The URL can be used to link to this page

MAY 27, 2003 AGENDACITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL M4 YOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R JONES Baiside - District 4 HARRY E DIEZ EL, Kempsville - District 2 MARG4RET L EURE Centerville - District I REBA S McCLANAN Rose Hall - District 3 RICH4RD A MADDOX Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W SCHMIDT 4t-Large RON A VILLANUEVA At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON 4t-Large JAMES L WOOD Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JAAIES K SPORE Cin• Manager LESLIE L LJLLEY City Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH MMC Cin Clerk I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING'S A. La 27 May 2003 MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT Patricia Phillips, Director, Department of Finance NON-PROFIT TAX EXEMPTION PROCESS Leslie L. Lilley, City Attorney II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf CITY HALL BUILDING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 4274303 FAX (757) 426-5669 EMAIL Ctycncl @ vbgov cam -Conference Room - 2:30 FM -Conference Room - 4:00 PM 1 - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM I B. INVOCATION: Reverend Thomas H. Britton Pastor, Retired C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS May 13, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PRESENTATION and PUBLIC COMMENT I. TOWN CENTER PHASE II I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES / RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $84,272 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2002-2003 operating budget re the President's Homeland Security initiative, all -hazards emergency operations planning, develop strategies for local preparedness and increase revenues accordingly. 2. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $7,700 in the Fire Department's FY 2002-2003 gift fund to support Operation Smoke Detector, the volunteer Inspector program and enhance fire video and safety. 3. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute the Comprehensive Relicensing Settlement Agreement for the Roanoke Rapids and Lake Gaston Dam project. 4. Resolution to ADOPT procedures for considering unsolicited requests from pnvate entities for approval of qualifying projects under the Public -Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, and, direct the City's purchasing agent to make these procedures publicly available. K. PLANNING Application of NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re a freestanding church at 3308 Continental Street. (DISTRICT 3 -ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL 2. Application of SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL for a Conditional Use Permit re a hospital patient tower and emergency department addition at 1060 First Colonial Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL 3. Application of CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB for a Conditional Use Permit re marina expansion from 77 to 92 slips at 1052 Cardinal Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) The applicant request INDEFINITE DEFERRAL Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL Planning Recommendation: APPROVAL lost to a tie vote 4. Application of K & E, L.L.C. for a MODIFICATION of a Conditional Rezoning (approved by City Council on December 7, 1999), to modify the proposed architecture of the dairy retail facility and eliminate the previously proposed retail center at 5102 Princess Anne Road. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVII.LE) Recommendation: APPROVAL 5. Application of LINDA H. DANIEL for the enlargement of a nonconformincruse re an addition for a washer and dryer to the eastern side of a duplex at 210 79th Street. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL 6. Ordinance to AMEND the City's Comprehensive Plan re the Master Transportation plan: a ADD a portion of Nimmo Parkway (formerly Ferrell) from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road and the removal of a portion of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road to the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL of ALTERNATIVE VERSION b ADOPT the alignment for improvements to Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road. Planning recommendation: APPROVAL L. APPOINTMENTS EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT .7� 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 05/27/03 slb www vbcrov com City Council, in trying to be more responsive to the needs of citizens who attend the meetings, has adopted the following time limits for future Formal Sessions Applicant or Applicant's Representative lU Minute Attorney or Representative for Opposition lU Minutes Other Speakers -each 3 Minutes Applicant's Rebuttal 3 Minutes THESE TIMES WILL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO. 27 May 2003 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING'S A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT Patricia Phillips, Director, Department of Finance B. NON-PROFIT TAX EXEMPTION PROCESS Leslie L. Lilley, City Attorney II REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS - Conference Room - 2:30 PM IV. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER -- Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION -Conference Room - 4:00 PM V. FORMAL SESSION -Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER -Mayor Meyers E. Oberndorf 11 B . INVOCATION: Reverend Thomas H. Bntton Pastor, Retired C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA II D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS May 13, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION IA:B ry. 2 OF OUR N W'o �R91J5101uttlatt 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 vath 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. H. PRESENTATION and PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN CENTER PHASE II CONSENT AGENDA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Developer Presentation and Public Comment on the Phase II Town Center Development MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: The Town Center Project is being developed as a multi -phase capital program, with each phase defined and developed based on market needs and construction stages. In December, 2001, City Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Phase II development of the Town Center and, on March 25, 2003, reviewed the details for the Phase 11 development agreement. City Council has adopted a three step process for approval of major projects and issues and, these three steps include staff briefing, public comment, and formal action by City Council. On March 25 City Council received the formal briefing on this project, and the May 27 Council meeting agenda includes an opportunity for public comment on the project. The final step following this public comment will be formal action by City Council, and this formal action is tentatively scheduled for June 3, 2003. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow the developer to make a brief presentation on the private development included in Phase II of the Town Center project, and to allow adequate time for public comment on this next phase of the project ■ Considerations; The Town Center project was conceived in the early 19701s, and the ground breaking for the project, now considered as the Town Center, occurred on June, 2000. Phase 1 of the development has been enormously successful, and includes almost a million square feet of combined office, parking, and retail space, with a total private investment of $75 million. Phase II includes blocks 3, 8, 10, and 12, and provides another 1.1 million square feet of office parking, retail, and residential space, with an approximate total private investment of $80 -90 million. The Town Center project in general, and the Phase 11 development agreement specifically, have already received intensive public review and comment. The City Council was initially briefed on the Phase 11 MOU in December, 2001, and overall we have presented the following public briefings on different aspects of the Phase 11 development: COUNCIL BRIEFINGS PUBLIC COMMENT November 13, 2001 December 11, 2001 December 4, 2001 March 25, 2003 In addition to the Council briefings and comments, each of these received the same coverage and comment opportunities at the Virginia Beach Development Authority meetings. The briefings were maintained on the City's TV schedule (VBTV), and posted and maintained on the City's Web site The March 25 briefing on the full development agreement remains on the City's Web site The final development agreement for Phase II will be posted on the City's Web site on May 23, 2003. ■ Public Information: ■ Alternatives: Not Applicable ■ Recommendations: The developer, Armada Hoffler, should provide a brief presentation at the May 27 meeting on the Phase II development, and public comment is scheduled to immediately follow the Armada Hoffler presentation. ■ Attachments: None Recommended Action: Receive public comment Submitting Department/Agency: Office of the City Manager City Manager: 4, `4 tT� J. ORDINANCES / RESOLUTION Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $84,272 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2002-2003 operating budget re the President's Homeland Security initiative, with all -hazards emergency operations planning, develop strategies for local preparedness and increase revenues accordingly. 2. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $7,700 in the Fire Department's FY 2002-2003 gift fund to support Operation Smoke Detector, the Volunteer Inspector program and enhance fire video and safety. 3. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute the Comprehensive Relicensing Settlement Agreement for the Roanoke Rapids and Lake Gaston Dam project. 4. Resolution to ADOPT procedures for considering unsolicited requests from private entities for approval of qualifying projects under the Public -Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002; and, direct the City's purchasing agent to make these procedures publicly available. wr CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: FEMA All -Hazards Emergency Operations Planning Grant MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: An important component of the President's Homeland Security Initiative is the development of viable local emergency plans to address a variety of hazards. The City of Virginia Beach has been allocated $84,272 to federal pass -through funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to enhance our local emergency operations planning and support the development of strategies for local preparedness. ■ Considerations: Continuous all -hazards operational planning, including plans, training and exercises, is the foundation of emergency management. These funds will provide funding for activities to directly support efforts to improve the City's preparation for a variety of hazards, including terrorist attacks. The Fire Department recommends utilizing these funds to enhance existing emergency management planning strategies. These funds will be beneficial for the development of strategic plans, incorporating the new Emergency Operations Center and other disaster management simulation and training. Funds are available and must be expended by December 12, 2003. ■ Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: The city currently does not have the funding required to support such a program. ■ Recommendations: Appropriate $ 84,272.00 to cover all expenses related to this emergency management planning initiative. ■ Attachments: Official Notice of Grant Allotment Ordinance Recommended Action: Appropriate funds. Submitting Department/Age cy: Fire Department City Manager: �� 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $84, 272 2 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 3 TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2002-03 OPERATING 4 BUDGET TO SUPPORT ALL -HAZARDS EMERGENCY 5 OPERATIONS PLANNING 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 7 VIRGINIA: 8 That $84,272 in grant funds from the Federal Emergency 9 Management Agency is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Fire 10 Department's FY 2002-03 Operating Budget to support all -hazards 11 emergency operations planning, with federal revenue increased 12 accordingly. 13 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia 14 on the day of , 2003. CA-8876 NONCODEIfemagrantord.wpd R-1 May 13, 2003 Approved as to Content: �a Management Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: ,/Yzol S. S Law Departmen COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA MIGHAEL M. CLINE Department of Emergency Management State Coordinator GEORGE W. FORESMAN December 20, Z�02 Deputy Coordinator Mr. James K. Spore City Manager Vlrg=a Beach City Municipal Center, Building # 1 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Mr. Spore: 10501 Trade Court Richmond, Virginia 23236-3713 (804) 897-6500 (TDD) 674-2417 FAX (804) 897-6506 This letter serves as your official notice of your jurisdiction's grant allotment from the State and Local All -Hazards Emergency Operations Planning Grant Program offered through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The grant arnounts were determined by using $5,000 as a base plus $.18 per capita. Your city/county will receive $84,272.00 in grant funds by mid - January. The funds must be spent by December 12, 2003. The purpose of the funds is to enhance our ongoing local emergency operations planning program and to begirt the process of developing strategies for overall local preparedness. Continuous all- bazards operatYonal planning, including plans, training and exercises, is the foundation of emergency management. This effort produces comprehensive plans that address preparation for, and response to, all threats, including terrorist attacks. There are very specific activities for which these funds may be used. Every city and county is required to complete the activities listed on the Grant Activities Sheet. To indicate your acceptance of these activities and the funds, please sign and return the enclosed Letter of Agreement. Also enclosed are two reporting forms: one for quarterly reports on activities, and a final report on expenditures. If you have questions or concerns, you may contact Barbara Moore -Scruggs, She may be reached at (804) 897-6500, extension 6524, by phone or by e-mail at bmoorescru%zLrs@vdem.state.va.us. Sincerely, Michael M . Cline MMC/BM-S/pg Enclosure C: Emergency Management Coordinator "Working to Protect People, Property and Our Communit7ov 11 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Fire Department Gift Fund Appropriation MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background The Virginia Beach Fire Department is privileged to receive donations from our citizens, visitors and businesses throughout the year. These donations are placed in a specific revenue account until the department has accumulated an amount useful to a program within the organization. Tracking of all donations for specific purposes is maintained to insure the designated purchases are made. ■ Considerations: The requested appropriation of $7,700 will be used to support the following program areas • $5,000 will be directed toward the video program for the Fire Training division and for rebuilding a commercial -grade video camera • $1,200 will be directed to the volunteer inspector program to support uniform purchases and training/certification expenses $500 will be directed toward the department safety program to be used for the purchase of a digital camera for accident and injury documentation • $1,000 will be directed toward the Life Safety Education "Operation Smoke Detector" program for the purchase of smoke detectors and batteries. i Public information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: The department does not have available funding to support the expansions of programs that are described above. This allows the department to insure donated funds are expended for the designated purpose within a reasonable time frame. ■ Recommendations: Appropriate $7,700 from the Fire Department Gift Fund to make the designated expenditures. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Appropriate the requested funds Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department Drt` City Manager: F 1DatalAM0rdinl COD Elgiftgrantarf.wpd 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $ 7 , 7 0 0 IN THE FIRE 2 DEPARTMENT' S GIFT FUND FY 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 OPERATING 3 BUDGET TO SUPPORT OPERATION SMOKE DETECTOR, 4 THE VOLUNTEER INSPECTOR PROGRAM, AND ENHANCE 5 FIRE VIDEO AND SAFETY SERVICES 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 7 VIRGINIA: 8 That $7 , 7 00 in donations is hereby appropriated from the Fire 9 Department's Gift Fund to the Fire Department's FY 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 10 Operating Budget, with $5,000 dedicated to the video services, 11 $1, 200 to support volunteer inspectors, $500 for the safety program 12 and $1, 000 dedicated to support Operation Smoke Detector, and 13 revenue is increased accordingly. 