2004 No, ma'am. Actually, coming up. There is? there's another one Yes, ma'am. It's totally different. I thought it was the same one until I read it. Oh, okay. FORMAL SESSION Now, we have Item 4, under Planning, Madam Mayor. I'm sorry. Item 4, under Planning. CITY CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. It's the Application of Kramer Red Mill #20 for a Conditional Use Permit for auto repair at Nimmo Parkway and Upton Drive in the Princess Anne Borough. We have Mr. Warren Tisdale representing the Applicant. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Tisdale. WAi~REN TISD~?.R: Good evening. My name is Warren Tisdale and I represent the Applicant. I've been breaking out in a cold sweat when I am the only one that's not on the Consent Agenda. Just to give a brief history of this site, I know you are familiar with it. Back in March of last year the larger parcel was rezoned March 9, 2004 INFOP~.L SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: automobile repair, COUNCII~MAN REEVE: the Planning -- CITY CLERK: COUNCII~mL%N REEYE: Nimmo Item 4, Application of Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Parkway and Upton Drive. Ruth, is there anyone here to speak on that one yet? There was some opposition during We haven't heard any yet, but there is a letter in your package. Actually, I would like to pull this one. VICE MAYOR JONES: COUNCIIA~AN I~EEVE: Okay. I am concerned more that's discussed. about the screening COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: So am I. I thought in reading that -- have they added or changed that? COUNCIIAqAN I~EEVE: space to work with. VICE MAYOR JONES: I would like to add some toward the neighborhood. I mean, there is a lot of We will pull it. COUNCIL I~%DY But didn't we have a new memo in here about that? About the fencing? Virginia Beach City Council March 9, 2004 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood Mayor At-Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - District 5 CITYMANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC Pd~PORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Kramer Red Mill %20, L.L.C. - 54 - Item V-L.4. PLANNING ITEM # 52357 Attorney Warren Tisdale, represented the applicant, requested Condition No. 9 be amended to allow hours of operation on Sunday from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Kramer has six (6) other locations in the City and there are no limitations with respect to hours of operation. Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED to March 23, 2004, Ordinance upon application of KRAMER RED MILL #20, L.L.C.: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF KRAMER RED MILL #20, L.L. C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordinance upon application of Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile repair establishment on property located on the south side of Nimmo Parkway, approximately 291.77feet east of Upton Drive (GPIN 2 4144 5182 40000). DISTRICT 7 PRINCESS ANNE This DEFERRAL will allow the residents to be advised of the proposed Sunday hours. Councilman Reeve referenced additional Condition 11. The applicant has concurred with this condition. 11. In lieu of the wax myrtle trees adjacent to the fence on the eastern side of the site, as depicted on the site plan referenced in Condition 1, the .[knce shall be supplemented with Leyland Cypress' or equivalent tree. Voting: lO-O Council Members' Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Abstaining: Rosemary Wilson Council Members Absent: None Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED and ABSTAINED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act ~' 2.2-3 ! 15 (E) her husband is a principal in the accountingfirm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to Lakeside Construction Corporation. Lakeside Construction Corporation owns the property relative the Kramer Red Mill #20 L.L. C's application. Council Lady Wilson's husband personally provides services to Lakeside Construction Corporation. Council Lady Wilson's letter of March 9, 2004, is hereby made a part of the record. March 9, 2004 Kramer Red Mill CUP - Tire Store # DATE REQUEST ACTION 1 03/25/03 2 11/07/63 3 04/08/97 4 06/09/80 5 07/09/03 REZONING (B-2 to Cond A-18 Apartment and B-2 ) REZONING (RS Residential to CL Limited Commercial) REZONING (AG % Agriculture to R-10 Residential) REZONING (B-2 Business to R-6 Residential) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas/conv store/car wash) GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. - Conditional Use Permit (automobile repair establishment) MEETING DATE: March 23, 2004 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile repair establishment on property located on the south side of Nimmo Parkway, approximately 291.77 feet east of Upton Drive (GPIN 24144518240000). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE City Council deferred this matter on March 9 to provide time for the applicant to discuss with the residents in the area a possible chanqe in the condition concerning operating hours for Sunday. Considerations: The subject site, designated as Parcel E7, is part of a larger parcel that was rezoned on March 25, 2003 for an apartment community (Parcel El) with two commercial outparcels (Parcels E6 and E7) fronting on Nimmo Parkway. Proffer 7 in the recorded Conditional Zoning Agreement associated with that rezoning governs the subject site. The subject site is proposed for an auto repair establishment. Proffer 7 states: "The architectural design of the commercial buildings constructed within Parcels E6 and ET, when constructed, shall be compatible with the design of the buildings constructed, or planned design of buildings that may be constructed pursuant to Section 6 above, on Parcel El. The predominant colors may vary but shall be earth tones. Accent colors of individual choice are permitted." The site work for the apartment community is currently underway and the apartment buildings are in the final design stages. In addition, Parcel E6 was recently approved by City Council for an Exxon convenience store, gas pumps and car wash. The site plan and buildings on the subject site have been coordinated with both the apartment plans and Exxon plans so that the site orientation, landscape plan and architectural elevations will be compatible with the apartments and Exxon. The use proposed by the applicant can be problematic when located adjacent to residential uses, mainly due to concerns of noise and aesthetics. There are several details provided in the applicant's proposal that Staff feels mitigate these Kramer Red Mill #20 Page 2 of 3 concerns. The applicant has provided wide landscaped buffers on the south and east sides that are adjacent to residential areas. A landscape buffer of 22 feet planted with Category IV plantings has been provided adjacent to the apartment complex. A landscape buffer of 60 feet planted with evergreen shrubs and including a 6-foot high masonry column and wood panel fence is provided where the site adjoins the established single-family neighborhood to the east. Also, the applicant has stated that the store hours will be limited to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and that all work will be done within the building. Staff and the Planning Commission have also recommended several conditions to be included with this use permit that will help maintain the aesthetic quality of the site and ensure continued compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-1 to approve this request with the following conditions: The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the site plan entitled "Kramer Tire Red Mill," dated January 10, 2004 and prepared by Boundary First, P.C. A copy of this site plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. The building shall be developed in substantial accordance with the architectural elevations entitled "Kramer Tire Red Mill Commons" and prepared by Ansell Collins Associates. A copy of the elevations has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 3. No outdoor vending machines, ice boxes, or display of merchandise shall be allowed. No signage in excess of a total of four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall nor any neon signs or accents shall be permitted in or on the windows and/or doors of the building. All rooftop equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units shall be concealed from typical street level view. All ground level building mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with Section 245 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. The trash enclosure shall be screened with a solid wall to match the main building and shall include evergreen shrubs having good screening capabilities, no less than three (3) feet in height at the time of planting, spaced in accordance with the City's Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards, and maintained at all times in good condition at a minimum height not lower than the wall. Kramer Red Mill #20 Page 3 of 3 All lighting on the site shall be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and types of lighting will be submitted as part of the formal site plan submission for review by the Police Department to determine consistency with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices. All lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site so as to eliminate glare onto adjacent properties and rights-of-ways. No outdoor storage of auto parts or tires is permitted. All work must be performed within the building. Garage doors facing the east side of the site must remain closed at all times, except for vehicles entering and exiting the building. 9. Hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 10.Vehicles being dropped off for repair shall be parked in a clearly marked and signed area in front of the building (west side of site). Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map RecOmmended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentJAgen~y: Planning Departmen~,~ City Manager: ~~'~'J' L11-213-CU P-2003 KRAMER RED MILL #20, LLC Agenda Item # 10 February 11,2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara J. Duke The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a tire store LOCATION: Property located on Nimmo Parkway, 291 feet east of Upton Drive ~ ~ ~"~ Kramer Red GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24144518240000 7- PRINCESS ANNE 1.39 acres KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 1 EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: The subject site is undeveloped. The site is zoned Conditional B-2 Community Business District North: South: East: West: · Office building under construction/B-2 Community Business District · Multifamily development under construction / Conditional A-18 Apartment District · Single-family homes / R-7.5 Residential District · Exxon service station under construction / Conditional B-2 Community Business District There are no significant features on the subject site. The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary of Prol: The subject site, designated as Parcel E7, is part of a larger parcel that was recently rezoned on March 25, 2003 for an apartment community (Parcel E1 ) with two commercial outparcels (Parcels E6 and E7). The proffer agreement for this site is recorded as Instrument Number 200304080053552 with the Clerk of Court's office, Proffer 7 in the recorded agreement governs the subject site. Proffer 7 states: "The architectural design of the commercial buildings constructed within Parcels E6 and E7, when constructed, shall be compatible with the design of the buildings constructed, or planned design of buildings that may be constructed pursuant to Section 6 above, on Parcel El. The predominant colors may vary but shall be earth tones. Accent colors of individual choice are permitted." The detailed site plan for the apartment community is currently under review and the apartment buildings are in the final design stages. In addition, Parcel E6 was recently approved by City Council for an Exxon convenience store, gas pumps and car wash. The site plan and buildings on the subject site have been coordinated with both the KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 2 apartment plans and Exxon plans so that the site orientation, landscape plan and architectural elevations will be compatible with the apartments and Exxon. Major Issues The fo/lowing represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Degree to which the proposal is in substantial conformance with the recorded proffer agreement for this site. · Degree to which the use is compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that this site is within a Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. Established uses, scale, and relationship of land uses, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. Staff Evaluat Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are; KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item# 10 Page 3 (1) The applicant has presented a site plan and architectural elevations that show a development that will be compatible with the proposed apartment complex as well as the recently approved Exxon convenience store. The materials and colors on the building match materials and colors used in the apartment complex. The roof shape and material, corner accents and landscaping match the details used on the Exxon site. Staff feels that the proposal submitted by the applicant meets the intent of the proffer agreement governing the development on this site. (2) The use proposed by the applicant can be problematic when located adjacent to residential uses, mainly due to concerns of noise and aesthetics. There are several details provided in the applicant's proposal that Staff feels mitigate these concerns. The applicant has provided wide landscaped buffers on the south and east sides that are adjacent to residential. A landscape buffer of 22 feet planted with Category IV plantings has been provided adjacent to the apartment complex. A landscape buffer of 60 feet planted with evergreen shrubs and including a 6-foot high masonry column and wood panel fence is provided where the site adjoins the established single-family neighborhood to the east. Also, the applicant has stated that the store hours are limited to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and that all work will be done within the building. Staff has also recommended several conditions to be included with this use permit that will help maintain the aesthetic quality of the site over the long run. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. Conditions The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the site plan entitled "Kramer Tire Red Mill," dated January 10, 2004 and prepared by Boundary First, P.C. A copy of this site plan has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. The building shall be developed in substantial accordance with the architectural elevations entitled "Kramer Tire Red Mill Commons" and prepared by Ansell Collins Associates. A copy of the elevations has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. No outdoor vending machines, ice boxes, or display of merchandise shall be allowed. No signage in excess of a total of four (4) square feet of the entire glass area of the exterior wall nor any neon signs or accents shall be permitted in or on the windows and/or doors of the building. KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 4 All rooftop equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units shall be concealed from typical street level view. AI~ ground level building mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with Section 245 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. The trash enclosure shall be screened with a solid wall to match the main building and shall include evergreen shrubs having good screening capabilities, no less than three (3) feet in height at the time of planting, spaced in accordance with the City's Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards, and maintained at all times in good condition at a minimum height not lower than the wall. All lighting on the site shall be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). A photometric lighting plan indicating the number and types of lighting will be submitted as part of the formal site plan submission for review by the Police Department to determine consistency with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and practices. All lighting shall be directed inward and downward within the site so as to eliminate glare onto adjacent properties and rights-of-ways. 8. No outdoor storage of auto parts or tires is permitted. All work must be performed within the building. 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. KRAMER RED MILL#20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 5 Supplemental Informatic Map L 11,12 Zonin.q History Kramer Red Mill CUP - Tire Store # DATE REQUEST ACTION 1 03/25/03 2 11/07/63 3 04/08/97 4 06/09/80 5 07/09/03 REZONING (B-2 to Cond A-18 Apartment and B-2 ) REZONING (RS Residential to CL Limited Commercial) REZONING (AG % Agriculture to R-10 Residential) REZONING (B-2 Business to R-6 Residential) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (gas/conv store/car wash) GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED GRANTED KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 6 Public A.qenc¥ Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Nimmo Parkway fronting the north side of the site is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 100 foot wide divided roadway with controlled access. The portion of the road between General Booth Boulevard and Upton Drive was constructed as a four lane divided controlled access roadway by the developers of the adjacent Wal-Mart and regional shopping center. The current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) calls for the continuation of this roadway as a two lane minor arterial from Upton Drive east to Atwoodtown Road. CIP 2-151 - Sandbridqe Corridor Improvements (Partial) includes funding for the City's share of the two- lane roadway. The CIP states that construction of the roadway will be pursued via a cost participation agreement. On May 27, 2003 the Master Transportation Plan was amended to extend Nimmo Parkway east of Atwoodtown Road to Sandbridge Road. This portion of the roadway is designated as a 100 foot wide divided right-of-way with controlled access, bikeway and aesthetic overlay. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 8,803 17,300 Proposed land use Nimmo Parkway ADT ADT - 647 ADT Pub#c Utilities Water: This site must connect to City water. There is a 12 inch water main in Nimmo Parkway KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 7 Sewer: This site must connect to City sewer. There is currently no gravity sanitary sewer fronting the property. Plans for sanitary sewer connection must be provided at detailed site plan review. 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. Fire and Rescue: Fire Department requirements will be addressed during detailed site plan review. KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 8 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 9 Exhibit B ~roposed Sit~ Plan KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 10 Exhibit D1 Proposed Building Elevation KRAMER RED MILL ~20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 11 Exhibit D2 Proposed Building Elevation KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 12 Exhibit D3 Proposed Fence Elevation KRAMER RED MILL #20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 13 NOIZVgrId~/LII~gd ~tSfl T~NOIJ2(IN03 NOIJ~VDI~Id~ J~II~ttI ~tSfl T~NOIJ~I(IN09 Exhibit E Disclosure Statement KRAMER RED MILL#20 Agenda Item # 10 Page 14 Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Conditional Use Permit South side of Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne February 11, 2004 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #10. It's a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile repair establishment on property located on the south side of Nimmo Parkway. The applicant is Kramer Red Mill, L.L.C. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Tisdale, welcome. Warren Tisdale: Good afternoon Madame Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Warren Tisdale and I'm an attorney. I represent the applicant. You see here an application but it was not drawn on a blank slate. You recall this property along with the apartment parcel to the south was rezoned about a year ago. I think it was last March. There are conditions associated with that which the applicant had to deal. Also more recently, the parcel to the west, an Exxon convenience store is being developed. City Council had issued a Conditional Use Permit for that in August of last year. In terms of the impact on us, what we were doing with the situation where we had to develop with guidelines pretty much were all ready set for us. I think what you see with the design in front of you is something which responds to all of those. If you look and actually, this is upside down from the north to the top map that we were just looking at, but if you look to the left, there is a 100 foot drainage easement which you're probably familiar with that runs from the end of Nimmo Parkway. You can see that the whole development is drawn to the right that is away from that drainage easement and towards the road that is going to run between the Exxon convenience store and this facility. We set it up, again worked with Planning staff, and taken into account their comments. We shrank the side so that there is only going to be the lot itself is only going to be the impervious cover percentage is something only like 57 percent, which is extraordinarily low for a piece of property zoned B-2. You may recognize the landscaping along the bottom of the picture. That is the continuation of the landscaping that was required and matches the landscaping that is going to be provided for the Exxon convenience store facility, which is going to be to the right. Similarly, at the top of the picture, again you may recall from the work of the apartments they are going to be on top of this picture. There are garages for the apartments that run along there. Again, the landscaping along the back or along the outside ofthat matcheswitb what was done with the Exxon facility. Similarly, alongthe road between us, and Exxon, with the guidance of the developer who retained some contractual fights to approve what it is we're proposing and also the Planning staff and this is the plan that we came up with. I think it' s about as low impact then you can get and still be a good B-2 conditional use. Also, you may have looked at it in the informal this morning but also the elevations themselves that were presented. The colors that have Item # 10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 2 been proffered are going to match the color whatever the apartments use. The whole idea was to have some sort of unified development adhering colors so the brick and the siding and the other shades are going to match what goes on the apartments, similar with the architectural brick shingles are going to match that development. So again, that's another fie-in. This shows the Nimmo Parkway frontage and one of the things that we added again, with input from staff' was that we moved the building back a little bit from Nimmo Parkway. We did add the foundation landscaping that you can see on the preliminary plan. Going back to the preliminary plan if you would please, the one thing when we weren't looking into the Exxon facility for guidance on landscaping and design. You'll see that there's a fence. Actually, it's a masonry column wood fence that would be on the side of the property towards the drainage ditch. The idea there was that whatever impacts might be on the property across the drainage ditch would be alleviated by construction of the fence. The fence, you can go back to the fence detail that's provided would be a nice looking, six foot structure, again with the same materials and the same colors that was used on the facility. We think that the elevations and also the design layout are good. I think with the operation controls that you saw in the conditions when you looked at it this morning, also certainly mitigate any impact on the adjacent properties. A lot of those, of course you got the standard ones that tie the development to what were proffering here today, in terms of planned elevations. Some of them are verbatim from the Exxon convenience store next door. We also had added there would be no outdoor storage of vehicles, auto parts or tires permitted. All work must be performed within the building. I got that message a little to late to be incorporated in the initial staff; I understand that was a report that you all saw this morning. Also, the hours of operation limited is from 7:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. So, I guess that is what we're bringing to you now. We think that as configured and as conditioned that it presents a logical use for that site, one of which, as conditioned would have less of impact than some other uses that might other be available under zoning B-2. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Tisdale. Do we have any questions? Warren Tisdale: I should say we did meet Sunday with the Board of the Red Mill Farm Civic League, which I think went real well. It obviously didn't go as well as I thought. I know that they're here to speak. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions of Tisdale? Are there other speakers Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: We have speakers in opposition. The first speaker is Mario Rosales? Did I pronounce that right? Mario Rosales: It was close enough. Joseph Strange: Okay. Marlo Rosales: It will get me to the supper table. Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 3 Dorothy Wood: Thank you. We're happy to have you with us. Mario Rosales: Madame Chairman, thank you for having me, members of the Planning Commission. Hello. My name is Mario Rosales. I live at 1321 Warner Hall Drive in the Red Mill Farm subdivision. I'm the president of the Red Mill Farm Civic League. I came to comment on this. We do officially for the record do support the eftbrt that they've done. My thanks go out to Barbara Duke and Eric Anderson of Lakeside Construction for working with Mr. Tisdale and Mr. Lipscomb. It's an excellent elevation. It doesn't look like any car repair facility that we've seen in the city. The only thing when we met with him this past weekend, we just had four things that we would like to see addressed more clearly in the proffers. With regard to the no overnight storage of parking, we would like to have them address in there about no drop-offs of cars. i know that early bird specials at some places like Firestones and things like that are prevalent but given the fact that the front of the building does not face any street. We have a crime concern there because especially in our neighborhood now larceny of automobiles and personal property is very prevalent. It's on the rise. With regard to the dumpsters, we're seeing also an increase in the shopping center. People like to throw their personal trash in the dumpster. So, we would like to ask that the enclosure, which he has provided for in the elevations be gated and then locked nightly, so that no one can come in. Also, the hours of operation, while they say right now daily from 7:00 to 7:00 and that was the last letter that I've received. I now understand fi.om 7:30 to 7:30? Warren Tisdale: 7:30 to 7:00. Mario Rosales: 7:30 to 7:00? Okay, thank you. We were told at the meeting that they don't operate on Sundays. Ed Weeden: You got about 45 seconds. Mario Rosales: Th'ink you. We were told that they don't operate on Sundays so we would like that spelled out in the proffers also, Monday through Saturday, 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Other than that, it's a good job and everybody is commended for caring for our neighborhood. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Would you please answer questions of Planning Commissioners? Mario Rosales: Sure. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: The one comment that you made about the gate and locking of the dumpster enclosure, I mean that sounds like a solution but on a practical matter these companies come to pick up their trash have to able to get to it. If they're locked, there are different trucks and nobody has a key. That's probably not a practical solution. Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 4 Certainly, enclosing it properly and making sure visually you're okay with it is something that I think we're trying to achieve. Locking the gate could be pretty tough. Mario Rosales: Well, I believe Mr. Eric Anderson has that in his commercial development agreement is that the dumpsters only come during the day. The dumpster drivers only come during the day. They don't come at night. Ronald Ripley: When they show up and if there is nobody with a key it's a problem. Then you have overflowing and it's a mess. Mario Rosales: That is what we're trying to mitigate because we do see an increase in that especially seagulls now hangout a lot in the parking lot. And, I live directly across and there are four houses that would be directly impacted by this as well. As well as there are a couple of houses directly catty comer to it, as well South Shore Estates, will be directly impacted by this. Ronald Ripley: It's good to hear that the applicant was very cooperative and it looks you all worked together pretty good. We appreciate that. Mario Rosales: Yes. Thank you very much. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions? Jan? Janice Anderson: Could you explain a little bit more about the activity you call drop-off that you don't want done at the site? Mario Rosales: Right. What we are concerned about is these early bird specials for people who want their cars changed but they don't have time. Like me, I have to be at work by 6:30 in the morning. And, since they don't open up until 7:30, I would like to be able to drop my car off and some people would probably want to drop it off at 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock at night. Since they're not going to allow cars to be left overnight in the parking lot we simply like to have that taken one step further and not allow cars to be dropped off at all. That could be mitigated with a chain across their entrance because there is only one entrance into that property. It's just something to be addressed to prevent that occurrence. Janice Anderson: You wouldn't be able to drop your cm'. Mario Rosales: Exactly. But, again this is a car repair business. This isn't just changing tires. There are oil changes, alignment, brake jobs and things like that. It's the last commercial piece of property and all be it the nosiest that hits straight into a residential district. Looking at the property right there you move to the left of the screen you're in the middle of Red Mill Farm and South Shore Estates. So, we want to minimize the impact of a commercial business as much as we can. Item # 10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 5 Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Rosales. We appreciate you coming down. Joseph Strange: We have two people speaking in opposition. The first one is Carole Normandy. Carole Normandy: Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the time to listen to us today. I brought a few photos. Ed Weeden: Could you identify yourself please? Carole Normandy: I'm Carole Normandy and I live at 1072 Sandoval Drive in South Shore Estates. My property catty comer adjacent to the back and I am right there. So, I have some photos that show my house and neighbors. You can see the proximately and also these three houses here so you can see the proximately to this. My main concern is that I'm opposed to this type of business is the noise level. Our living space in our house, our family room, kitchen, master bedroom are all on that backside of the house. So, the noise of a car tire place, the tire removal noises early in the morning, on the weekends while we're in our family room. The construction that is happening now on the apartment, the noise we can hear it inside the house with the doors and windows shut, the reverse beeping of the tracks or the dump tracks dumping. You can really hem' all the noises very clearly. So, if there is a business that's a noisy like that behind our house, we feel that is going to bring down our property values and detrimentally affect our quality of life in our home. So, those are the main concerns. They had addressed working requiring the bay doors to be closed while they're doing the work. You know with a tire place, they are in and out a lot so those doors are opening and closing a lot and the noise is still escaping. Dorothy Wood: Your sound effects were wonderful. Carole Normandy: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions? Janice Anderson: What are the pictures trying to show? Carole Normandy: They just show the proximately of the houses. Janice Anderson: Just how close it is? Carole Normandy: Just how close it is to the proposed site. It's hard to tell when you're looking at it. Dorothy Wood: We go out and visit every site and we did see it. You have lovely homes and they're well maintained. Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 6 Carole Normandy: Well, thank you. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Do you want us to see those pictures? Carole Normandy: Sure, if you would like too. Robert Miller: If you want to, you can give them to us. Dorothy Wood: Make sure you get them back after the meeting. Carole Normandy: They're copies. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Carole Normandy: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Are there any more speakers? Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Eric Hemmings. Dorothy Wood: Thank you for coming Mr. Hemmings. Eric Hemmings: Thank you very much. Good afternoon Madame Chairperson, congratulations. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eric Hemmings: Committee members, my name is Eric Hemmings and I'm the Vice President of South Shore Estates and Ms. Normandy, who you just spoke is one of my biggest opponents of this projects. For the record, South Shore Estates doesn't oppose the project. I have several issues that 1'11 go through really quick with you to kind of discuss that. First and foremost, within the actual proffer reading, the major issue is actually the compatibility with this type of business. In the area being residential and so forth, we don't really feel like as with the Exxon, we don't really feel like that was adequately addressed. We still believe that these two businesses and obviously Exxon was approved in going tbrward and we believe that this business represents more of a high impact business, not necessarily low impact. Ms. Normandy gave you the sound effects. We are concerned with that with the noise and so forth so, the major compatibility. I had spoken with Mario, who is at Red Mill Farms and we agree with that if we can get some sort of condition put in there that if and when this is approved that there be no drop-off. We t~lt strongly about that as well. And, we would like also in the conditions if we could actually have the doors closed at all times. Again, if and when this project is approved if the work could be done in doors at all times, which I believe is one Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 7 of the conditions but if we could have the actual condition be that the actual bay door are closed to reduce the noise. The third thing seems to be that there is some confusion about the operating hours. We had originally been told 6:00 p.m. and I guess that was a mistake and it has gone back to 7:00 p.m. We would like 6:00 so people can get home from work and have dinner and so forth or sit on their deck and have dinner and not have to listen to that type of noise so we would push for 6:00 o'clock. Ed Weeden: You have just about 45 seconds. Eric Hemmings: I guess the last thing I would like to make is that Eric has done a great job out there. Mr. Anderson and we appreciate his help and think he's done a great job but again, our long term goals is really to preserve that last lot that's at the end of the lake. We just really and if you remember the last time we were up here we kind of pushed the Council for that as well. We really like him next to when he comes up to really have a legitimate low impact business at the end of that lake because it is a beautiful property. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Would you mind answering questions from the Commission? Eric Hemmings: Absolutely. Dorothy Wood: Do we have any questions? I believe the hours are 7:30 in the morning until 7:30 in the evening. Eric Hemmings: I've heard a few things. We originally got to 6:00 p.m. I think the agreement says 7:00 - 7:00, and then I've heard other things since. We would like 6:00 p.m. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Are there any other questions'? Thank you so much for coming. Eric Hemmings: Thank you very much. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Tisdale, would you like to rebut? Warren Tisdale: First thing time. I regret that I must have miscommunicated with Ms. Duke. It is 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., not 7:30 p.m. So, it's 7:30 to 7:00. I appreciate all the points that have been made. Again, this project was developed basically in response in anticipation of those comments because it is a residential neighborhood across this drainage ditch. Most of you have probably been out there one time or another and unless you get there and it is next door but there is a huge lake. There is this huge drainage ditch. It's 100-foot easement. We're 60 feet further in. The building itself is another 60 feet so all of that together at least from the Red Mill Farms backyard you're at least 200- 300 feet or something like that. The South Shore Estates, again they're across what is Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 8 Nimmo Parkway that impact should be less. The work will be done inside. I don't think it's feasible to keep the doors shut while they're working on the cars all the time. All the work is done inside and we think it's far enough away that it is not going to generate aggravated noise or noise that annoys people. Again, the Sunday hours and I can tell you that Kramer Tire does not open on Sunday. None of its locations are open on Sunday. It's not anticipated that it's going to happen but in terms of the market what might happen in 5 or 10 years, if everybody else starts doing it they may have to in order to be competitive. They might have to come back and get it modified in each of the 6 or 7 locations that they have in Virginia Beach. This is a local company. They work and live in this community and have a lot of businesses in this opportunity so they're very much interested in staying in good terms with everybody. The dumpster issue, again, we proffered the elevations and how that enclosure is going to look. It's going to be nice. I guess if it's the Commission's desire we could go with some sort of security setup for it. I don't think it's going to be quite the draw because it's on the other side. It's not going to be obvious where the dumpster is. Also, as the seagulls, we don't have any fbod waste. We don't have any paper like the convenience store next door would have so we probably won't have the kind of materials there that would draw that kind of nuisance also. So, I guess the upshot is that I appreciate all the comments that have been made. We're hopeful that conditions and the significant work that we've done with Eric Anderson and the staff and the positive staff report would lead you to give a favorable recommendation. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Tisdale. Are there any questions? Robert Miller: Can you go back to the site plan please? You gave us two elevations. What side are the doors on? I assume they were on the side towards the access way. Warren Tisdale: If you look at one elevation, this is actually the front. This where you come in, the doors are going to be here and here. Robert Miller: So there are doors to drive all the way through? Warren Tisdale: Correct. Robert Miller: In the normal course of operations, would the doors on the back side, towards the drainage easement on the left as your looking at it, would those be closed during the normal course of operations while you have people driving in and then you open them to drive car out? I'm just trying to ask an operational question because I think it affects the noise issue. Warren Tisdale: My experience is that some are open and some are closed, very infrequently would all of them be closed. Robert Miller: They wouldn't be open all the time is what I'm to get out of that side. Normally, they would be closed. Is that the normal operational standard that you follow? Item # 10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 9 Warren Tisdale: I refer to Julian Lipscomb who's the Vice President of Property Development of Kramer Tire. Robert Miller: If you wouldn't, I think it goes to the noise question, if he could come up? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Lipscomb, would you please come to the podium? Julian Lipscomb: Madame Chairman, gentlemen. I'm Julian Lipscomb. I'm the one of the Vice Presidents. I think there's another one as well. I'm retired except for development of property. Andto answer your question we deliberately positioned this store on this piece of property to minimize any of the sound. As you said, the left and right and our doors are right and left there. The right side faces the back of the Exxon store to begin with. We moved the building. We were using more of the property but we deliberately moved the building over quite a ways. Then we increased this plantation and we added a fence all in an effort to minimize any sort of sound. To keep the doors and to get back to your question, to keep the doors close Mr. Miller, when you're changing cars from one bay to the other bay to the next bay, some doors are going up and down constantly. And, you would be changing tires in this bay and the doors open on the second bay. It really doesn't serve any purpose. We don't think we generate enough noise to be of any concern period. Number two you'll see we're adequately bermed with plantation all around. All of this is a sound damper as well as beauty. We think we have addressed all of these problems. We hope we have. We're trying to be good neighbors and that property could be easily a McDonald's or something. It would be a lot more trouble than a 7:30 to 7:00 hours. They would be open all the time with a sound speaker and everything else. Robert Miller: 1 think you all have done and I want to give you the proper credit Mr. Lipscomb. You all have done a great job working with Red Mill as they acknowledged and some of the other neighbors. I think the neighbor's concern towards the noise as it was heard last night may be a individual noise situation at one point in time. But what I was trying to understand was your operational side of things and what you've explained is very, very good. I think you did a great job with the architectural design of it. The layout seems to be filling a lot of the issues that we were concerned with and certainly the landscaping and the fence along the backside adds an additional level of comfort to it. I'm satisfied with your answer. I didn't mean to and anything you do operationally is really something that we don't understand. That is why I asked the question was how those doors would go and could they be closed all the time? I assumed during certain times of the year it's probably advantageous to have them closed like during the winter. Julian Lipscomb: In the winter, they will be closed. Robert Miller: And, then during the summer at times that it may be somewhat advantageous unfortunately to have them open. So, you all don't have a restriction on when making them closed. Item #10 Kramer Red Mill//20, L.L.C. Page 10 Julian Lipscomb: No. Robert Miller: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for Mr. Lipscomb or Mr. Tisdale? Gene? Eugene Crabtree: I was going to ask this question. I was going to address the thing of drop-off. I know that it's common practice with Kramer for their other stores to have the drop-off facility to benefit their customers that have to go to work early. I also know that most of the Kramer stores have an area where when people drop-off that they park their cars where a visible area and out so that security won't be a problem of someone possibly breaking in to them or stealing them. If you were to have drop-off, could you have the drop-off in one of your parking spaces that would be visible to the Exxon operation as well or be visible sufficiently that you would eliminate vandalism or theft? Warren Tisdale: I think we could probably designate spaces for drop-off. Again, the scale of drop-offs and I know a lot of the car dealerships use them now and a lot of people get there early and see them stacked up. A location like this and ! think if they handle 30 cars a day or sold 37 tires a day they would be extremely happy. You're not talking about 10 people dropping their cars off in the morning. There may be some and as a courtesy to the customer they would like to retain the right to do that. And some of them could be early with military personnel in the area and going to work early. They might have to drop them off early. I'm sure they could designate certain spaces, which have the best visibility from the Exxon station, again, which would be open to maybe along the road may be cut in there. Normally, people will do that probably anyway as they park their cars. Eugene Crabtree: I'm looking at this from the customer standpoint. It is a benefit to customers who have to be at work early to be able to do that. I just wanted there to be someplace where it would be visible that would not objectionable to the community. Julian Lipscomb: Mr. Crabtree, let me address that, Julian Lipscomb again. What we would propose is that people who have to make that choice would park in front of that first bay. That's where the drop-off facility, I mean the place for the keys and what not. So they would immediately park in front of the bays. It would be clearly visible except for whatever Exxon puts up on their piece of property. But that is where it would be. Eugene Crabtree: Thank you sir. Julian Lipscomb: Are there any other questions? William Din: Let me ask you this question Mr. Tisdale. We were handed a sheet of revised conditions here. You've seen them correct? It has nine conditions on there. Warren Tisdale: And that's correct, except for the 7:30 p.m. It should be 7:00 o'clock. Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 11 William Din: I wanted to make sure that you saw that it said 7:30 to 7:00 p.m., I guess, but it doesn't specify the days of operation. Warren Tisdale: Correct. William Din: I think they were asking and you sort of agreed that there would be no Sunday operations. Warren Tisdale: My client's position is that they don't want to limit themselves to six days a week at the same time they don't operate on Sunday now and there is no intention too. They want to avoid having to come back and get that condition changed if the market changes and that is what their competitors do. William Din: So you want to leave it open in other words and not specify the days of operation? Warren Tisdale: Correct, with the understanding that with anything I would add would be a limitation so you could say seven days a week to be more clear about it. William Din: Okay. Number 8 was modified to add that there was no storage of vehicles outside. I'm not sure if drop-off is considered storage or not. Warren Tisdale: I would suspect it's not. What that means if they're working on a car and it's going to be there all night and they can't get to it or it's a kind of job that takes more than one day or from one afternoon to the next morning, that would not be parked outside. Any cars like that would be kept inside. William Din: So, if they had to be kept overnight, you would move them inside? Warren Tisdale: Definitely. William Din: I guess I didn't understand that there were doors on the left hand side of your building there, the side facing the drainage area. Warren Tisdale: Yes. William Din: Obviously, if you have work going on during the day those doors would be normally closed. I would consider those normally closed doors to keep the noise down to the absolute minimum and only operate them to allow vehicles to go in and out. Is that correct? Warren Tisdale: I think that's correct. I think the default position is that they be closed. It may depend on the weather. Again, they may more activity on some days than others but generally I don't think them coming in the morning and opening up all the doors. We can wait and see what happens. Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 12 William Din: Thank you. Warren Tisdale: The doors are closed until they need to be open. William Din: I rather see that as a written policy in the conditions rather than leave that as an open statement of understanding of operation that you would have there because that does face the residential area if anything. I can understand that during some periods of time that the doors on the right side could be left open but even those situations you're going to have a lot of noise coming out of there when you're changing tires. If you have doors facing the residential area I don't think there's enough landscaping or fencing there to keep any noise from going directly across there and I think that it would be too much. Warren Tisdale: To address your point, there is no denying that the use of this automobile related use and it does create noise but I don't know if you've been around one of those. I guess everyone drops their cars off now and then but there is some noise generated even if the door is open. But it is contained on three sides and it drops off dramatically the further away you get. I think sometimes we think of these noises from what we hear standing outside while somebody is working on a hot car inside and it sounds real loud. Again, you're talking through the backyard of the nearest neighbors in the Red Farms area. If you go from their backyard, first of all you got a 100 foot drainage easement and then you got on our side 60 feet before you even get to the parking lot and then you got another before you get to the bays. I think you got another 60 feet. So, you're talking 220 feet and sound travels. I'm not saying you'll never hear it but I think what we're dealing with is a baseline and maybe over emphasizing how loud it is going to be. I guess in response to your question and your question is whether we could build into the proffer a policy. An operational policy to within reasons at all times that when they're being used. They don't need to be open to keep them closed. William Din: These are conditions and maybe the conditions can be modified. When I look at the elevations in my agenda item on page 12, could you go back to the elevations? That doesn't look like doors there. Is that the backside? Warren Tisdale: That's the Nimmo side. William Din: The Nimmo side. You didn't show the backside. Warren Tisdale: We don't have one of the back side. But yes, they run all the way through which it wasn't clear on the preliminary plan. I apologize. It should be clear on the preliminary plan. That is what we call the front. But again, that faces the Exxon. This is meeting other design considerations or other pressures. The building is turned this way so that the opening is away from the houses but that presents the other elevations that you have in your packet is the Nimmo Parkway appearance. We don't have one of the back side. William Din: Will the backside look very similar to this? Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 13 Warren Tisdale: You'll have the five but I guess you won't have the blue band or the sides or anything but you will have the bays that will look like that. Yes. It will basically go all the way through. William Din: Okay. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. William Din: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions? Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: Go back to the zoning map Stephen if you would? You said from the backs on the yards, the people who live to the fight of the B-2 that is in red, from the back side there to where your building is going to be, how many 200 something feet? Warren Tisdale: Well, I'm saying that I believe that is a 100 foot drainage easement right there, that big huge distance back there. I didn't measure but that is how it appears on every plan that I've seen. It says 100 foot. And if you look at our preliminary plan from there to where the parking starts there is another 60 feet. I think that it is mentioned in the staffreport. And, then from where the parking lot starts to where you actually get to the building, again roughly scaling it off; I think it's another 50 to 60 feet. So, together that would be 200 feet. Donald Horsley: Yes, if all those figures are close to being correct. Warren Tisdale: Two thirds of a football field. Donald Horsley: My only other question that I have and out of all the B-2 property in this area, was this your number one choice or this what was left over? Warren Tisdale: Initially, in working with the developer, there was a site which Kramer Tire and I wasn't involve with it but I understand it was proposed on Upton for various reasons. Some of them, I understand proposed by the City and had it been a good idea. They definitely wanted to locate in this area. Again, the property was rezoned B-2 fairly recently. Everybody went through there land use analysis and I'm not sure what the recommendation was here but City Council said that we understand that's a B-2 parcel. It's next to the residences but the way we can make people condition it so it's not an impact. Somebody made the judgment that was a B~2 parcel. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Strange, did you have a question for Mr. Tisdale? Joseph Strange: Yes. I'd like to go back to the Sunday hours for a minute. 1 would think that the residents would at least like to have some type of assurance that they would be at Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 14 least modified hours on Sunday even if they couldn't get the assurance on when you would be open at all. Warren Tisdale: I guess we never thought that far into thinking about that. Something in the lines of if it was open on Sunday, it would 12:00 to 6:00? Joseph Strange: That would be at least something. Julian Lipscomb: We have not considered that because we don't open on Sundays. We never even thought about opening on Sundays. I'm sorry we can't answer that because we've thought about it because we don't see a necessity for that at this point. Another thing we didn't want to see traffic blocked up tbr something that wouldn't be beneficial for some of the homes. We don't know if some of the owner had it or something. We have no intention of opening on Sundays, at this point. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other questions for either Mr. Tisdale or Mr. Lipscomb? Thank you both. Is there any discussion? Mr. Rosales, we normally don't allow people to come back unless they have new information or sponsored by a member of the Planning Commission. Joseph Strange: I'll sponsor him. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mario Rosales: Thank you Mr. Strange. ! do have some new information. When we met and could we please go back to the elevation to what they call the side elevation please? Okay, when we met with them last Saturday that was represented to us by Mr. Tisdale but that was the back. So, therefore we had the civic league, the Board of Directors had no real issue with the noise problem because that was represented to us and we specifically asked that, "is that the back?" We positioned it when we laid out the site plan on the floor. We had the front elevation and we had a copy of the rear elevation and he confirmed it visually. And, we asked the question specifically if that was a solid wall and they said yes. But if this is the side, then the deal is oft: It's a deal breaker to have the door running through the back because there will be noise through there and that would be our issue. That was our first concern for the four houses. That right there was presented to us as being the rear elevation. And, if it's an oversight, I'm sure it was an honest hone. But, it changes our perspective. Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much. Mario Rosales: Thank you. Warren Tisdale: I understand he's withdrawing and that's another comment. But let me say that at the meeting Sunday with all the things spread there may have been an misunderstanding but I've always known that was the Nimmo Parkway side and never in Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 15 my wildest dreams have I told somebody that looking at that I would have never told him. If there was a misunderstanding and that is certain that is exactly what it was. I never told anybody that was the side the faces the residences. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Tisdale. Let's open it up for discussion. Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I'll take on the low hanging fruit here. The hours of operation 7:30 to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and what I would suggest that condition read and as such time they would want to be open on Sunday, you can come back. I think Mr. Lipscomb was very clear and Mr. Tisdale also that is not the normal course of our operations. I wanted to get that out of the way. The back doors and my opinion is that what we have the state is that those doors need to be closed as a matter of course that is the normal condition of those doors. And, that they would be closed during operations within the reasonability of being able to be closed. In other words, when you're working on the vehicles inside that those doors would be close and at that would be a condition of this approval were it to be approved. As far as the trash collector goes, I'm not personally in favor of putting locks on things and evidentially to find some bolt cutters and break them off and things like that. I think that's a responsibility of the owner. These people are investing in this property, l know the Kramer Tire people have been around here for many, many years and run a very, very nice operation. I think they are taking a lot of pride in the way they presented this particular facility. So, I can't see that being a problem. Seagulls are something we love and enjoy in Virginia Beach and I'm not going to pick on seagulls. They can be wherever they want to be. I think the issue with regard to what was presented to the civic league, or what was understood by the civic league, is something that I feel is something, I just don't feel we can address. I personally feel like I'm going to support this with those additional conditions. If I missed anything else I'm sure somebody will catch that. Oh, the drop-offs, excuse me. I did miss that one thing. I don't have a problem with drop-offs. I think that is part of what would be reasonable in this type of business. I think as Mr. Lipscomb says that it be kept at the front of the building towards the Exxon station is exactly where I would want them to be done. If that becomes an issue of them being dropped offfor extended periods of time, that's already covered in the conditions that you're not going to be able to keep vehicles there. I think that is adequate that we be able to drop vehicles off at the site would be fine with me. I believe they have done a good job with the project. I'm not thrilled with the Nimmo Parkway side of this building but I guess that is what everybody wanted. I guess I'll go along with that and the rest of the operational things as so stated. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: I just say I support exactly what Bob said and the conditions and the rewording of the conditions as he specified. I also will support this thing. I think Kramer has done a good job on this one. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Din? Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 16 William Din: I gaess the condition for the closed doors on the left side will be addressed between now and Council so I'll agree with that. When I first looked at this elevation I thought this was the backside facing the residential area also and that is why until it was revealed that the doors would be passing through. It was kind of a surprise to me also. i think with the closed doors it should help that situation out. I do believe the tire changing operation is allowed operation and I'm not sure that I can support the type of noise that will be generated here but I think we are trying to mitigate this. I think we will try to do a good job with the neighbors here. I'll be supporting this thing with the conditions that noise be attenuated with the closed doors. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: I don't think I would comment. I thought Will was saying something to be resolved between now and City Council but ifI understood Mr. Miller, the doors on the east side of this building need to remain closed at all times where possible. That is what we're talking about. They need to let cars in and let cars out after they serviced them. William Din: I would like to see there is that the doors be normally closed except when open to allow vehicles to leave and enter. Dorothy Wood: Is there any other discussion? Stephen White: Madame Chairperson, can I propose at the end of Condition #8 that it will simply state, "garage door facing the east side of the building must remain closed except for the pm-pose of vehicles entering and exiting the building." Ronald Ripley: That's good. Joseph Strange: I have one other question. How are the customers going to know where they drop the cars of~ How are they going to be directed to make sure that the cars being dropped off are minimal effect in the neighborhood? Julian Lipscomb: We assume they would make arrangements verbally and of course we have a letter slot and a personnel door fight at that comer, which is the logical place to dispose of their keys or leave their keys. Now of course, right in front of the first bays is the logical place, as you know, we're not a motor company because we don't get a whole line of cars. I wish we did but we don't. Joseph Strange: Most of these places do have a place marked either with a yellow line or something for them to come in. Julian Lipscomb: We do too. Joseph Strange: Okay. That is what I was talking about. Item #10 Kramer Red Mill #20, L.L.C. Page 17 Julian Lipscomb: A letter drop for their car keys and a sign. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Lipscomb. Is there any other discussion? Donald Horsley: I'll just make one comment. I'm not real excited about putting this facility that close the neighborhood. I know it is B-2 property and we could have some other things in there. The staffand the applicant seems like they've done an outstanding job of trying to blend this into neighborhood. ! would much rather seen this over in the shopping center area. I think it would benefit over there but there's no room for it over there. Knowing the track record that Kramer Tire has in the lengths they have gone to trying to accommodate the neighborhood and the wishes of the Planning staff, I'm going to say that I'm going to be in support of the application. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a motion? Robert Miller: I'd like to move for the approval of Item #10 Kramer Red Mill with the 9 conditions we had and the modification of Condition #8, third sentence, "garage doors on the east side of the building will be closed except for vehicles entrance and exit." Modification of Condition #9, "hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday." The addition of Condition #10, that the drop-offs will be limited to the area on the west side of the building with appropriate signage and identification of where the vehicles to be dropped off. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Miller. Do I hear a second? Donald Horsley: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is the vote open? AYE 8 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER WOOD AYE NAY ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote 8-1, the application of Kramer Red Mill, with the changes so noted on the conditions has been approved. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. seconded the motion. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: MAYOR OBERNDOP, F: Mr. Schmidt. CITY CLERK: of February 24, 2004 Second. I thought I heard Mr. Maddox. I'm sorry. We have a motion by Mr. Reeve seconded by By a vote of 10 to 0, you have deferred the Applications of Alcar, L.L.C., for a Change Zoning and a Conditional Use Permit until March the 23rd. February 24, 2004 FOP~V=~L SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Schmidt. COUNCIIAqAN SC~MIDT: Madam Mayor, excuse me. If we were going to -- Mr. Bourdon has brought to my attention if we are going to defer the Alcar Application, wouldn't it be better to deal with that now and hopefully not have people sit through this? If, in fact, that's the case. Excuse me, Mr. Nutter, for interrupting. R.J. NUTTER: Oh, no. I was wondering when you would get to that. We're happy to defer this. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Reeve, this is your District. COUNCILMAN PEEVE: Alcar, L.L.C., Item L-5, Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I will make a motion that we defer the Application of until March 23rd. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Before we vote, Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: This has been before us before and there is a letter on file that this Applicant is the client of Goodman and Company, but they are not my husband's personal clients. So, the City Attorney has ruled that I can vote on this without any problem. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Now, are we ready for the question for the deferral until March 23rd? CITY CLERK: Your Honor, may I ask who 2 Virginia Beach City Council February 24, 2004 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville - District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall District 3 Beach District 6 Princess Anne District At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - District 5 CITYMANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Item of Alcar, L.L.C. - 52 - Item V-L.5. PLANNING ITEM it 52274 (Continued) Councit Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of lnterests Act ,q 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000. O0 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR, L.L.C. Her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.C. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L. C., she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of and vote on, the ordinance, upon disclosure. Uouncil Lady Wilson's letter of October 28, 2003, is hereby made a part of the record. February 24, 2004 - 51 - Item V-L. 5. PLANNING ITEM ff. 52274 Attorney R. Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, yh Floor, Phone: 499-8971 requested DEFERRAL until the City Council Session of March 23, 2004. Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council DEFERRED to March 23, 2004, Ordinances upon application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF AL CAR, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-I AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-10 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), west of R ockingchair Lane (GP1N 2 4 04 5 7 3 7 96 ; 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 ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L.C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. fora Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane (G PIN 2 4 04 5 7 3 7 96; 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter ~ Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Harry E. Diezel February 24, 2004 ALCAR, LLC Gpin 2404-57-3796 - 56~943 ZONING HISTORY 1. 9/26/00 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion - Denied 2. 8110199 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion - Granted 3. 3/19/84 - REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-5 Residential District - Granted 4. 3/19/84 - REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District - Granted 5. 5~28~83 - REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District - Granted 6. 4~25~88 - REZONING - from R-lO(Open Space) Residential District to PDH2 Planned Development- Withdrawn 7. 1128197 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-7.5 Residential District - Granted ITEM: ALCAR, L.L.C.- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM 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: March 23, 2004 · Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.LC. for a Chan.qe of Zoninq 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. These requests were deferred by the City Council on October 28, 2003, December 9, 2003, and again on February 24, 2004. A portion of the site is located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. The majority of the site is located within the 65 to 70 dB Ldn AICUZ. Under the Interim Guidelines (AICUZ), as adopted by the City Council on February 10, 2004, this request may be considered by the City Council based on its merits since it was submitted prior to February 3, 2004. 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 ALCAR Page 2 of 3 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 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 Iow intensity use such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. The significant land ALCAR Page 3 of 3 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. 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. ~See write up regarding interim AICUZ guidelines which modifY, recomme~datLens~ t Subm tt ng D~pa~ment/Agency: Plant, lng Department';~¢~..,l City Manager~,~'~ i ~ ~. ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 1 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION J11-210-CRZ-2002 NUMBER: Jll-210-CUP-2003 REQUEST: 19)Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-I/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 ,~., ]-. ALCAR, LLC Gpin 2404-57-3796 - 56-4943 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 1 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: PURPOSE: APPLICATION HISTORY: 24043371630000 24045737960000 24045649430000 7- PRINCESS ANNE 112.3 acres 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. These requests were deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning 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 Zonin.q The property is currently vacant and is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 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. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Single-family homes / R-10 (OP) Residential District · Proposed Nimmo Parkway right-of-way · Single-family homes / R-5D Residential District · West Neck Creek / AG-1Agricultural 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 Proposed Zoning: Approximately 132 single-family homes as shown on the proffered conceptual subdivision plan associated 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 Zoning 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 (ClP): 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 Enrollment Strawbridge 860 895 46 46 Elementary Princess Anne 1511 1658 24 24 Middle School Kellam Senior High 2276 1990 32 32 School 1 "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school Planning Commission Agenda ~o'.F~'~.