14 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia 15 on the day of , 2003. CA--8877 Noncode/giftgrantord.wpd R-1 May 14, 2003 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: 1Q � Management Services epartment CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution Approving the Comprehensive Relicensing Settlement Agreement for the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Dam Project and Authorizing and Directing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement on Behalf of the City MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: Dominion Power's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Dam Project, which encompasses Lake Gaston, expired in January2O01, and has since been renewed on an annual basis. The various stakeholders in the relicensing process (including Virginia Beach and North Carolina) have reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, which includes provisions for a new license and imposes obligations upon stakeholders that are outside of FERC's jurisdiction. If FERC concludes that the settlement agreement and the license conditions comply with federal law and are in the overall public interest, a new 30- or 40- year license could be issued by the end of the year. In concept, because all the major stakeholders will have signed the settlement agreement, there will be none of the extended litigation that often follows the issuance of a new license. In 1995, Virginia Beach and North Carolina had agreed to settle their differences over the Project. For reasons beyond the control of the parties, however, the settlement never became effective. Subsequently, in order to facilitate FERC's approval of the Lake Gaston Project, Virginia Beach offered to implement the environmental obligations that had been in the failed settlement agreement. While FERC did not make these proffers binding, it did admonish the City that it would take appropriate action in the event the City did not abide by those proffers. Since then, Virginia Beach has implemented the proffers as if they were regulatory obligations. ■ Considerations: North Carolina and the federal fish agencies have considerably more regulatory authority in the relicensing process than they had in the pipeline proceedings. They have used that authority in the settlement negotiations to obtain improvements in minimum instream flow, operational practices at the dam, shoreline management and other environmental enhancements. With respect to Virginia Beach, their objective has been to include the City's 1995 proffers as binding obligations in the settlement agreement. The obligations upon the City in the settlement agreement are substantially equivalent to the 1995 proffers, with two exceptions. First, the annual $200,000 payment for noxious weed control would be indexed to inflation, consistent with all the other payments and grants made by Dominion and the resource agencies. Second, the provisions regarding actions to be taken during a major drought have been modified to be more flexible and more compatible with the way the 2001-2002 drought was managed. The Resolution approves the comprehensive settlement agreement and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. ■ Public Information: The requested action does not require a public hearing. On May 20, 2003, staff provided a briefing to City Council. That briefing was televised on the City's cable television channel. ■ Alternatives: If the City executes the settlement agreement, the foreseeable regulatory uncertainties over the Lake Gaston Project will be ended. The City would be obligated to cooperate in future severe droughts, as it did voluntarily during the 2001-2002 drought. In the last 100 years, there have been three such droughts that would likely have triggered such actions. If the City does not execute the agreement, it could find itself at odds with some, if not all, of the other stakeholders in the relicensing process, and perhaps with FERC itself. The relicensing process could become controversial and take on the characteristics of the original regulatory proceedings, very possibly resulting in protracted litigation. Recommendations: Since 1995, Virginia Beach has, without incident or significant hardship, undertaken measures which are substantially similar to the obligations set forth in the settlement agreement. Its actions have been a major factor in drastically improving relations with all of the stakeholders, perhaps most importantly, North Carolina, and has resulted in their acceptance of the Lake Gaston Project. The agreement is a model of cooperation between the City and the other stakeholders, and is highly recommended by Staff. ■ Attachments: Resolution; Summary of Material Terms Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Public Utilities City Manager: 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE 2 RELICENSING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE 3 ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON DAM PROJECT AND 4 AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO 5 EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY 6 WHEREAS, in 1995, after performing a lengthy 7 environmental study culminating in an Environmental Impact 8 Statement, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (hereinafter 9 "FERC") issued an order amending the original license authorizing 10 the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project (FERC Project No. 2009), a 11 hydropower project owned and operated by Dominion North Carolina 12 Power (hereinafter "Dominion") ; and 13 WHEREAS, the effect of such license amendment was to 14 effectively allow the City of Virginia Beach to withdraw water from 15 Lake Gaston for the Lake Gaston Water Supply Project; and 16 WHEREAS, as an inducement to FERC for the approval of the 17 license amendment, the City voluntarily proffered that it would 18 implement a number of additional environmental enhancements not 19 required by FERC, including refraining from reselling water from 20 Lake Gaston to any communities outside of Southeastern Virginia 21 (except for emergency deliveries to communities along the route of 22 the Lake Gaston Pipeline) ; maintaining an active and ongoing water 23 conservation program; financing a program of hydrilla control in 24 Lake Gaston; using alternative sources of water during critical 25 droughts; and using storage in Kerr Reservoir to augment river 26 flows during the striped bass spawning season; and 27 WHEREAS, the City thereafter completed construction of 28 the Lake Gaston Project, and placed the Project in service in 1998 ; 29 and 30 WHEREAS, the aforesaid license expired in January 2001, 31 and since then has been renewed by FERC on an annual basis; and 32 WHEREAS, beginning in 1995, the City of Virginia Beach 33 and numerous other stakeholders, including Dominion, the State of 34 North Carolina, the Roanoke River Basin Association, local 35 governments, environmental groups, private entities, federal 36 agencies and others, have engaged in lengthy, detailed and 37 intensive negotiations as part of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston 38 Project relicensing process, which negotiations have resulted in 39 the stakeholders reaching agreement on all of the issues 40 encompassed by the relicensing; and 41 WHEREAS, the proposed Settlement Agreement for the 42 Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Darn Project (hereinafter "Settlement 43 Agreement") is comprehensive in scope, containing detailed 44 provisions regarding, among other things, Roanoke River flows, 45 fisheries, lake levels, shoreline management, recreation and 46 historic resources; and 47 WHEREAS, Article FL6 - "Drought Response" of the 48 settlement agreement addresses the subject of the City's response 49 to critical droughts in the Roanoke River Basin, including the K 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 issue of interbasin transfers of water from the Roanoke River during such droughts; and WHEREAS, the material provisions of Article FL6 are summarized in the attached "Summary of Material Terms of Article FL6 of Settlement Agreement for the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Dam Project," and a true copy of the entire Settlement Agreement is on file in the City Clerk's Office; and WHEREAS, the City' s obligations set forth in the Settlement Agreement are substantially equivalent to those proffered by the City to FERC in 1995, and are consistent with the City' s actions since the Lake Gaston Project became operational and with the Cit y's response to the 2001-02 drought; and WHEREAS, if the Settlement Agreement is approved by FERC the final remaining uncertainty regarding the regulatory status of the Lake Gaston Project will be resolved; and WHEREAS, terms of the Settlement Agreement, including Article FL6, are fair and reasonable and in the best interests of all stakeholders; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the Office of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia for its invaluable assistance in the relicensing process; to the State of North Carolina for the spirit of cooperation and reasonableness it has brought to the negotiations; and to the other 3 73 stakeholders for their willingness to compromise for the collective 74 benef it of all concerned; 75 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 76 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 77 That the City Council hereby approves the Settlement 78 Agreement for the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Dam Project, and hereby 79 authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the same on 80 behalf of the City. 81 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 82 Virginia, on the day of , 2003. 83 CA-8880 84 wmm\ordres\relicensingagmt.res 85 R-2 86 May 19, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Public Utilities Department al APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: / 1 `, . � 41 14 City Attorney' s Of f ice Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Dam Project Settlement Agreement Summary of Material Terms 1. Provisions directly affecting City (Article FL 6 -Drought Response) are part of much larger settlement. 2. Provisions apply only to Southeastern Virginia communities that obtain water from the Lake Gaston Pipeline (only Virginia Beach at present; to include Chesapeake when it begins using Lake Gaston water, as well as any future users). Parties agree that comparable obligations are appropriate for future or expanded interbasin transfers. 3. Establishes Consumptive Use Drought Management Committee ("Committee"), consisting of North Carolina., Virginia, Virginia Beach, and Dominion, to discuss drought conditions, review available information on drought and water resource conditions, and deliberate to determine measures to be taken to respond to any drought. Chesapeake and any future large consumptive users (i.e.,, at least 2 mgd not returned to river) may join. 4. Following consultation with the Committee, North Carolina and Virginia mayj ointly declare a critical drought in the Roanoke River Basin. In such event, Virginia Beach must take water conservation measures specified by North Carolina, which may include: • Use of all water supply sources within jurisdiction limits to the maximum extent practicable; • Use of all alternative sources that can be obtalned,consistent with good utility system practices at a cost of not more than 20% of the price charged to wheel and treat Gaston water; • Use of any emergency/conjunctive use groundwater that is practically and economically available; and • Implementation of conservation measures to reduce water demands set forth in City Code Section 37-21 (no outdoor watering, etc.). 5. If Virginia does not agree with North Carolina that there is a critical drought, North Carolina may still impose conservation measures, but none stricter than it imposes on North Carolina water supply systems currently using interbasin transfers from the Roanoke River. 6. Any party may appeal critical drought determination to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 7. Virginia and North Carolina also determine when conditions warrant modification, suspension or rescission of drought measures or when a drought has ended, with same appeal rights to Corps of Engineers. 8. If Virginia does not agree, North Carolina may still require conservation measures, but not stricter than those it imposes on North Carolina water systems currently using interbasin transfers from the Roanoke River. 9. City's proffers to FERC are retained in slightly modified form. They include: • City pays $200,00 per year, with inflation adjustment, for hydrilla control; • Lake Gaston water may not be exported outside of S.E. Va.; • Lake Gaston Pipeline limited to 60 mgd; City to use storage in Kerr reservoir for for striped bass spawning; • City to maintain an active conservation program; • City commitment to regional conservation; • No interference by City with alternative water supplies; • City will not interfere with recreational uses in Lake Gaston or Kerr Reservoir or seek special regulations, legislation or stricter discharge standards for Pea Hill. Creek, Lake Gaston or Kerr Reservoir than would apply to other similar waters in Virginia. 10. Virginia and North Carolina recognize Roanoke River is shared resource that should be cooperatively managed by the two states. 11. City's obligations are enforceable only by North Carolina or its agencies. 12. City reserves rights to challenge any other restrictions on its rights. c" = s , CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution to Adopt Procedures regarding requests made pursuant to be The Public=Private Education and Facilities Infrastructure Act of 2002 MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: The Public -Private Education and Facilities Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) became effective July 1, 2002. The Act provides that a public entity may consider proposals by private entities for qualifying projects pursuant to the PPEA. The public entity must adopt procedures that enable the public entity to comply with the PPEA. ■ Considerations: The proposed procedures are required for the City to be able to consider "Unsolicited Proposals" for qualifying projects submitted under the PPEA. The Act provides that the City may still consider "Solicited Proposals" for qualifying projects without adoption of these procedures. ■ Public Information: Adopted procedures must be made publicly available. ■ Alternatives: Do not adopt the proposed procedures, which will prohibit the submission of "Unsolicited Proposals" for qualifying projects. ■ Recommendations: Adopt procedures. ■ Attachments: Resolution and letter of May 15 to Council Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Finance PXL40vt City Manage . 1 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR 2 CONSIDERING UNSOLICITED REQUESTS 3 FROM PRIVATE ENTITIES FOR APPROVAL 4 OF QUALIFYING PROJECTS UNDER THE 5 PUBLIC -PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES 6 AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002 7 8 9 10 WHEREAS, the Public --Private Education Facilities and 11 Infrastructure Act of 2002 ("Act") has the potential, in certain 12 cases, to provide for the construction of public facilities more 13 quickly and at a lower cost; and 14 WHEREAS, for the City Council to be able to consider 15 unsolicited proposals from private entities for approval of 16 qualifying projects under the Act, procedures must be established 17 that permit the City to comply with the provisions of the Act. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 19 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 1. That, as required by Virginia Code § 56-575.16, the 21 City Council hereby adopts the "City of Virginia Beach Procedures 22 Regarding Requests Made Pursuant to the Public -Private Education 23 Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002," attached as Exhibit A, 24 as the procedures that will be followed in considering all 25 unsolicited requests from private entities for approval of 26 qualifying projects under the Act. 27 2 . That the City' s Purchasing Agent is hereby directed 28 to make these procedures publicly available, which shall include 29 posting them in Purchasing Division offices and on the City's 30 website. 31 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 32 Virginia on the 27' day of May, 2003. CA-8885 ORDIN\NONCODE\PPEARes . wpd May 22, 2003 R2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: i Finance Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: `JCity Attorn ' ' Of f i e EXHIBIT A City of Virginia Beach Procedures Regarding Requests Made Pursuant to the Public -Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on May 27, 2003 Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures Table of Contents IIntroduction ...................................................................................................p. 3 II. General Provisions..................................................... ................................... p. 3 A. Proposals ................................................ ................................................. p. 3 Be Affected Local Jurisdictions....................................................................p. 4 C. Virginia Freedom of Information Act......................................................p. 4 D. Use of Public Funds.................................................................................p. 5 E. Applicability of Other Laws ............. ...................................................... p. 5 III. Solicited Bid/Proposals..................................................................................p. 5 IV Unsolicited Proposals............................................................... ..................... p. 5 A Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice .............p. 6 Be Contents of Initial Submission.................................................................p. 6 C. Review Fees.............................................................................................p. 7 D. Initial Review at the Conceptual Stage . ............................................ ..... p. 7 E. Format for Submissions at the Conceptual Stage ................................. ..p. S F. Format for Submissions at the Detailed Stage.........................................p. 10 V. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria ............ ...................................... p. 12 A. Qualifications and Experience ............................ ................ ................... p. 12 Be Project Characteristics .............................................. .............................. p. 12 C. Project Financing .......................................... ....................................... .. p. 13 D. Project Benefit and Compatibility...........................................................p. 13 VI Comprehensive Agreement... some 0.00.0 ..*boom oo**.e oft ... 0.06-spe 14 -2- Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures I. INTRODUCTION The Public -Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, Va. Code Ann. § § 5 6-5 75.1 to -5 75.16 (LNMB Supp. 2002) (the "PPEA"), grants a public entity the authority to create public -private partnerslups for the development of a wide range of projects for public use ("qualifying projects") if the public entity determines that there is a need for a project and that private involvement may provide the project to the public in a timely or cost --effective fashion. The definition of "public entity" 1n § 56-575.1 of the PPEA includes, inter alia, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth. Section 56-575.16 of the PPEA provides that a public entity having the power to acquire, design, construct, improve, renovate, expand, equip, maintain, or operate a qualifying project (a "responsible public entity") may not consider any unsolicited proposal by a private entity for approval of the qualifying project pursuant to the PPEA until the responsible public entity has adopted and made publicly available procedures that are sufficient to enable the responsible public entity to comply with the PPEA. Accordingly, these procedures (the "Procedures") have been adopted by the City Council (the "Council") as the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach (the "City "). II. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Pr orals 1. Pursuant to Section 56-575.4 of the PPEA, a proposal to provide a qualifying project to a responsible public entity may be either solicited from private entitles by the public entity (a "Solicited Bid/Proposal") or delivered to the public entity by a private entity on an unsolicited basis (an "Unsolicited Proposal"). In either case, any such proposal shall be clearly identified as a "PPEA Proposal." 2. The requirements for any particular Solicited Bid/Proposal shall be as specified in the solicitation by the City for that particular proposal and shall be consistent with all applicable provisions of the PPEA. 3. Any Unsolicited Proposal shall be submitted to the City by delivering six complete copies, together with the required initial review fee as provided below in § IV(C), to the Purchasing Agent, Department of Finance, Purchasing Division, 2388 Court Plaza Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23456. Other requirements for an Unsolicited Proposal are as set forth below in § IV. A working group may be designated by the City Manager to review and evaluate all unsolicited proposals. 4. The City may require that any proposal be clarified. Such clarification may include but is not limited to submission of additional documentation, responses to specific questions, and interviews with potential project participants. -3 Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures B. Affected Local Jurisdictions 1. The term "affected local jurisdiction" includes any county, city or town in which all or a portion of a qualifying project is located. 2. Any private entity submitting a Solicited Bid/Proposal or an Unsolicited Proposal to the City as the responsible public entity for a qualifying project must provide any other affected local jurisdiction with a copy of the proposal by certified mail, express delivery, or hand delivery within five (5) business days of submission of the proposal to the City. Any such other affected local jurisdiction shall have 60 days from the date it receives its copy of the proposal to submit written comments to the City and to indicate whether the proposed qualifying project is compatible with the affected local jurisdiction's local comprehensive plan, local infrastructure development plans, capital improvements budget, or other government spending plan. The City will consider comments received within the 60-day period prior to entering into a comprehensive agreement pursuant to the PPEA regarding the proposal. However, the City may begin or continue its evaluation of any such proposal during the 60-day period for the receipt of comments from affected local jurisdictions. C. Virginia Freedom of Information Act 1. Any confidential and proprietary information provided to a responsible public entity by a private entity pursuant to the PPEA shall be subject to disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") except as provided by § 56-575.4(G) of the PPEA. 2. To prevent the release of any confidential and proprietary information that otherwise could be held in confidence pursuant to § 56-575.4(G) of the PPEA, the private entity submitting the information must (i) invoke the exclusion from FOIA when the data or materials are submitted to the City or before such submission, (ii) identify the data and materials for which protection from disclosure is sought, and (iii) state why the exclusion from disclosure is necessary. A private entity may request and receive a determination from the City as to the anticipated scope of protection prior to submitting the proposal. The City is authorized and obligated to protect only confidential proprietary information, and thus will not protect any portion of a proposal from disclosure if the entire proposal has been designated confidential by the private entity without reasonably differentiating between the proprietary and non-proprietary information contained therein. 3. Upon receipt of a request from a private entity that designated portions of a proposal be protected from disclosure as confidential and proprietary, the City will determine whether such protection is appropriate under applicable law and, if appropriate, the scope of such appropriate protection, and shall communicate its determination to the private entity. If the determination regarding protection or the scope thereof differs from the private entity's request, then the City will accord the private -4- Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures entity a reasonably opportunity to clarify and justify its request. Upon a final determination by the City to accord less protection than requested by the private entity, the private entity will be given an opportunity to withdraw its proposal. A proposal so withdrawn will be treated in the same manner as a proposal not accepted for publication and conceptual -phase consideration as provided below in § N(A)(1). D. Use of Public Funds Virginia constitutional and statutory requirements as they apply to appropriation and expenditure of public funds apply to any comprehensive agreement entered into under the PPEA. Accordingly, the processes and procedural requirements associated with the expenditure or obligation of public funds shall be incorporated into planning for any PPEA project or projects. E. Applicability of Other Laws Nothing in the PPEA shall affect the duty of the City to comply with all other applicable law not in conflict with the PPEA. The applicability of the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "VPPA") is as set forth in the PPEA. III. SOLICITED BIDIPROPOSALS The procedures applicable to any particular Solicited Bid/Proposal shall be specified in the solicitation for that proposal and shall be consistent with the requirements of the PPEA and any other applicable law. All such solicitations shall be by issuance of a written Invitation to Bid ("IFB") or Request for Proposal ("RFP") within the meaning of those terms as used in the City of Virginia Beach Procurement ordinance. Any proposal submitted pursuant to the PPEA that is not received in response to an IFB or RFP shall be an Unsolicited Proposal under these procedures. Such Unsolicited Proposals include but are not limited to (a) proposals received in response to a notice of the prior receipt of another Unsolicited Proposal as required by the PPEA and provided for below in § IV(A)(2) and (b) proposals received in response to publicity by the City concerning particular needs when the City has not issued a corresponding IFB or RFP, even if the City otherwise has encouraged the submission of proposals pursuant to the PPEA that address those needs. IV. UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS The process for evaluating an Unsolicited Proposal, described in detail below, consists of four steps. Briefly summarized, upon receipt of an Unsolicited Proposal the City 's first step will be to determine whether to accept it for consideration at the conceptual stage. If so, then in step two the City will give public notice of the Unsolicited Proposal, and allow for submission of other competing proposals. In step -s- Public -Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures three the City will proceed with a review at the conceptual stage of the original Unsolicited Proposal and/or any proposal received in response to the public notice and accepted for consideration at the conceptual stage. Step four is an in --depth review at the detailed stage of the original Unsolicited Proposal and/or any proposal received in response to the public notice and accepted for consideration at the detailed stage. The City shall be afforded sufficient time as it deems necessary for complete review and evaluation of all proposals submitted; proposals shall remain valid and not revised, other than by the stated procedure, during this period. However, the City may, at its sole discretion, discontinue its evaluation of any proposal at any time Furthermore, if the City determines that it is in the City 's interest to do so with respect to any Unsolicited Proposal, the City may eliminate review at the conceptual stage and proceed directly to a review at the detailed stage. A. Decision to Acce t and Consider Unsolicited Pro osal• Notice 1. Upon receipt from a private entity of any Unsolicited Proposal accompanied by payment of any required fees, the City will determine whether to accept the Unsolicited Proposal for publication and conceptual -phase consideration, as described below. If the City determines not to accept the proposal at this stage, it will return the proposal and the accompanying initial review fee to the private entity. 2. If the City chooses to accept an Unsolicited Proposal for conceptual -phase consideration, it shall give public notice of the proposal in accordance with the PPEA and shall specify a period of time not less than 45 days during which it will receive competing Unsolicited Proposals pursuant to § 56-575.4(A) of the PPEA. Although not required by the PPEA, at the discretion of the City such notice may be given consistent with the requirements for public notice as set forth in the Virginia Beach City Procurement ordinance. During the 45-day period for receiving competing Unsolicited Proposals, the City may continue to evaluate the original Unsolicited Proposal. B. Contents of Initial Submission 1. An Unsolicited Proposal must contain information on the private entity's qualifications and experience, project characteristics, project financing, anticipated public reaction, and project benefit and compatibility. The information should be adequate to enable the City to evaluate the practicality and sufficiency of the proposal. The private entity may request that the City consider a two-step proposal process, consisting of an initial conceptual submission to be followed by a more detailed submission. 2. Unsolicited Proposals should provide a concise description of the private entity's capability to complete the proposed qualifying project and the benefits to be derived from the project by the City. Project benefits to be considered may occur during the construction, renovation, expansion or improvement phase and during the life -6- Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures cycle of the project. Proposals also should include a comprehensive scope of work and a financial plan for the project, containing enough detail to allow an analysis by the City of the financial feasibility of the proposed project, including but not limited to (a) the identity of any parties expected to provide financing for the project and (b) a statement indicating whether the private entity intends to request the City to provide resources for financing the project and the nature and extent of any such resources. The scope of work shall be of sufficient detail to identify the level of quality of the project commensurate with recognized design standards or by project qualities established or prescribed by the City of Virginia Beach for a given project. 3. The City may require additional submissions to clarify information previously provided or to address other areas of concern to the City. C. Review Fees 1. A review fee will be charged a private entity submitting an Unsolicited Proposal to the City, to cover the City 's costs of processing, reviewing, and evaluating the proposal, including the cost to compare it to any competing proposals. Such costs include but are not limited to City staff time, the cost of any materials or supplies expended, and the cost of any outside advisors or consultants, including but not limited to attorneys, consultants, and financial advisors, used by the City in its sole discretion to assist in processing, reviewing, or evaluating the proposal. Such fees generally shall be in the amount necessary to completely cover all of the City 's costs. 2. Such fees shall be imposed based on the reasonably anticipated costs to the City in accordance with the following schedule: a Initial fee. Payment of an initial fee must accompany the submission of the Unsolicited Proposal to the City in order for the City to proceed with its review. The initial fee shall be one percent (I%) of the reasonably anticipated total cost of the proposed qualifying project, but shall be no less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000, regardless of the anticipated total cost. b. Additional fees. Additional fees shall be imposed on and paid by the private entity throughout the processing, review, and evaluation of the Unsolicited Proposal if and as the City reasonably anticipates incurring costs in excess of the initial fee paid by the private entity. The City will notify the private entity of the amount of such additional fees as and when it anticipates incurring such costs. Prompt payment of such additional fees is required before the City will continue to process, review, and evaluate the proposal. C. Reimbursement of excess fees paid. In the event the total fees paid by the private entity exceed the City 's total costs incurred in processing, reviewing, and evaluating the proposal, the City shall reimburse the difference. Otherwise, the City shall retain all fees paid. -7- Public -Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act o. f 2002 Procedures D. Initial Review at the Conceptual Sta e 1. Only proposals complying with the requirements of the PPEA and these Procedures that contain sufficient information for a meaningful evaluation and that are provided in an appropriate format, as described below, will be considered by the City for further review at the conceptual stage. 