~ September 10, 2003 ~1~)~ ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 ;~'~5 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: Fire and Rescue: 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. No comments at this time. Fire requirements will be reviewed 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 Iow 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 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. Housin.q 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 + 72.7 acres = 1.8 units to the acre. Site Desi.qn · 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 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 Desi,qn · 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 Staff Evaluation: 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"). This proffer is acceptable. The Concept Plan shows a conventional single-family subdivision. This type of development, with Ion~t 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 Staff Evaluation: 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. This proffer is acceptable with the foflowing 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 lO0-year floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and contains several areas of nontidal 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 PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#5 associations are not versed in 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 'l O0-year floodplain 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 floodplain mitigation purposes, actually lowering the ground elevation on these sites. Although the subdivision ordinance allows recreation sites to be dedicated within floodplain 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER#6 Staff Evaluation: 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. This proffer is acceptable. It ensures that the quality of homes is comparable to those in surrounding neighborhoods. 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. This proffer is acceptable. The property does not currently have access to an improved pubfic 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 VDO T plans for the CIP project. This scenario assumes that the subdivision will be ready for occupancy prior to the CIP project for Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A being completed. There is an alternate scenario 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 appficant would share in any of the roadway cost. Planning Commission Agenda September 10,2003 ALCAR LLC/# 19 & 20 Page 13 PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 8 Staff Evaluation: 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. This proffer is 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. 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. 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 floodplain fill~mitigation, stormwater management and sanitary sewer design. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer 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 Iow 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 Iow 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 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 16 { Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 17 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 18 Planning Commission Agenda ~,~'~ September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 19 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY · Q ~¢ 5, 2003 Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Department City of Virginia Beach Building 2, Room !QQ 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Duke: Thank you 2ox the opportunity to comment on the rezoning requesE by ALCAR LLC, fox the proposeQ construction of 138 homes. The site ts located in the 65-70 decibel (dB) day-night averaq~ fLdn) noise zone. The Navy's Air Instal}atJ. ons Compatible Use Zones Pro,ram states thee residential land use is · ncompa~ible ~n th~s zone, The Navy acknowledges the ~andowner's desire to develop their property, bun I urge you to deny thei~ request. We would view residential development a[ this site as an encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana. If you have any questions, please contact my Community Plannin~ Liaison Officer, Mr. Ray Firenze at ~757) 433-3t58. Copy to: COMNAVREG MID~NT Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Vi y Sincerely and very C omm~y Of f:l cer respectf~lly, Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 20 Z Z Z AppliCant's Name: _A~;_~_R~_!_,., I_._,,_( ......................................... List Alt Current Property Owners: False Cape Assoc~iates, L.P. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE if the property owner is a CORPORATION, iisi ail 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 ~ecessary) Camerm Htmde~, Gc, ra]d Shulman and Do_uj~las 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 sectlon below; APPLICANT 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 ail members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Carmen Pasapia, 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 and a~.Lr~_~-~ / .... Alan ~.__R_9~h, M~r!b~ll ..... SigHature Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page t0 of t4 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 21 Z Z Z Applicant's Name: List All Current nors' F~lse Ca e As~oc~at<'s,~_l:..P ....... Property Ow ._= ...... ~ ........... PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If Ihe property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers Of the Corporation below: (Attach list it necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list ail members ar partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [] .Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other Umncorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure APPLICANT DISCLOSURE if the property owner is a CORPORATION, list ail officers of the Corporation below: (Attach fist if necessary) if the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ~IIZATION, iisi all members or partners in the organization be]ow: (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 an~ ~'~urate. ~ Signature ~ Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of t4 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 22 Appl[cant's Name: ~AL~:~.R~. List All Current ProPerty Owners. W~y~e Mostiler~ trustee eld Barbara C. Mostil~,~.~ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the propeAy owner is a CORPORATION, list ~li offi~rs of the Corporotion b~low: (At~ach l~s~ if necessary) If INa property owms~ is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or o~her UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, I~s{ ~11 members or partners in the o~gmnizafion betow: ~Aftach fis~ if necessary) ~ .Check here ~f the prope~y owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other umncorporated organizat~m If the applicant ~ not t~e current owner of the property, complete the ApplJcaat Dtsc¢osure sec~On below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION. list all officers of [he 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 bek~: (Attach list if necessary) __~ zj~_~ j&~_~b ._~g~b~ ..................................................... Carmen Pas~ia~ Member ................ ~ Check hem i~ tho propert~ owner is NOI a corporation, partnorship, firm, or othor unincorporated orDaaization CERTIFICATION: I ce~ify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. SlBnalure Pri.t Name Con0itional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 23 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ALC^R, L.L.C.: Alan S. Resh, Member Carmine Pisapia, Member 2. List a~l businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here if the applicant is NO]' a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) False Cape Associates, L.P.: Cameron Munden, Gerald Shulman & Douglas Talbot 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. See next page for footnotes Conditionat Rezoning Application Page 12 of 13 Revised 10/1/2003 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern& Levy, P.C. Clark-Nexsen i "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than }arent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing accordirj~tp the ins~ticn.~ in this package. By.~ ~'"C/J~/ Cargllne P~sap~a,, iV[ember Applicant s Signature ~ Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page 13 of 13 Revised 10/1/2003 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ALCAR, L.L.C.: Alan S. Resh, Member Carmine Pisapia, Member 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ff necessary) [] Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) False Cape Associates, L.P.: Cameron Munden, Gerald Shulman & Douslas TaLbot 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity~ relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. 1 & 2 See next page for footnotes Conditional Use Permit Application Page 10of 11 Revised 10/1/2003 II sc osuRE STATEmEnT II ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES .ist all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Syl~es, Bourdon~ Ahern& Levy, P.C. Clark-Nexsen I "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than )arent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the twc entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing accordi~to the i~_tions in this package. By~~-~.~ ~.._~/ Carmine Vipapi~a, Member Applicant s Signature -~ , Print Name Properly Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 11 of 11 Revised 10/1/2003 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 & 20, 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. 'Fo 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 1 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 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 lmid 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, item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 2 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 ! 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, lt'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 permitted. There is a small amount that is permitted under our new floodplain ordinance that only applies to this part of the city and l'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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 3 when you put that to everything around it, you see a few lots surrotmded 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 1 don't know whether you all want me to. 1 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: 1'11 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 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 4 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 am 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 pement. 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 pement 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 be passive with some trails but them 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? Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 5 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 1 would suggest it was well engineered, but with Castleton there were some problems. 1 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. lfwe go down, and l'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 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'? Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 6 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 comers 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. 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, lfyou have 6.4 inches, a difference of 2 inches, you're out of it. So, 1 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. 1 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 7 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, ifI recall, and it may still be a big point, l'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. 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 1 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 8 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 staff' s 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 ora 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. Ifa 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 1 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 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, lfthe 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 item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 9 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. 1 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. Irene Duffy: Well, its supposed to be dry most of the time ! 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 ifa 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 10 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. JoArm 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 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: Am there any questions of Ms. Massey? Thank you very much. Will, has a question. I'm sorry. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 11 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 ifI mispronounced your last name. Christine Capozzohi: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Christine Capozzohi. I 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 l 0 foot buffer in the back of the property, which comes from the end of Windy Pines Bend to the other. I guess l'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 came 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 12 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 13th 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 rain~hll. 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 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 [ was going to quote from your website, but 1 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 U.S. Navy also opposed this request. They feel that it's an encroachment on their operations. I have letters of opposition 1 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 1'11 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 13 just moved there. I have a constant problem with water running offthe 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 am 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 homeowner trying to keep my yard dry and at least get it running offmy property and its just running right back to my property from where it is now. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Snyder, is them 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 his foot caught in it or something. Ronald Ripley: ls it a grading issue you think to get the water to the pipe? John Snyder: Yes. See, that is what 1 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. ! don't know whether they are planning on moving these public utilities. Ronald Ripley: Typically, what you'll find is that them 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 developmeut 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 14 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 ifI 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? Myname 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 an embankment, lt comes up that embankment fourfeet. Withjust the rains that we've had, l 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. 1 didn't have that much ora 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 comer 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, 1 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. 1 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 them, you're telling me that Public Works have never been out there to maintain that canal? Jack Reich: No. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 15 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. 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: JeffTrenton. 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 16 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 it? There's a pointer right there on the table. 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. JeffTrenton: 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. 1 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, 1'11 be happy and be candid Item #19 &20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 17 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 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 amom~t 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 oar 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 Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 18 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 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 role 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 am 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 l was asking. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 19 Ronald Ripley: Jan Anderson. Janice Anderson: On the wooded buffer that you said you would leave there, that is a 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 [ 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: ls 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 1 have had discussion a lot lately. I think that she and 1'11 just quote her tbr 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, ifI 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 20 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, them 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: 1 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 mamnade 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 Nimmo Parkway again, so there isn't any impact on the drain when that road is built. We Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 21 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 mount 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 staff's 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 carethlly 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 the floodplain was back in the 60's with Lake Placid. Our knowledge is so much greater now then it was in the 1960s. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 22 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 ora 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 ~vhat plans and bonds are required for the construction of the new pump station? Does the City have to do that? Eddie Bourdon: know, if they're they're going to Yeah. When this gets to subdivision approval. It just lets somebody a developer and they're naive, that they're going to have bond what 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 clarified. 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 stop a tree from growing, or if one fell down, to know that it IEll 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, carries 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 Item 4/19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 23 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. Dully 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, lfin 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 sum that they get that straight. ']'he 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 engineering while we're environmentally sensitive to saving these trees. And, the last thing I want to say is 1 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 crone through the first time. When you flip that board over and you flip it over to this side, it's like a Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 24 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. 1 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. 1 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: 1 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? 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 enviromnental Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 25 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 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, ! 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, 1 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. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 26 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 ! have a second? Seconded by Kathy Katsias. Is there any further discussion? Then, we would like to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT I ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of ! 0-0, the motion carries. FORM NO. P.S. City of Virginia Beach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5676 DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay Wilso~3~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application ALCAR, L.L.C., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 23, 2004. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated December 12, 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/cms Enclosure PREPARED BY: 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 Mostiler, D.D.S., Ltd. Employees Profit-Sharing 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 )roperty located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, ~'ontaining 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 PREPARED BY: ~ §YI([S. ~OURDON, Att[t~N & [D/Y. P.C. 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 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 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 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 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 makes 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, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming PREPARED BY ~ ~YI([S, ~OURI)ON. AilKRN & L~. 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. 5. Ail 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: ~ SY[[S. t]OURDON All[tiN & [[~Y. P.E. 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 Nimmo 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 ail 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 ~ncorporated 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 4 PREPARED BY: I '§Yld[§. ~OUItDON AI~EI/N & LEW. 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 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 ail 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 )ursuant 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 · nd 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. 5 PREPARED BY: I gYl~[S. ~OUI~DO~ AIt[t~N & LDW. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: ~l~n S~. ~'~'--'~---( SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: 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 liability company. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY: B ~Y[tiS, [~OURDON. AttEt~N & LEVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: -- T. Wayn~ Mostiler, Trustee Barbara C. Mostiler, Trustee STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2002, by T. Wayne Mostiler, Trustee. Notary Public 0 My Commission Expires: day of STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this . 2002, by Barbara C. Mostiler, Trustee. Notary Publi~ My Commission Expires: ~ ~ ~a~d ay of PREPARED BY: I §YI~[§. ]lOUliD0i~ Alt[tiN & kD/Y. PC. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: FALSE CAPE ASSOCIATES, a Virgi~mited partnership By: - (SEAL) Dougla~Talbot, 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. ~ ? ~/ , ~ ~Z .... Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 8 PREPARED BY: AtIEEN& I.[VY. 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 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 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 Marie 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, :hence 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 PREPARED BY: m gYl([S, t~OUItDOi~ A~t[~N & [~. P.C to a pine stump; thence N 43 degrees W 1.10 chains to a pine; thence N 73 ½ degrees W 2.87 chains to a pine stump; thence N 82 V2 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 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 ½ 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 ½ degrees E 1.74 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 81 ¥4 degrees E 3.53 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 67 3A 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/~ 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 Va 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 aA degrees W 2.19 chains to a pine stump; thence 6 ¥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 ½ degrees E 2.13 chains to a gum stump; thence N 86 ¥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 PREPARED BY: ~ gYK~S. ]ROURDON, AIIg~N & [IVY, P.E. thence S 60 ¼ degrees W 2.06 chains; thence S 71 ¼ 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 2.13 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. GPIN: 2404-57-3796 CONDREZONE/ALCAR/PROFFER 11 seconded the motion. COUNCIIAqAN SCHMIDT: MAYOR OBEPa~DORF: Mr. Schmidt. CITY CLERK: of Zoning and a February 24, 2004 Second. I thought I heard Mr. Maddox. I'm sorry. We have a motion by Mr. Reeve seconded by By a vote of 10 to 0, you have deferred the Applications of Alcar, L.L.C., for a Change Conditional Use Permit until March the 23rd. 3 February 24, 2004 FORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Schmidt. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: Madam Mayor, excuse me. If we were going to -- Mr. Bourdon has brought to my attention if we are going to defer the Alcar Application, wouldn't it be better to deal with that now and hopefully not have people sit through this? If, in fact, that's the case. Excuse me, Mr. Nutter, for interrupting. R.J. NUTTER: Oh, no. I was wondering when you would get to that. We're happy to defer this. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Reeve, this is your District. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Alcar, L.L.C., Item L-5, Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I will make a motion that we defer the Application of until March 23rd. MAYOR OBERNDOP. F: Before we vote, Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: This has been before us before and there is a letter on file that this Applicant is the client of Goodman and Company, but they are not my husband's personal clients. So, the City Attorney has ruled that I can vote on this without any problem. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Now, are we ready for the question for the deferral until March 23rd? CITY CLERK: Your Honor, may I ask who 2 - 52 - Item V-L. 5. PLANNING ITEM# 52274(Conanue~ Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act 3~ 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR, L.L.C. Her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.C The City Attorney has advised that although she has a personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L. C., she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of and vote on, the ordinance, upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28, 2003, is hereby made a part of the record. February24, 2004 February 24, 2004 FO~ SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Schmidt. COUNCILMA~ SCHMIDT: Madam Mayor, excuse me. If we were going to -- Mr. Bourdon has brought to my attention if we are going to defer the Alcar Application, wouldn't it be better to deal with that now and hopefully not have people sit through this? If, in fact, that's the case. Excuse me, Mr. Nutter, for interrupting. R.J. NUTTER: Oh, no. I was wondering when you would get to that. We're happy to defer this. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Reeve, this is your District. COUNCILM~N REEVE: Alcar, L.L.C., Item L-5, Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I will make a motion that we defer the Application of until March 23rd. MAYOR OBEP~NDORF: Before we vote, Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: This has been before us before and there is a letter on file that this Applicant is the client of Goodman and Company, but they are not my husband's personal clients. So, the City Attorney has ruled that I can vote on this without any problem. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Now, are we ready for the question for the deferral until March 23rd? CITY CLERK: Your Honor, may I ask who 2 Virginia Beach City Council February 24, 2004 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood CITY~NAGER: CITY ATTOP~Ey: CITY CLEA~K: STENOGRAPHIC P-EPORTER: Mayor At-Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville - District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven District 5 - District 7 James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Item of Alcar, L.L.C. - 52 - Item V-L. 5. PLANNING ITEM # 52274 (Continued) Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act 3~ 2.2-3115 (I-I) her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR, L.L.C. Her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.C. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L. C., she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of, and vote on, the ordinance, upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28, 2003, is hereby made a part of the record. February 24, 2004 - 5] - Item V-L. 5. PLANNING ITEM # 52274 Attorney R. Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, 5~ Floor, until the City Council Session of March 23, 2004. Phone.- 499-897J requested DEFERRAL Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council DEFERRED to March 23, 2004, Ordinances upon application of AZCAR, L.L.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF AL CAR, L.L. C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-lO Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C for a Change of Zoning ~ from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), westofRocla'ngchair£ane(GPIN24045 73796,. 2404564943,. 240437] 633). 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 ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, Z.L.C. FOR A _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of AL CAR, £.L. C. fora Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN24045 73796,. 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Voting.. 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndor95' Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Harry E. Diezel February 24, 2004 Map ALCAR, LLC G~in 24~4-57-3796- 5~4945 ZONING HISTORY 1. 9/26/00 - RE. ZONING -from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion - Denied 2. 8110/99 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion - Granted 3. 3/19/84 - REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-5 Residential District - Granted 4. 3/19184- REZONING- from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District - Granted 5. 5128/83 - REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District - Granted 6. 4125188- REZONING- from R-lO(Open Space) Residential District to PDH2 Planned Development- Withdrawn 7. 1128197 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-7.5 Residential District - Granted EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A (24,858.83 S.F./ O.5707 AC.) {NDEP,DGN SOUTH LOCATION MAP ADJAC[NT TO IND[P[NDENCE BOULEVARD ~^~: ~,,: ~oo,, ,' .~///~~\~ PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADE) DEPT. FEB. 2004 K. CONSENT AGENDA L. ORDINANCES Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN § 36-99 of the City Code for Taxi Cabs by revising financial reporting requirements Ordinance to DECLARE EXCESS PROPERTY at Nimmo Parkway and George Mason Drive; and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Land Exchange Agreement and any other related document(s) with Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD). Ordinance to AUTHORIZE and APPROVE the Development Authority's use of $4,000,000 of the Economic Development Investment Program ("EDIP") funding for construction of the Town Center Phase II public infrastructure and the use of EDIP funds to hire the Authority's Construction Manager, conditioned on reimbursement of EDIP funds from Phase II Bonds. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute Leases on certain city- owned property: Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC at North Great Neck and West Plantation Roads for easements to allow vehicular and pedestrian access; installation and maintenance with replacement of necessary utilities; and, to construct and operate an accessory building for wireless telecommunications (See Planning Item 8) Timberlake Community Association, Inc. for storage of major recreational equipment at Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Boulevard Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into: Grayson Road by VIRGINIA BEACH FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH to install a wooden pedestal bridge Pleasure House Road, Lake Drive and Machen Avenue by BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC to construct and maintain a vinyl fence Kempsville and Providence Roads by KEMPSVILLE CORNER ASSOCIATES to maintain an existing business identification sign at 904 Kempsville Road Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $132,891 from the State Compensation Board and TRANSFER $130,000 from Reserve Contingencies to the Sheriff's Department FY 2003-04 operating budget re employing fifteen additional Deputies. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. ATLANTIC AVENUE CAFI~ PILOT PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARINGS TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS Elbow Road Extended and Dozier's Bridge LEASES OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY Caf6 Franchise Agreements Timberlake Community Association, Inc. Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Boulevard Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC North Great Neck and West Plantation Roads EXCESS CITY-OWNED PROPERTY Nimmo Parkway and George Mason Drive THE BEACON SUNDAY, MARCH 14, 2004 PUBLIC ~ING .~~~ PR OPO,~ED TRAN~PORTATIO N ~,,~.~ ENHANCEMENT PROJECT The Virginia Beach City Council will held a PUBLIC HEARING on the various replacement or installation of steel-backed timber guardrail (Phase I) as a proposed transporta- tion enhancement project, T~esday, March 23, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall Building (Building #1) at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 300 feet of new guardrail will be installed with the Elbow Road Extended Phase IIA project (CIP 2-065) and approximately 1,100 feet of galvanized stee~ guardrail will be replaced at Dozier's Bridge and canoe launch facility adjacent to West Neck Creek. The purpose of this hearing will be to obtain public input. if you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assis- tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK*S OFFICE at 427-4303; Hearing impaired, call TDD only 427-4305 (TDD Tele- phone Device for the Deaf). Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Department of Public Works Engineering Division, Building #2, 3rd Floor, at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center. The Public Works Engi neering telephone number is (757) 427-4131. ~Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC/AAE City Olerk Beacon: March 14, 2004 and March 2:l, 2004 11198678 THE BEACON SUNDAY, MARCH 14, 2004 PUBLIC NOTICE LEASES OF CITY PROPERTY The Virginia Beach City Council will hotd a PUBUC HEARING at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, in the City Council Chamber regard- ing the proposed caf~ franchise lease agreement of City-owned prop. erty to the entities listed below: Fiye Year Franchise Renewals: King of the Sea (2610 Atlantic Avenue) side street cafe; Beach Diner (2417 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe: Atlantic Bistro (910 Atlantic Avenue) sidewalk cafe; Baja Cantina (206 23rd Street) side street cafe; 18th Street Caf~ (1804 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; Seaside Galley (1401 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; LaVerne's Chix Caf~ (701 At~antic Avenue) connector park cafe; Fish Bones Restaurant (1211 Atlantic Avenue) connector street cafb; end Waterman's Caf~ (415 Atlantic Avenue) connector park cafe. One Year Franchise; Tropical Smoothie Caf~ (211 25th Street) side street cafe; Hilton Caf~ (3001 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk caf~ (to be effective May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006). The purpose of this hearing will be to obtain public comment on these proposed leases of City property. The City Council Chamber is located on the second floor of the City Hail building (Building #1) at 2401 Courthouse Drive. Any questions concerning the above-referenced franchises should be directed to Mike Eason, Resort Coordinator, Vir- ginia Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau, by calling {757) 437~,800. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Sunday Beacon March 14, 2004 THE BEACON SUNDA%MARCH 14,2004 PUBUC HEARING LEASE OF CITY LAND The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed leasing of city land on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall Building (Building #1) at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The prop- eCgy iS located at Foxwood Drive adjacent to South Independence Bou- levard and Timbedake Section 6 (GPIN 1476-92~644). The purpose of this hearing will be to obtain public comment on the city's proposal to lease approximately 24858,83 square feet/O.5707 acres of available tand to the Timbedake Community Association, Inc. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assis- tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303; Heating impaired, call TDD only 427-4305 (TDD Tele phone Device for the Deaf~. Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Office of Real Estate, Bui!ding #2, Room 392, at the Virginia Beach Munici- pal Center. The Real Estate Office telephone number is (757)427 4~ 61. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacon: March 14, 2004 11208852 THE BEACON SUNDAY, MARCH 14,2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall Building, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach; Vir- ginia, the Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING con- cerning the proposed lease of City property Iocate(J on the east side of North Great Neck Road, 240 feet north of West P~antation Road. The proposed lease area consists of a 25' x 25' site (0.014 acm), together with access thereto, to be used for a building housing equip- ment to be used in conjanction with wireless communication facilities operated by Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and n~ed assis- t. ance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK=S OFFICE at 427-4303; Hearing impaired, call TDD only 427 4305 (TDD- Tele- phone Device for the Dear}. Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Office of Real Estate, Building #2, Room 392, at the Virginia Beach Munici- pal Center, tel. (757) 427 4161, Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacoo March 14, 2004 11227928 SUNDAY, MARCH 14,2004 PUBLIC HEARING EXCHANGE OF CITY PROPERTY The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC BEARING for the exchange of a 42,453 square foot/0.97459 acre piece of City owned property, Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber located n the City Halt Building (Building #1 at the Virginia Beacl~ Municipal Center). The property is located on the north sde of Nimmo Parkway, near its intersection with George Mason Drive, in the Lake Ridge/Municipal section of the City of Virginia Beach (ref. GPIN 1494-62~0718). The purpose of this hearing witl be to obtain public input to determine whether this property should be declared AExcess of the City's Needs and exchanged for a 9,888 square foot/0.227 acre piece of property owned by Bampton Roads Sanitation District (BRSD) (ref. GP]N 1494-84-0311) located on the south side of Nimmo Parkway adjacent to Kellam High School in connection with the Hamp- ton Roads Sanitation District Lake Ridge interceptor Force Main Project, ClP 67103. if you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assis- tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427 - 4303; Hearing impaired, call TDD or~ly 427 - 4305 (TDD -Telephone Device for the Deaf). Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Office of Real Estate, Room 392, Building #2 in the Virginia Beach Municipal Center. The telephone number for the Office of Real Estate is (757) 427-4161. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacon March ~4, 2004 11214990 MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION VIRGINIA ARCHITECTURE WEEK - April 2-9, 2004 6:00 P.M. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend David Howard Pastor, Brook Baptist 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 MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS March 9, 2004 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION IV. 4:30 P.M. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS: - Conference Room - 1:30 P.M. RETAIL STUDY ECONOMIC STRATEGY Donald Maxwell, Director, Department of Economic Development AICUZ DEVELOPMENT INTERIM GUIDELINES Robert J. Scott, Director, Department of Plaiming JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS) SCOPE OF WORK Robert J. Scott, Director, Department of Planning CITY WATERSHEDS H. Clayton Bemick Environmental Management Programs Administrator, Department of Planning REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Whereas: The American Institute of Architects, Hampton PPads Chapter has been a sound, wellorun professionalassociation serving in the Hampton P~oads area for almost thirty years; and Whereas: The American Institute of Architects, Hampton P~gads Chapter has inereased the qua~ty of life in Hampton P~ads through the promotion of quality architecture and the built environment in Hampton P, gads; and Whereas: The American Institute of Architects, Hampton Pwads Chapter provides resources to our localcommunityfor professionaldevelopment andeducation, andacts as a vitall~nkto the other components of theAmerican Institute of Architects and to other local affibated professiona~ and services; and Whereas: The American Institute of Architects has been advancing the value of architects and architecture locally and nationally for more than 135 years: ,Sv'ow, Therefore, I, Meyera B. Oberndo~f, Mayor of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, do hereby Proclaim: April2 - 9, 2004 Virginia Architecture Week In Virginia $each, and I encourage all citizens to recognize the contributions that architects make e~erJ day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life. In Witness Whereof, I ha~e hereunto set m~y handandcausedthe OfficialSealof the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to be affi~edthis Twenty-third day of Marck Two Thousand Pour. Meyera B. Oberndorf Mayor 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.