2. The City will determine at this initial stage of review whether it will proceed using procurement through competitive sealed bidding as defined in the VPPA or procedures developed by the City that are consistent with procurement of other than professional services through competitive negotiation as defined in the VPPA. 3. After reviewing an Unsolicited Proposal and any competing Unsolicited Proposals submitted during the notice period, the City may determine (a) not to proceed further with any proposal, (b) to proceed to the detailed phase of review with the ongxnal proposal, (c) to proceed to the detailed phase with a competing proposal, or (d) to proceed to the detailed phase with multiple proposals. At all times the City retains the right to reject any proposal at any time for any reason whatsoever. E. Format for Submissions at the Conceptual State Unsolicited Proposals at the conceptual stage shall contain the following information in the following format, plus such additional information as the City may request: 1. Qualification and Experience a. Identify the legal structure of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal. Identify the organizational structure for the project, the management approach and how each partner and major subcontractor in the structure fits into the overall team. b. Describe the experience of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal and the key principals involved in the proposed project including experience with projects of comparable size, value, quality and complexity. Describe the length of time in business, business experience, public sector experience and other engagements of the firm or consortium of firms. Include the identity of any firms that will provide design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties and a description of such guarantees and warranties. Provide resumes of the key individuals who will be involved in the project. C. Provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons within the firm or consortium of firms who may be contacted for further information. -8- Public -Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures d. Provide a current or most recently audited financial statement of the firm or firms and each partner with an equity interest of twenty percent or greater. e. Identify any persons known to the private entity who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, Chapter 31 (§ 2.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2. 2. Project Characteristics a. Provide a description of the project, including the conceptual design. Describe the proposed project in sufficient detail so that type, quality, value and intent of the project, the location, preliminary value of the land necessary to be acquired, and the communities that may be affected are clearly identified. b. Identify and fully descnbe any work to be performed by the City or any other public entity. C. Include a list of all federal, state and local permits and approvals required for the project and a schedule for obtaining such permits and approvals d. Identify any anticipated adverse social, economic and environmental impacts of the project. Specify the strategies or actions to mitigate known impacts of the project. e. Identify the projected positive social, economic and environmental impacts of the project. f. Identify the proposed schedule for the work on the project, including the estimated time for completion. g. Propose allocation of risk and liability for work completed beyond the agreement's completion date, and assurances for timely completion of the project. h. State assumptions related to ownership, legal liability, law enforcement and operation of the project and the existence of any restrictions on the public entity's use of the project. i. Provide information relative to phased or partial openings of the proposed project prior to completion of the entire work. -9- Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures J . Describe any architectural, building, engineering, or other applicable standards that the proposed project will meet. Define applicable quality standards to be adhered to for achieving the desired product outcome(s). 3. Project Financing a. Provide a preliminary estimate and estimating methodology of the cost of the work by phase, segment, or both. b. Submit a plan for the development, financing and operation of the project showing the anticipated schedule on which funds will be required. Describe the anticipated costs of and proposed sources and uses for such funds. C. Include a list and discussion of assumptions underlying all major elements of the plan. d. Identify all anticipated risk factors and methods for dealing with these factors. e. Identify any local, state or federal resources that the private entity contemplates requesting for the project. Describe the total commitment, if any, expected from governmental sources (and identify each such source) and the timing of any anticipated commitment. f. Identify any third parties that the private entity contemplates will provide financing for the project and describe the nature and timing of each such commitment. 4. Project Benefit and Compatibility a. Describe the anticipated benefits to the community, region or state, including anticipated benefits to the economic condition of the City, and identify who will benefit from the project and how they will benefit. b. Identify any anticipated public support or opposition, as well as any anticipated government support or opposition, for the project. C. Explain the strategy and plans that will be carved out to involve and inform the general public, business community, and governmental agencies in areas affected by the project. d. Explain whether and, if so, how the project is critical to attracting or maintaining competitive industries and businesses to the City or the surrounding region. Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures e. Explain whether and, if so, how the project is compatible with the City 's comprehensive plan, infrastructure development plans, capital improvements budget, or other government spending plan. f. Explain how quality standards of the project will be satisfied in comparison with the qualities anticipated or proposed by the City of Virginia Beach for the project. F. Format for Submissions at the Detailed Stage If the City decides to proceed to the detailed phase of review with one or more Unsolicited Proposals, then the following information must be provided by the private entity unless waived by the City: 1. A topographical map (1:2,000 or other appropriate scale) depicting the location of the proposed project. 2. A list of public utility facilities, if any, that will be crossed by the qualifying project and a statement of the plans of the private entity to accommodate such crossings. 3. A statement and strategy setting out the plans for securing all necessary property. The statement must include the names and addresses, if known, of the current owners of the subject property as well as a list of any property the private entity intends to request the public entity to condemn. 4. A detailed listing of all firms that will provide specific design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties, and a brief description of such guarantees and warranties. 5. A total life -cycle cost specifying methodology and assumptions of the project or projects and the proposed project start date. Include anticipated commitment of all parties; equity, debt, and other financing mechanisms; and a schedule of project revenues and project costs. The life -cycle cost analysis should include, but not be limited to, a detailed analysis of the projected return, rate of return, or both, expected useful life of facility and estimated annual operating expenses. 6. A detailed discussion of assumptions about user fees or rates, and usage of the projects. 7. Identification of any known government support or opposition, or general public support or opposition for the project. Government or public support should be demonstrated through resolution of official bodies, minutes of meetings, letters, or other official communications. -11- Public -Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 8. Demonstration of consistency with appropriate local comprehensive or infrastructure development plans or indication of the steps required for acceptance into such plans. 9. Sufficient design and engineering detail to establish floor plans, elevations, and site characteristics. 10. Explanation of how the proposed project would impact local development plans of each affected local jurisdiction. 11. Identification of any known conflicts of interest or other limitations that may impact the City 's consideration of the proposal, including the identification of any persons known to the private entity who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, Chapter 31 (§ 2.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2. 12. Detailed analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed project, including its impact on similar facilities operated or planned by the City. Include a detailed description of any financing plan proposed for the project, a comparison of that plan with financing alternatives that may be available to the City, and all underlying data supporting any conclusions reached in the analysis or the selection by the private entity of the financing plan proposed for the project. 13. Additional material and information as the City may request. V. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA Some or all of the following matters may be considered in the evaluation and selection of PPEA proposals. However, the City retains the right at all times to reject any proposal at any time for any reason whatsoever. A. Qualifications and Exper41 ience Factors to be considered in either phase of the City's review to determine whether the private entity possesses the requisite qualifications and experience may include but are not necessarily limited to: 1. Experience with similar projects of comparable scope & value; 2. Demonstration of ability to perform work at the appropriate level of quality standards; 3. Leadership structure; -12- Public -Private Educational Facilides and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 4. Proj ect manager's experience; 5. Management approach; 6. Financial condition; and 7. Proj ect ownership. B. Project Characteristics Factors to be considered in determining the project characteristics may include but are not necessarily limited to: 1. Proj ect definition; 2. Proposed project schedule; 3. Operation of the project; 4. Technology; technical feasibility; 5. Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards; 6. Environmental impacts; 7. Condemnation impacts; 8. State and local permits; and 9. Maintenance of the project. 10. Quality standards to meet proposed project quality. C. Pro'ect Financin Factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed project financing allows adequate access to the necessary capital to finance the project may include but are not necessarily limited to: 1. Cost and cost benefit to the City; 2. Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden of the City; 3. Financial plan; -I3- Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 4. Estimated cost; 5. Life -cycle cost analysis; and 6. The identity of any third party that will provide financing for the project and the nature and timing of their commitment. 7. Comparable costs of other project delivery methods. D. Project Benefit and Compatibili Factors to be considered in determining the proposed project's compatibility with the appropriate local or regional comprehensive or development plans may include but are not necessarily limited to: 1. Community benefits; 2. Community support or opposition, or both; 3. Public involvement strategy; 4. Compatibility with existing and planned facilities; and 5. Compatibility with local, regional, and state economic development efforts. 6. Fiscal impact to the City of Virginia Beach in terms of revenues and expenditures. 7. Economic output of the project in terms of jobs and total economic impact on the local economy. VI. COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT Prior to acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, renovating, expanding, equipping, maintaining, or operating any qualifying project, a selected private entity shall enter into a comprehensive agreement with the City as provided by the PPEA. Any such comprehensive agreement, and any amendment thereto, must be approved by the City Council before it is entered into on behalf of the City. As provided by the PPEA, the terms of the comprehensive agreement shall include but not be limited to: -14- Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures 1. Delivery of maintenance, performance and payment bonds or letters of credit in connection with any acquisition, design, construction, improvement, renovation, expansion, equipping, maintenance, or operation of the qualifying project, in the forms and amounts satisfactory to the City; 2. Review and approval of plans and specifications for the qualifying project by the City; 3. The right of the City to inspect the qualifying project; 4. Maintenance of a policy or policies of liability insurance or self- insurance in from and amount satisfactory to the City and reasonably sufficient to insure coverage of tort liability to the public and employees and to enable the continued operation of the qualifying project; 5. Monitoring of the practices of the operator by the City to ensure proper maintenance; 6. Reimbursement to be paid to the City for services provided by the City; 7. Filing by the operator of appropriate financial statements on a periodic basis; S. Policies and procedures governing the rights and responsibilities of the City and the operator in the event that the comprehensive agreement is terminated or there is a material default by the operator, including the conditions governing assumption of the duties and responsibilities of the operator by the City and the transfer or purchase of property or other interests of the operator by the City; 9. Providing for such user fees, lease payments, or service payments, if any, as may be established from time to time by agreement of the parties, which shall be the same for persons using the facilities under like conditions and shall not materially discourage use of the qualifying project. Classifications according to reasonable categories for assessment of user fees may be made. 10. Requiring a copy of any service contract to be filed with the City and providing that a schedule of the current user fees or lease payments shall be made available by the operator to any member of the public upon request. 11. The terms and conditions under which the responsible public entity may contribute financial resources, if any, for the qualifying project; and 12. Any other provisions required by applicable law. -15- Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructures Act of 2002 Procedures Any changes in the terms of the comprehensive agreement as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time shall be added to the comprehensive agreement only by written amendment. vII. CONFLICT In the event of any conflict between these provisions and the PPEA, the terms of the PPEA shall control. -16- City- of Virgirzia Beach S OF 0UR NA�1�N'S OFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER (757) 427-4242 FAX (757) 427-5626 TDD (757) 427-4305 May 15, 2003 The Honorable Mayor City Councilmembers Dear Councilmembers: MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456-9001 On Tuesday, May 13, 2003 City Council received a briefing from staff on the Public -Private Education Facilities and infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) . At the meeting, Council gave staff direction to proceed with preparation of the required procedures necessary for consideration and approval of any quay 'ng project pursuant to the requirements of the PPEA. These proposed procedures are attached for your consideration and approval. Members of Council asked about the proposed review fees included in the procedures. The proposed initial review fee has been reduced to one percent (1%) of the proposed project value, with a n n.i.mum required fee of $2,500 and a maximum initial fee of $25,000. I hope this information is of assistance to you, and of course, please contact me or Patti Phillips at 427- 4681 if you have further questions. We will tentatively schedule this item for your May 27, 2003 regular agenda. Sincerely, /4 es K. Spore ity Manager JKS:PP:bsd Attachments C \Documents and Setnnxs\dcoUws\Local Settrnxs\Temp\GWViewer\PPFA Procedures Letter 051503 doc K. PLANNING 1. Application of NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re a freestanding church at 3308 Continental Street. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE MALL) 2. Application of SENTARA VIRGI1vIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL for a Conditional Use Permit re a hospital patient tower and emergency department addition at 1060 First Colonial Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) 3. Application of CAVALIER GOLF &YACHT CLUB for a Condatzonal Use Permit re marina expansion from 77 to 92 slips at 1052 Cardinal Road. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) 4. Application of K & E, L.L.C. for a MODIFICATION of a Conditional Rezoning (approved by City Council on December 7, 1999), to modify the proposed architecture of the dairy retail facility and eliminate the previously proposed retail center at 5102 Princess Anne Road. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) 5. Application of LINDA H. DANIEL for the enlargement of a nonconforming use re an addition for a washer and dryer to the eastern side of a duplex at 210 79th Street. (DISTRICT 5 — L AVEN) 6. Ordinance to AMEND the Crty's Comprehensive Plan re the Master Transportation plan: a. ADD a portion of Nimmo Parkway (formerly Ferrell) from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road and the removal of a portion of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road to the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way. b. ADOPT the alignment for improvements to Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road. . Ar A" . 1 T TY 7 7 V • T1 • Adpm% Iff 009 WN Is f�1If313'�f� R-7c 5 Gpin: see applicaton ZONING HISTORY 1. 03/11/68- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (family billiards) —Granted 2. 05/12/69 —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (live entertainment) —Granted 3 04/15/85 —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto repair) —Granted 4. 03/28/60 —REZONING — RS-4 Residential Single Family to RM Residential Multifamiy -Granted M �x firrY1+l d * % r4.W%v,W CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: New Fellowship Baptist Church — Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of New Fellowship Baptist Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 3308 Continental Street (GPIN 1487828654). DISTRICT 3 —ROSE HALL The purpose of this request is to establish the existing church as a legal use on this site. N Considerations: There is a 2,500 square foot one-story building on the site and pavement area that is not marked for parking No alterations to the existing site are planned. The church is requesting to establish itself as a legal use on this site On March 11, 1968, a Conditional Use Permit for a billiards center was approved on the subject site. The building was later sold to a church that operated at the site for a number of years without a Conditional Use Permit The current church bought the building from the previous church and did not know that a Conditional Use Permit was needed until recently The request for a freestanding church at this location is acceptable Staff has noted that the 8,700 square foot site is significantly less than the three -acre site size required by the City Zoning Ordinance for freestanding churches, however, this use has been established on the site for a number of years and has had no known negative impact on the surrounding properties There is no permanent staff on the site. Members use the church only occasionally during the week and for Sunday services The church does not operate during the peak hours for the commercial uses that are located to the north and west of the site. There is an existing six-foot wooden fence on the eastern property line that separates the apartment complex from the church site. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an existing use and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the proposal New Fellowship Page 2 of 2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 1 0-o to approve this request with the following condition - The asphalt area on -site shall be marked for standard parking spaces, with at least one van accessible handicap space marked. ■ 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: �� NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH / #5 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G07-210- CUP-2003 REQUEST: ADDRESS: GPIN: Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing church 3308 Continental Street Gpzn: see appl:caton 14878286540000 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH I # 5 Page 1 April 9, 2003 ,��'�►N�"hE,�cfr a OV■ M�� a� Y] ELECTION DISTRICT: 3 — ROSE HALL SITE SIZE: 8,700 square feet STAFF PLANNER: Barbara Duke PURPOSE: To establish the existing church as a legal use on this site Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinci Land Use and Zoning There is a 2,500 square foot one-story building on the site and pavement area that is not marked for parking. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin North: • Commercial Uses / B-2 Community Business District South: . Church / R-7.5 Residential District East: • Apartment Complex / A-18 Apartment District (Nest: . Auto Repair and Taxi Business / B-2 Community Business District Zoning History On 03/11/68, a Conditional Use Permit for a billiards center was approved on the subject site. The building was later sold to a church that operated at the site for a Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH / # 5 Page 2 number of years without a Conditional Use Permit for the church operation being granted. The current church bought the building from the previous church and did not know that a Conditional Use Permit was needed until recently. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer City water and sewer currently serve the building on the site. Transportation The traffic generated at this site for the church use is less than what would be generated were the site developed with a commercial use allowed by -right in the B-2 Business zoning district. Public Safely Police: Not reviewed Fire and Adequate — no further comments. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a small commercial node serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses in this area should strive to eliminate negative impacts on the community. Summary of Proposal Proposal • There is an existing 2,500 square foot one-story building on the site as well as asphalt paved areas in front of the building and behind the building. The site Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH / # 5 Page 3 .ems :� �+ c M Mir w� �� "t is totally impervious with the only green space being around the free-standing sign for the church. • No alterations to the existing site are planned. The church is simply asking to establish itself as a legal use on this site. Evaluation of Request The request for a freestanding church at this location is acceptable. Staff has noted that the 8,700 square foot site is significantly less than the three -acre site size required by the City Zoning Ordinance for freestanding churches; however, this use has been established on the site for a number of years and has had no known negative impact on the surrounding properties. There is no permanent staff on the site. Members use the church only occasionally during the week and for Sunday services. The church does not operate during the peak hours for the commercial uses that are located to the north and west of the site. There is an existing six-foot wooden fence on the eastern property line that separates the apartment complex from the church site. It is recommended that the Conditional Use Permit for the church be approved with the following condition. Condition 1. The asphalt area on -site shall be marked for standard parking spaces, with at least one van accessible handicap space marked. 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 224(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH 1 # 5 Page 4 N Iq ze 6` vov LPX FEMCZ 012 PARCEL S 43 a iq Pip �x I NCO' fSOE 50'00* PARCEL 8 v.24 I .01 .6' UW FEN .� ASPHALT PARKING mMffF PHYSICAL SURVEY CO TNTAL STREET (507 tir u . �Ntin BBC Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH 1 # 5 Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH 1 # 5 Page 6 { h 4APPLICATION PAGE 4 0F CQ f ITION AL USE P ER M-ITCrrY OF VIRGMA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: _ - List All Current Property Owners: 4 t PROPERTY OWNER DtsuosORE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Attach list if necessary) -!&.U) 96VI-w l-'am,05 -ra, or, MC r; 0 tW-A A-U If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRMT , or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hit, all members or partners w the organization below (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization I, f the appd eml :s not the current owner o, f the propertj1 complete the Applicant .DtscLosure sectzon below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Arlach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UN : CORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list al, members or partners in the organization below (Attach list rf necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, .funs, or other unincorporated o gmuzation CERTIFIC kTION I cert�, fy that the information c tained herein ' true and accurate. x 1 igna re Print Name Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 NEW FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH 1 # 5 Page 7 Item #5 New Fellowship Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit 3308 Continental Street District 3 Rose Hall April 9, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The second item will be New Fellowship Baptist Church. It's an Ordinance upon Application of New Fellowship Baptist Church for a Use Permit for a Church at 3308 Continental Street in the Rose Hall District. There are two conditions on this application. Another one has been added. Have you read both conditions? Tara Davis: I only see one condition. No area in the asphalt area shall be marked. Dorothy Wood. Would you please read the second condition. Tara Davis: The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to a bi-annual administrative issue reviewed by Zoning. Dorothy Wood: Would you please state your name? Tara Davis • Tara Davis. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ms. Davis. Pastor J L. Amos: I'm Pastor Amos. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry, your name? Pastor J.L. Amos: I'm Pastor J.L. Amos. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Thank you. Is there any opposition to this consent item for the New Fellowship Baptist Church in the Rose Hall District? Hearing none. Thank you. Pastor J.L. Amos: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Gene, would you please comment on this before we go to the next item? Gene Crabtree: The New Fellowship Baptist Church, we felt like once again that it was compatible with the neighborhood and the use of the neighborhood. Even though it is not on a site that normally would be large enough for a free standing church We think that in this area and the fact that it serves the apartments that are adjacent to this that it is a good site for it. It has been operating for some years as a church even though they did Item #5 New Fellowship Baptist Church Page 2 not realize they had to have a permit to do so, we just feel like it will be an addition to the neighborhood and it won't impact on any of the surrounding businesses, etc. And, it is secluded from the other sites around the businesses and the apartments by a six-foot wooden fence so there won't be any impact on the neighborhood whatsoever from there. Therefore, we felt it was a simple item for consent. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Gene. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda, number five, the New Fellowship Baptist Church with two conditions. I'd like to move to approve this item. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion made to approve the items read. Do I have a second? Seconded by Don Horsley. Any discussion9 Ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE" STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT I Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT AA,v4-% 1 C A�v 1w re • • art v Arm% if 'Ir: Map NottoScale aenrara vzrzznza neaen tsenerat ziosmrat PEA wr A ' �•-- � i � i t ■ �� Gp:n 2408-63 3987 ZONING HISTORY 1. 10/15/-84- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Hospital Expansion) -Granted 08/10/87 —REZONING — R-4 Residential District to 0-2 Office District — Granted 2. 10/15/84 —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Nursing Home) —Granted 3. 09/23/97 —REZONING — 0-2 Office District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District —Granted 4. 09/08/92 —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Nursing Home) —Granted 5. 03/12/84 —REZONING — R-4 Residential District to 0-2 Office District — Granted 6. 03/09/87 —REZONING — A-2 Apartment District to 0-2 Office District - Granted L`r iA �L � r � 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital -- Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital for a Conditional Use Permit for a hospital on property located at 1060 First Colonial Road (GPIN 2408633987) DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN A master plan has been submitted showing six building projects as well as some parking reconfiguration and entrance relocations. The projects will be phased in over the next five to ten years The Patient Tower addition and the Emergency Department addition are included in the first phase of improvements. The Patient Tower addition will increase the number of private rooms available for general medical and surgical patients The total number of beds the hospital is licensed for, 274, will not change ■ Considerations: Most of the improvements shown on the master plan are additions to the main structure. The two largest additions, the Patient Tower at the front entrance of the hospital and the expansion of the Emergency Department, will be constructed as Phase One of the master plan. The new Patient Tower addition will be 62 feet in height, which is only slightly higher than the existing building. The Patient Tower addition will not extend past the existing front facade of the hospital The addition will provide the needed space to convert patient rooms to all private. The total licensed bed count (274) will not change. The Patient Tower addition will include 100,000 square feet of added space as well as renovation of approximately 22,000 square feet within the existing building The Emergency Department will be expanded to provide for a more efficient layout and increased number of exam areas The initial addition will be one story and will contain 11,000 square feet. The building additions will be improvements to the existing main building and will be compatible in terms of aesthetics. Sentara Page 2 of 2 The Health Education Building will be demolished for future additional parking on the south of the campus The training functions will move to existing space in the hospital's north wing, vacated when the new patient tower is complete Staff recommended approval There was no opposition to the request ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions- 1 In addition to submission of building plans as required by City Code for permitting, the architectural elevations for all building additions shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval of exterior building design and materials 2. Foundation landscaping shall be provided on the detailed site plan for all building additions facing a public right-of-way 3. This Conditional Use Permit is for the additions and modifications as depicted on the "Master Site Plan — Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital," submitted with the application and on file with the Department of Planning ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval Submitting DepartmentlAgency: City Manager: r % Planning Department +� SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAU # 3 1 April 9, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: J05-210-CUP-2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a hospital ADDRESS: 1060 First Colonial Road Mai Map Not to Scale Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital i, ''��'~��7«I� ' � 1 � �i�'•ti l� y1 w r . •r ��3�L��_ �:�� 1� �� IL v, / S Gp:n 2408-63-3987 G PI N : 24086339870000 ELECTION DISTRICT; 5 — LYN N HAVEN o L 4 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAU # 3 *"'''-• Page 1 SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 29 acres Barbara Duke PURPOSE: A master plan has been submitted showing six building projects as well as some parking reconfiguration and entrance relocations. The projects will be phased in over the next five to ten years. The Patient Tower addition and the Emergency Department addition are included in the first phase of improvements. The Patient Tower addition will increase the number of private rooms available for general medical and surgical patients. The total number of beds the hospital is licensed for, 274, will not change. Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The portion of the property containing the main hospital complex is zoned 0-2 Office District. The property east of Facilities Lane (private street) is zoned 0-2 Office District with a deed restriction recorded in Deed Book 2667 at Page 1804 which governs the development of this ten acre portion of the hospital property. The eastern parcel contains a parking area and stormwater management facility. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . Medical offices and retirement home / 0-2 Office Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 Page 2 District South: Medical offices and single family homes / 0-2 Office District and R-20 Residential District East: • Vacant property / 0-2 Office District West: Medical offices / 0-2 Office District Zoning -History The hospital use and office zoning on the western portion of the property, west of Facilities Lane, were established in the early 1960s. In 1984, a Conditional Use Permit for hospital expansion was approved on the ten acre parcel located on the east side of Facilities Lane (private street). The conditions attached to this use permit concerned height and n a landscape buffer along the southern property line. In 1987, the property east of Facilities Lane y r was rezoned from R-4 (now R-20) Residential r District to 0-2 Office District as part of a larger 38 W � acre retirement and medical office complex �.,. p proposed by Tidewater Health Care. A deed restriction governing development on the overall y 38 acre parcel was voluntarily proffered at the r x time of rezoning. The deed restriction was recorded in Deed Book 2667 at Page 1807. The deed restates the conditions of the original hospital expansion use permit as follows: 1. A 50 foot landscape buffer is required along the southern property line adjacent to Linkhorn Estates. Buildings are limited to one story in height within 200 feet of the southern property line adjacent to Linkhorn Estates. The existing parking lot and stormwater management facility located on the eastern parcel meet this requirement. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The hospital is currently served by City water and sewer. G Planning Commission Agenda%f April 9, 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 ., 0% Page 3 Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): First Colonial Road in the vicinity of this application is a four lane major urban arterial facility. There are no plans to upgrade this roadway in the current Capital Improvement Program. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use - 16,775 ADT First Colonial Road 42,951 ADT 317700 ADT 3 Proposed Land Use - 16,775 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 274 bed hospital 3 as defined by 274 bed hospital Public Safety Police: Not reviewed Fire and Adequate — no further comments. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as suitable for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers. The existing hospital use is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Proposal Proposal • There are six projects shown on the hospital master plan submitted with this request in addition to some changes to parking and entrances around the site. The construction of these projects will be phased over the next five to Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2443 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 Page 4 ten years depending on funding available. Currently, funding is available for Phase One. Phase One includes the four story Patient Tower addition fronting on First Colonial Road and the addition to the Emergency Department, which fronts on Will-O-Wisp Drive. The completion date for Phase One improvements is January 2006. Site Design • Most of the improvements shown on the master plan are additions to the main structure. The two largest additions, the Patient Tower at the front entrance of the hospital and the expansion of the Emergency Department, will be constructed as Phase One of the master plan. • There are three other smaller building additions shown on the master plan on the south and west sides of the main building. • There is a one-story existing education building located on the south side of the site, fronting on Will-O-Wisp Drive that will be demolished for additional Master Site Plan - Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital 1"= 80'-0" T�1R'i �'31i7' i171-k 3 S76d (k? 3S �� \ --.+ Public Vehicular Access 000 Major Public Pedestrian 4�=Serwce Vehicular Access }il 4m Staff Vehicular Access • 00 Major Staff Pedestrian Ambulance Vehicular Access �N1A BE,4 Planning Commission Agenda Ex��,�:, �. April 9, 2003 = ��-- SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAU # 3 ��`°•°°�-•�°°'`�� Page 5 parking near the Emergency Department. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • The additional space being added to the hospital will not significantly increase the volume of patients or visitors and therefore, additional parking is not required. A large parking project was recently completed, bringing the total number of existing spaces on the site to 1,577. • The plan shows some changes to vehicular entrances and exits around the site. The hospital is surrounded by three roadways and has entrance/exit points on all three roadways. • The main entrance/exit to the hospital is off of First Colonial Road. This entrance is located in the center of the site. There is a smaller entrance/exit point south of the main entrance on First Colonial Road that is proposed for closure in Phase 5 of the master plan. • Along Will-O-Wisp Drive, the master plan (Phase 5) shows a new entrance/exit point that will align with the main drive aisle running north/south in front of the hospital. Some reconfiguration of the parking spaces in this area will also need to be made to accommodate the access. • The Emergency Department entrance/exit points on Will-O-Wisp Drive remain unchanged. The entrance/exit points along Old Donation Parkway remain unchanged. Architectural Design • The building additions will be improvements to the existing main building and will be compatible in terms of aesthetics. • The new Patient Tower addition will be 62 feet in height, which is only slightly higher than the existing building. The Patient Tower addition will not extend past the existing front fagade of the hospital. The addition will provide the needed space to convert patient rooms to all private. The total licensed bed count (274) will not change. The Patient Tower addition will include 100,000 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 Page 6 square feet of added space as well as renovation of approximately 22,000 square feet within the existing building. • The Emergency Department will be expanded to provide for a more efficient layout and increased number of exam areas. The initial addition will be one story and will contain 11,000 square feet. • The Health Education Building will be demolished for future additional parking on the south of the campus. The training functions will move to existing space in the hospital's north wing, vacated when the new patient tower is complete. • Later phases of the plan include an operating room addition, operating suite/recovery addition, and MRI pad for the mobile MRI trailer to dock with the hospital for inpatient MRI use. Landscape and Open Space Design 0 There are no landscape improvements noted on the master plan. • Foundation landscaping will be required for all building additions facing public right-of-ways during site plan review of the detailed plans. Evaluation of Request The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a hospital is acceptable. The proposed improvements will update the hospital and will be beneficial to the community. There is no increase in the number of patient beds, therefore, no additional traffic is expected to be generated by the proposal. The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a hospital is recommended for approval with the following conditions. Conditions 1. In addition to submission of building plans as required by City Code for permitting, the architectural elevations for all building additions shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval of exterior building design and materials. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 Page 7 2. Foundation landscaping shall be provided on the detailed site plan for all building additions facing a public right-of-way. 3. This Conditional Use Permit is for the additions and modifications as depicted on the "Master Site Plan — Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital," submitted with the application and on file with the Department of Planning. (VOTE. 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 224(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 Page 8 i.r C Sc r� ■w aM M C C CL s� i9l- Tv ti r~ C «- � W t44) �r F� R � M wr -- Hsu AN Ma �x U erg,• U � a j ct^ » at 2r Y r ��"ti. �hw.+�i"`r_ .•'v+'C+r w ��]R"',„ x• r�.i, s� •.. z' - ` FAIX w�w+ U c0 Q ` � U � U C �? Q to OL m 0 4x Z O d ft ct cc z 0 0 0 • 0 0 cc Li t� L � 3 u i ZV �r � Mir 0. 0) I I Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HCSPITAU # 3 GR OY■ YY1 � Page 9 c CL aim SM Lw cx C.) •--� �- W 3i 44 CL � V Y am w r w AL •�' # a }M f w 7 c r j t+_w_''a_ /a E — 'All V -. co " ui a C uj kL .�/ CL l/=3 LU IF IF ff ! E2 wn 0 M t 7` W CD ' Ca Q I � L N C LU W U c1f) LU 09 e .co M Planning Commission Agenda LOr = ° April 9, 2003 - Y • INIA BE `y.r,� SENTARA VIR •'`� G BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 •-•° Page 10 c c FL LLM v s t 0 um ca vc trn c CD 4 n� 51 4�lYr `w C [LIJy''' CL }/ CL W vn IF IF a Q 0 ca a) CD cr x CN a. a.. man �1Aflo `s�y►i4Co�Lr Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 -� SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL/ # 3 ° •° Page 11 tr!'' me L �' i.,F �'.. A:++M'ltiii � 'v�•�y',�' � �L. . � .. .�' 4 �Y`` `�" � f�P ''� yT � � a'�,,. Yam' i a V w �� l ��t. �` �f ' �. ' � ' MF '..: t•�"R `",°�' '� _ .'� '. - � ') _ � •-'^,4{ fr iALs(/ram_ y t b R H' � P t•a 'SR Xr. _ ► -.. '�. t: � •.`air . .� *wluj z Tv ti.n ," � t e. 'fit _ bn • - - �. - ,rY' *.•r• ,. - :;a 'i . n !. Y � .-., q �' •'may Ato r� 71i • �y s f ♦ r a fk J + �r+ • d _ ^ .G�,�� '�,v ��' yn .. 's 9f' 1C -t ..'hw ' -'� _'� .,. ,,,,i/' ,� � 6- i� "'� � �,'• y,x 41 r.. 41 At Owl as 1 'rt•� ��•s .,/A'°o5 �.r�' _ �' � .,, - s;•f_. '.y ja Poll �` �✓mow . �a� � �, .��: , y �•:4 s _ � . s � .^' �� _. •. i _ � Ao AWF Al �' T x •i Y C � � �. � '� �.•`r '` _ t .moo + � �� 'ti i^upp •f .r•'"y. #fir 1,,, s � n �. y �� ' ...i* � , ^ �, .'" � �'.� �' '4r"� � ' � • ".,� � �vl�Y � � ' �, � " 't, ,;' rye or - ' .a•I-�w� FrtYF „ham' �� '; Y `o,' >>.t6 PAS...t'~,. ,:i 1' ..� «'�� i ,e -� , � � ,:v"'� � . , ai •wry •� t.. _ _ � " .. l - '�t' i . - ' '�- " ,� • �F"^'ia4Y � ea«: Y'�a � �lt-Y xa 1 `< ;.ar'' ,. ,.w�, : o± i '"F _ ',�« -,. ,�.�.^�y.: q 1 .•k F - �f� 5�.�. t� 1 `?�k�qy}�^ ��:. ii �`•. '� , �,. R`ztr` Kv ..;' -• w �' sY _ �,.^+YM _ � -v •y , ,..• � � � r . ^ � � 4 � ...!'►�• �4� »�tJ R. .� • � r 2� l"r•�� 2 Z 3_:F.� f •�" � 3�`�.�� • xi . „. � .',�'P, .--,�- :v�' i �" ��""�'r1�'.-'+�.. "" 4:�k 3'� { h �y Y ' a 7. t vvle Q►..i w K^ , . 4,IV, #' ' r.•'~xv:Y - xi ;.w ` -#^^ 3".+fOip„,t fin`iy, eY `+ ,�• w.a' 'x"�•. - .w „+'yR ■■ti - 1•. s'^w�u.=•.n't+•.�'�`�.�.ys'wa.� -.� �? �-Sy \ �: 'MU i• ". r: �`+pp�- .,f,, �x+t Y�,,p�L r + yyy 4 ,V'i : r• �a•4 'f , . !yM : .' 'y% r•_ � z � � i. _ ( �!'+r ^�'Y �Srr' 1:qp� Yam' �.., �,9 y V" �..y�`r ,•R # .�r w. �� ` - "ma's r'. Ar �• w16 '' _ '3t d1¢';,7Y °+t"'.' '�4• y . v'+• - _ N it w �+r$r`_ + 'W Y y d: y + • •' �Aw`*.. ih w a .. .�. . � �., '0j.,� r 'io''i. r y` , � �. `s � � .. "�.iiii r'1t• :• : .x Planning Commission Agenda U;/�\, April 9, 2003�-- kRA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAU 41 ` y:,°_ou: MAI Pang rr • � -_ fi rt4%C LOSURE STATEMIN ' Applicant's erne: , & List All Cent Propel owners: V Rt&kf R-0—S Pt TA--t- APPUCANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach fist if necessary) -r- -1.-or5 tjrZCYEn* If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below (Attach fist if necessary) [] Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. off the aWicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure secdon below: PROPERTY OWNFER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, gist all officers of the Corporation below - (Attach fist if necessary) .y9wr�Zo 'KEN — /�OJ3 ��2�'►��t &�Lgis-l2-�ES— If the propel owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all mernbers or partners in the organization below. (Attach fist if necessary) a check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CrmnFicAmow I that the information contained herein is true and accvmtea 7 i Claw -2 W� RAAP44 AF � wt -e � nature Print Narne Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda April 91 2003 SENTARA VIRGINIA BEACH GENERAL HOSPITAL) # 3 Page 13 Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Conditional Use Permit 1060 First Colonial Road District S Lynnhaven April 9, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #3, Sentara Virginia Beach Hospital. Ronald Ripley: Before you get started I want to say that the Commission really had no issue with your Use and what you're intending to do. We are very supportive of your expansion. Our concern, just so you can address it and maybe make your time more efficient that deals with the parking and the circulation of your site. It's just a pretty congested situation out there. We'd like for you to explain what your plan is and how you all plan to maybe alleviate some of that congestion for the public. Paul Finch: Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Finch with Paul Finch and Associates. We were working in conjunction with HDR Architectures on this project. And, I have with me June Robertson with Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital. She's Director of Emergency and Ambulatory Services, but she is also the project coordinator for Sentara for this project. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Paul Finch: To talk a little bit about parking, I guess I'd start with and to give you a quick overview of the intent of the project, Virginia Beach General right now is primarily semi private patient rooms which is not the going trend in the healthcare market place. Every one else in Tidewater has private rooms. So, the majority of this project is to create private rooms at Virginia Beach General so the project is to add 108 new rooms on the front of the hospital that basically will allow us to change to existing semi privates into privates. So, the total bed count stays the same at 274. From that point of view we did not intend on adding parking to the facility at this point. The facility added parking to the rear of the hospital in the last year and half or so which has alleviated the parking problem in the front of the hospital quite a bit. The one additional parking that we do show on our master plan, and this is the master plan that shows its work out five to ten years from now is over on the emergency room side we would like to eliminate the health education building. It's future demo building down at the bottom of the screen there. Ronald Ripley: You do have a pointer there if you like? It's a little laser pointer. Paul Finch: Figure out how to use it. This building right here is health education building that we do plan to take down in the future and have parking for the ER. But, at this point, and also this connection here in the future its not part of this project but in the Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 2 future we're looking at trying to create a cross -corridor traffic here from Will-O-Wisp up to Old Donation so there is in essence a inner loop for traffic on the campus. Right now, they have to go back out to First Colonial which is very congested so that particular project will have to go back through the City to talk about the traffic on Will-O-Wisp and the connection at First Colonial. But, we put it on here as a future project that the hospital will like to do probably in the next 5-10 years. But, at this point this piece of parking right here and this piece along with this down here, doctor's parking here, the helo-port moved to here and parking was added here. This was all done in the last year or so and if you go out now you can usually find a place to park on the campus But, this project doesn't have any plan in it for additional parking beyond that. The only other thing that I can point out is that the hospital owns this land here but also there's another, I think it's 70 some acres behind here that the hospital owns. And, what they have been doing is parking becomes congested they've been adding groupings of parking in the back that harbors 100 spaces at a time. Ronald Ripley: You all have any questions? Ms. Robertson, did you wish to say anything? June Robertson: No. I just concur and will be happy to answer questions. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We have some questions. Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: I had the concern I think on the parking and if you look at the aerial that we have and visiting various peoples there, I notice that the visitor parking is usually full. There is a lot of extra space in the physician parking usually and when we took our van ride all of this parking had a guard there. And, on the side... Paul Finch: The parking on the physician Dorothy Wood: No sir. It's over on the side. June Robertson: Off of Old Donation. Dorothy Wood: It was not open for visitors, so it looks like to me that you only have this area plus a little bit over here for visitors. Paul Finch. Well, they put a little line on that parking lot and they call it the yellow brick road. I don't know if you saw that but from this point forward is available. From this point back it's label as patient parking And, that guard is there and he will be there for another week to try to get employees to park in the back. The problem I have that they're working on right now with security is not that there's not enough visitor parking out front but they're making an effort to get the employees who are supposed to park in the back of the hospital to park in the back. And, that's where the biggest problem comes in. They slip in to the front because it's closer and it's raining and that sort of thing. So the guard is there to try to enforce that issue But, we do have that front section of that as well. It's Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 3 for patient parking. I mean, I' m not out there everyday but I think since they've added the parking out front, it's been better. June Robertson: But you can tell by the left upper visitor. That is employee parking And, as you can see, it's almost vacant because they're parking illegally. What we call illegally. And so plus we have behind that is what we refer to as the back 40. In at anytime during the day there's between 75-100 spaces for employees. So, we realize that's an internal problem that we're now having that employees are parking not where they're suppose to park and that's why they see a guard just to reiterate what Paul said. Paul Finch: And, we actually talked today. We had meetings today with the user and we talked the site issues. And, during construction we've already talked about the fact that we're only going to lose maybe ten spaces out here to change from traffic. We're going to require the contractor to do all this storage and setup on the back 40. So, we're very concerned about that and during construction we're going to make sure that we don't lose any significant amount of parking at that front. Ronald Ripley: I'm concerned and I notice that you do and the circulation that you're showing as future vehicular entrances tying two secondary roads together. It looks like a pretty good idea. Why don't you include that in your first phase to try to solve some of this parking issue? It's not going to go away. And, it seems to be immediate at least in our minds. Paul Finch: One of the reasons why we didn't include cutting through to Will-O-Wisp at this point was primarily one was funding. Because we anticipate that we if cut through there at this point the City would require us to upgrade Will-O-Wisp at least from that point out to First Colonial, which we anticipated would turn into a significant project and we were already cutting back on the project and the funding allowed for the project. Ronald Ripley: You anticipate them doing what now? Show us? Paul Finch: Will-O-Wisp Road here is a fairly small road. So, we're anticipating that when we make a cut through here to Will-O-Wisp, we're going to start bumping more traffic on Will-O-Wisp from here to First Colonial. But, there's probably going to need to be some improvements to Will-O-Wisp from this connection point out to the road just to handle the extra traffic, probably widening the road. At this point, the project budget didn't have enough money to get into changes up to First Colonial because it's primarily located at the entrance. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, is that something you think that could be phased? Did you see what he was doing? Robert Scott: Yeah. I think we have to look at that with our traffic people a little more closely. But, we would certainly be willing to work with them to see what we could do to phase it. I don't think that we're interested in requiring improvements. Number one, Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 4 they're not needed; number two that are needed but we want to do it in a timely manner. So, if phasing is the answer, we can certainly look at that with them. Ronald Ripley: Dot, did you have a question? Dorothy Wood: Most people when they leave and I know I always do when I leave Virginia Beach General parking lot, I come down the side by the emergency room, go out on Wildwood anyway. And, then take a right and go to the next street and take out the light. There are always lots of other cars doing it to so I think that your patients and your visitors are using Wildwood anyway. I don't think many people try to make a left on First Colonial unless they want to come back in. Paul Finch: We'd like to get a light there but the distance between the lights and First Colonial are already a little too close. So, it's been a problem trying to get a traffic light there. Robert Miller: Now you really blow the budget. Paul Finch. That's another 300-400 thousand dollars to put a light in. That will be the ultimate goal. Ronald Ripley: Does anybody else have any questions? Joe Strange has a question. Joseph Strange: Will this addition require you to hire a significant number of employees in addition to what you already have? June Robertson: It may require some additional employees, but again the number of patients that we're taking care of remains the same. So, if we add employees it will be because of either new technologies or because of the environment or the demographics of that particular floor where we would want more nurses so they can keep closer care to the patient. Joseph Strange: Do you have any kind of estimate as to how much that would cost? June Robertson: We would not be talking about more than, well there are three floors that will hold the patients. And, we will not be talking more than 25 FTE's or employees. Joseph Strange: In addition? June Robertson: That would be at the max 25 additional employees. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Kathy. Kathy Katsias: So the rooms that are already there that are not on three levels, they're going to be private as well? Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 5 Paul Finch: Yes. Kathy Katsias: So, all the rooms in the hospital are going to be private? Paul Finch: Yeah. I think there's maybe eight rooms that are going to stay semi private just because of keeping the bed count. But, they will be used as privates. But, this is the one north wing over here that has patient rooms, that's the physical therapy room. That's going to go away. They are moving into the new. The patient tower all the semi privates become private rooms. Kathy Katsias: All equal on every floor? Paul Finch: Yes. Ronald Ripley- Anyone else? Yes, Ed? Ed Weeden. Once again, I need the woman for the record to identify herself. Ronald Ripley: I'm sorry. June Robertson: June Robertson. Ed Weeden: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Thank you all very much. Is there anybody here in opposition to this? Okay, I'd like to open it up for discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners. Who would like to discuss this? Dorothy Wood: I have a hard time supporting. I know that we need it and I will probably vote for it but I certainly have a hard time with saying that they're not adding any parking and that the physician's parking lot will remain the same, which is not full and the visitors will still not have enough places to park. I think that's really a problem. And, when they add more square footage, they're going to have more janitorial. You have to have more support people for more space. They will need more cafeteria people to take care of the employees. I do think they need more parking. Ronald Ripley: Kathy Katsias. Kathy Katsias: I totally agree. I think the parking situation regardless of reorienting there's a definite parking problem especially you had added more parking in the out patient because now you have Oncology, Cardiology, you have OB. You have all these three rows taking care of the outpatient. And, so that has eliminated visitor parking. I see it as eliminating visitor parking. So, I definitely think there's a parking problem And, of course I support this, but I really would like to address the parking situation. Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 6 Ronald Ripley: Yes, Jan. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ron. I think the application is adequate There's an issue that everybody has about the parking but I believe they already addressed it as an internal problem. And, that they are aware of it and they're going to try to take care of it just by adding parking, if they don't monitor like they have said that they are, if you add 20 more spaces, 20 more employees can park there and you still won't have the space. So, I think they already hit it on the head to what the problem is that they have to keep the employees out of the public space and they're taking avenues to make sure that this happens. You know, it's very clear on the picture that the employee parking lot is empty and when we took our van trip we saw the same thing. So, I think they understand what the problem is and it can be fixed. They're just going to get stricter measure, to move their employees out of the public spaces. And, I think we have adequate room. Ronald Ripley: Bob Miller has a comment. Robert. Miller: I have to find out first, of all, is my firm working on the project Paul? Paul Finch: They have not hired a civil engineering firm yet. Robert Miller: Okay, then I can comment. I agree with what Jan just said. I'm glad she said it that way. I think the concerns have been clearly stated. And, Ms. Robertson, I appreciate your answer with taking care of some of those efforts. I do think the issue of the connecting road as an overall item and I think Paul is already agreeing that he sees the future solution to some other issues that go on around the maneuvering around the hospital and so forth and is certainly a big step not only to parking. A lot of the parking issue from the way I see it from being out there seems to also relate to the just operational issues of moving people around. How they're able to move through the parking lots and get stuck in dead ends and things like that and I think you all are very aware. So, I think what Jan said was exactly right and that is you are all handling it but we're really sensitized to it because we are the users. We're the one's going out there using the facilities and I know both these ladies have spoken exactly the way they feel about it with regards to having to go out there and being in and out of the hospital. So, thank you. It's a great project. Ronald Ripley- To me, that's the issue too. It's just managing the allocation of the parking lot and I think you've gotten the message It's not the first time you've heard it I'm sure. I would like to see though and I would really like to see this connection put in. And, I'd like to see sort of a date certain. I know that its going to happen. Perhaps, and first I was thinking put it around the front phase and I would prefer to see that but at the very least, I'd like to see it go in within 12 months or so after the completion of the first phase. I think you' d be wise to put it in on the first phase. You'd find a way to get it in there. I think it would solve a lot of the issues that we're talking about here because we had to do exactly as you described. We had to go out onto First Colonial, come back around and it was just the same way. It's dangerous. It's a little more dangerous for your Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 7 customers and patients and doctors and employees. So, I would like see a additional item added to the conditional, a conditional condition added where by, I think you called it future addition number five dealing with the vehicle circulation be installed within 24 months of the completion of the first phase. And, that's what I like to see, if there's a motion from the Board. So, we have a motion to approve the application? I'm sorry. Did someone else need to speak? Donald Horsley: I would just like to hear this reaction to this condition. Ronald Ripley- Okay that would be fair. Please, come back up. Paul Finch: I would think that if we could limit the amount of construction to being on campus without getting into widening Will-O-Wisp and what not, I'll take it back to the money committee and see if we could do it. So, I would think if we could do it there without spending another half million dollars on Will-O•-Wisp Road then we could probably fit it into the project. So, I would agree with a condition to add a connection through on the site if we could get that through the City. I don't know if we could do that. Ronald Ripley. I don't know if we could limit the City to that extent because Mr. Scott's department is going to have to look at it and make decisions that is beyond our control. We're simply making land use recommendations. But, we can make sure he can take the message back and try to work with it. Robert Scott- I'm anxious to look at it but with much cooperation as we can, you know, sticking to our standards and so forth. But, understanding also what the challenge is. Ronald Ripley: Sure. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Yeah. I'm concerned with a couple of things. One is that we do not know by predicting what has to be done the total impact that this may be in. Paul mentioned the traffic signal and my sincere belief is that at some point on Will--O-Wisp, if nothing else there will probably be even though the distances are not right, we're becoming a more urbanized city and this is one of those corridors which is acting very urban out of no respects. And, I don't want to see. I think those kind of financial burdens take totally on the hospital. There are others that are affected by it. But, I think the ideas a good one. And, I'm not disagreeing with you Mr. Chairman, I think the idea of it and that is what I said before but, I do not like identifying something to be done within a time frame that we have no way in the world of controlling the budget on it. That half a million dollars can become a million just with the addition of the traffic signals and some turn lanes and things like that. And, of all people, I believe First Colonial needs a lot of those things in order to properly move traffic around and I also think the hospital can use the connecting road as I said for circulation and so forth. I do not like the idea of pinning down that part of it Now, in saying all that I'm sure that the hospital's priorities are to their customers or to the public in general and people who they provide services too. So, Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 8 I'm sure, like Paul said, he'll take it back and there will be a lot of consideration for this as to how it can be done. As soon as possible because I do think there is some priority for this It certainly feels like it and you all do too, obviously just from having put it on the map. We didn't generate the map, they did. But, the money side of it really concerns me and I would not be 1n favor of doing that. Ronald Ripley: No, I understand that but we're just making recommendations to City Council and they can say we agree with Mr. Miller or disagree with Mr. Miller. Eugene Crabtree. Ron? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Gene. Eugene Crabtree- I've got one other thing while we're here. I agree to some extent with Mr Miller that you hate to put restrictions on things that would impede their construction. They're going ahead with their project. Do I understand that the parking there that is to the left hand side of the front entrance, the physician's parking, is that going to remain physician's parking or is physicians going to go in the back with the rest of the employees and open that up to visitor patient parking? I think that is what we we're addressing to start off with was the physician's parking that is there in the front parking lot. Paul Finch: It's not there. Eugene Crabtree: It's not there. That's what I' m asking. That's gone. June Robertson: It used to be there and we've already moved them. Paul Finch: It used to be right here. Eugene Crabtree: So that entire front parking lot then is open to visitors and patients. June Robertson- Yes. Paul Finch- That was done at the same time they added parking out front. They moved the physician parking to a small lot over here where the helo-port was when they moved the helo-port up here, so they opened up another 75 or so spaces up front by moving them. Dorothy Wood- Last week that part was closed. June Robertson: That part was closed? Dorothy Wood: We couldn't get in when we took our van ride. The part where it used to be physicians, it had a yellow thing across. Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 9 June Robertson: You could get in from the old Donation side. Paul Finch: Old Donation side. Kathy Katsias: So, why wouldn't you have access from the hospital front as opposed to going off Donation? June Robertson: Because the building to the left of the hospital that is closest to Old Donation is also a medical office building. And, they were trying to once again give employees to keep from parking out front so that the visitors to that building could go see their physicians. Paul Finch- Right. They're trying to force the visitors to park on this side of the entrance and let the patients for the office building, park on the other side. So, that's why they did that. June Robertson: When they built the medical office there was a zone saying they had to have so many parking places for that building and we're just trying to enforce what the City told us we had to do. Kathy Katsias: But, they also have that side access. June Robertson: Yes That's how you get in. Dorothy Wood You still keep the yellow barricade down in the evening when the medical building is closed? I don't know what you call it but the yellow. Robert Miller: Gate. Dorothy Wood: Gate. Paul Finch: I'm not sure what you mean. Robert Miller There's actually a physical gate that drops in to place there Paul Finch: That's an exit only gate is what it is. And, I don't know if they open it up at night or not because the night parking is not usually an issue. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I'm just going to go ahead and make a motion to approve this as it was presented. And, I think we've had a lot of good detailed discussion to give you all a lot to think about and certainly all of this transcript will go to Council so a lot of this you may hear again. We want to be able to identify all the details. I think what Ms Robertson said about having a guard out there is very, very important but I move for the approval Item #3 Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital Page 10 Donald Horsley: I'll second that. Along with that second, I might add it might be cheaper for you people to keep that guard and require parking stickers and make sure these people park in the right spot then it would be to do some of these other things. Paul Finch: We essentially provided the architectural rendering because the first proffer on this still we need to bring that back. There were three conditions of the approval and the first one was to provide elevations for the Planning Department. And, I think that was written before we got the elevations and the renderings to you. Robert Miller: As long as you conform to and the attorney will tell us I'm sure. Ronald Ripley: I think you provide them to the Director of Planning, which is that man right over there. Robert Scott: The elevations you provided us so far are satisfactory and is what we were looking for I think Paul Finch: Okay. That would not be a condition? Robert Scott: Right. You've already met that condition. Paul Finch: Okay Great. Ronald Ripley: So, we have a motion to approve by Bob Miller and a second by Don Horsley. Is there any discussion? Alright then, we'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' ABSENT STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote 10-0, the motion passes. 091H SYKES, BOURDON, no AgERN & LL"VY4 POCO ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK JON M AHERN 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD SCOTT N ALPERIN FIFTH FLOOR R EDWARD BOURDON, JR AMES T CROMWELL VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 DL STEVEN EMMERT TELEPHONE 757-499-8971 May 20, 2003 DAVIDK RK BL LEVY FACSIMILE 757-456-5445 JENNIFER D ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R SYKES, JR Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones 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 RE: Application of Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club for Conditional Use Permit for proposed Marina Expansion at 1052 Cardinal Road, Lpnnhave n District, Virginia Beach, Virginia Dear Mayor Oberndorf, Vice Mayor Jones and Members of Council - On behalf of the Cavalier Golf Sv Yacht Club, I am uniting to advise you of the Club's intent to request an indefinite deferral of its conditional use permit application which is currently scheduled for consideration by the Council on Tuesday evening, May 27, 2003. We are making every reasonable effort to advise all interested parties of this request in advance of the scheduled public hearing. A number of residents whose properties adjoin the club have been engaged with us in dialogue concerning the expansion request. We are notifying them of the Club's request The reasons for the requested deferral are numerous. The principle reason for the request is the need to spend additional time with the adjoining property owners and the Club membership in further refining the Club's proposal for the manna expansion. A significant amount of constructive dialogue has already taken place, however, much work still remains to be done in order to effectively address the concerns of a number of the nearby residents. Since the Planning Commission heard this item on its April Agenda there has been some dialogue between the Club and some of the neighboring property owners. That dialogue has been somewhat constructive. Unfortunately, with the grand re -opening of the golf course the attention of the Club management and leadership has become consumed with those activities Offlo SYKES, ROURDON. Iffil ARM & LEVY. P.C. Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Members of City Council May 20, 2003 Page 2 and sufficient time has not been available to convene the necessary parties to pursue possible modifications to the plans. The Club pledges to the Council that we will provide advanced notice to our neighbors who have been involved in this process, prior to this matter being placed back on Council's agenda. Due to a scheduling conflict, I will not be able to attend the City Council public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 to appear before Council and formally request this deferral. Should anyone have any concerns about the requested deferral please let me hear from you. With best regards, I am Very truly yours, R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. REB}r/ arhm cc P Joseph Andrew, Assistant General Manager John Aspinwall CONDUSE/ CAVALIERYACHT/ OBERNDORF 1 Irla 1%-1.: j Map Not to Scale M i+ Cavalier Golf& Yacht Club Bird Neck Point BIRDNECK 1�33 la� R - 4 o PO/N Gpzn 2418-2"584 ZONING HISTORY 1. 5-23-00 — STREET CLOSURE - APPROVED 2. 1-28-97 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (outdoor recreation — tennis courts and parking lot) APPROVED 3. 1-23-96 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (golf course — expansion of clubhouse) APPROVED 1-13-69 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (dining facilities) APPROVED 4. 1-8-91 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (floating dock) APPROVED 3-14-88 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (marina expansion) APPROVED w y l �Yi +ff � A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club — Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: Application of Cavalier Golf &Yacht Club for a Conditional Use Permit for a marina expansion on property located at 1052 Cardinal Road (GPIN 2418246584). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN The purpose of this request is to expand the existing marina from 77 slips to 92 slips ■ Considerations: The property is developed with a private club, including a clubhouse with dining facilities, tennis courts, swimming pool, golf facilities, and a marina The property is zoned R-40 Residential District The first Conditional Use Permit for the subject site was obtained in 1969 to allow dining facilities to be added to the already existing golf course and boating facilities In 1988, a Use Permit to expand the marina from 45 to 63 slips was approved. The parking lot was also approved for expansion to 324 spaces, but all of these spaces were not added at this time. In 1991, a Use Permit was approved to construct a floating dock parallel to the bulkhead behind the clubhouse. This dock is intended only for short-term use by boaters, largely people arriving by boat to use club facilities. A condition on this Use Permit prohibited use of this dock after 11:00 pm In 1996, approval was granted to expand the clubhouse, and one year later, approval was granted to expand the tennis courts and parking lot. Most recently, on May 23, 2000, City Council granted approval to close Cardinal Road north of Oriole Drive The applicant requests to add 15 boat slips to the existing 77-slip marina. Additional spaces would be available for temporary mooring, but these are not spaces for lease. Currently, the marina has three large piers extending 200 to 255 feet perpendicular to the land The expansion is proposed at the end of two of the three piers: the East Pier (center) and the North Pier On the East Pier, the plan shows a floating structure comprised of four 38-foot sections and two 72-foot sections extending from the southern half of the existing "T-bar". Another 19-foot extension is proposed on the eastern end of the T-bar. The East Pier expansion could accommodate nine more boats The North Pier shows Cavalier Page 2 of 2 another floating structure attached to the existing pier In this case, the center pier is continued another 125 feet into the water to the north Three 80-foot lengths extend east, creating four new slips The west side of the T-bar is also lengthened by 40 feet, creating two more slips In total, the North Pier expansion includes six additional slips. Additional details regarding the expansion are provided in the attached report. The applicant's request for a marina expansion is acceptable; however, staff does have a concern Although the applicant has demonstrated a legitimate demand for additional boat slips at this location, the impact on the public through the encroachment into the waterway must be addressed This is a very difficult land use proposal because the use is located in the public waterway. How much of the public waterway can be claimed by individual landowners? It should be noted that this Conditional Use Permit is only the first in a series of approvals necessary for the proposed marina expansion The applicant will also need approval on a Joint Permit Application, which involves review by four different regulatory agencies These agencies will take a much closer look at navigational issues and other impacts to the waterway The completion of their review, however, cannot take place until all local permits, including this Conditional Use Permit, have been approved Staff recommended approval There was opposition to the proposal i Recommendations: At the Planning Commission, a motion to approve this request lost by a recorded vote of 5-5. The request, therefore, was denied by a tie vote ■ Attachments: Sta 87Xffi&ev Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Motion at the Planning Commission hearing to approve this request lost due to a tie vote Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: r I` . N " CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 19 � April 9, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION K05 - 210 -CUP - 2002 NUMBER: REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit (marina expansion) ADDRESS: 1052 Cardinal Road Mo` aot K-5 L a-e Cavalier Golf& Yacht Club �w u fM IN,l A, 40 L:nkhom Bay �T� JA ` Gptn 2418-2"584 GPIN: 24182465840000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 -- LYN N HAVE N SITE SIZE: 22.784 acres t 1�cl - Planning Commission Agenda�- April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB I # 19 V rr+ Or O y O OV. r Y • Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOSE: To expand the existing marina from 77 slips to 92 slips. APPLICATION This application was deferred at the September 11, 2002 HISTORY: Planning Commission hearing so that further research could be conducted regarding potential alternative locations for the marina expansion and potential areas for additional parking. The applicant submitted a revised plan, but the application was deferred again at the January 8, 2003 and February 12, 2003 Planning Commission hearings to allow more time for review by other agencies and for the applicant to provide Staff additional information regarding the existing and proposed parking on the site. The applicant requested the fourth deferral at the March 12, 2003 hearing to revise their plans again. Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal impacts waterway and neighboring property owners. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is developed with a private club, including a clubhouse with dining facilities, tennis courts, swimming pool, golf facilities, and a marina. The property is zoned R-40 Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . Across Linkhorn Bay, single-family homes / R-40 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 19 Page 2 Residential District South: • Across Oriole Drive, single-family homes / R-40 Residential District East: . Across cove, single-family homes on Curlew Drive / R-40 Residential District West: • Across cove, single-family homes on Bobolink Drive / R-40 Residential District Zoning History The first Conditional Use Permit for the subject site was obtained in 1969 to allow dining facilities to be added to the already existing golf course and boating facilities. In 1988, a Use Permit to expand the marina from 45 to 63 slips was approved. The parking lot was also approved for expansion to 324 spaces, but all of these spaces were not added at this time. In 1991, a Use Permit was approved to construct a floating dock parallel to the bulkhead behind the clubhouse. This dock is intended only for short-term use by boaters; people arriving by boat to use club facilities. A condition on this Use Permit prohibited use of this dock after 11:00 pm. In 1996, approval was granted to expand the clubhouse, and one year later, approval was granted to expand the tennis courts and parking lot. Most recently, on May 23, 2000, City Council granted approval to close Cardinal Road north of Oriole Drive. 5-23-00 — STREET CLOSURE - APPROVED 1-28-97 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (outdoor recreation — tennis courts and parking lot) APPROVED 1-23-96 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (golf course -- expansion of clubhouse) APPROVED 1-13-69 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (dining facilities) APPROVED 1-8-91 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (floating dock) APPROVED 3-14-88 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (marina expansion) APPROVED Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AI CU The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70d13 Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The subject site is located within the Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Area. However, no variances from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board are required for the requested marina expansion. The applicant will be required to obtain a Joint Permit Application (JPA), which includes review from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 19 Page 3 the Virginia Beach Waterfront Operations Division. The JPA is currently under review, but a final decision is not anticipated for several months. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is a six-inch water line in Cardinal Drive and an eight -inch line in Oriole Drive fronting the property. There is an eight -inch water main in Bobolink Drive fronting a portion of the west side of the property. This site has an existing water meter that may be used. Sewer: There is a four -inch sanitary sewer force main in Bobolink Drive fronting a portion of the west side of the property. There is an eight -inch sanitary sewer main extending onto the property from Bobolink Drive. There is an eight -inch sanitary sewer main in Oriole Drive fronting the property. There is a four -inch sanitary sewer force main in Oriole Drive fronting the property. This site is already connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Cardinal Road in the vicinity of this application is a two-lane local street. This street is not identified on the MTP, and there are no plans to improve this street in the current adopted C I P. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use -- 240 ADT Cardinal Road 2,600 ADT 1 61200 ADT ' Proposed Land Use 3 -- 284 ADT 'Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 77-slip marina 3as defined by 92-slip marina Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 19 Page 4 Public Safety Police: Adequate — no further comments. Fire and Adequate — no further comments. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City for low density suburban residential land use at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Summary of Proposal Proposal • The applicant requests to add 15 boat sups to the existing 77-slip marina. Additional spaces would be available for temporary mooring, but these are not spaces for lease. Site Design • Currently, the marina has three large piers extending 200 to 255 feet perpendicular to the land. • The expansion is proposed at the end of two of the three piers: the East Pier (center) and the North Pier. On the East Pier, the plan shows a floating structure comprised of four 38-foot sections and two 72-foot sections extending from the southern half of the existing "T-bay''. Another 19-foot extension is proposed on the eastern end of the T-bar. The East Pier expansion could accommodate nine more boats. • The North Pier shows another floating structure attached to the existing pier. In this case, the center pier is continued another 125 feet into the water to the north. Three 80-foot lengths extend east, creating four new slips. The west side of the T-bar is also lengthened by 40 feet, creating two more slips. In total, the North Pier expansion includes six additional slips. • Overall, the proposed floating piers would increase the extension of the structure into the waterway from approximately 170 feet to 215 feet on the Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 19 Page 5 East Pier and from approximately 220 feet to 320 feet on the North Pier. The distance from shore to shore in the area of the East Pier is 370 feet, while the same figure in the area of the North Pier is 760 feet. Therefore, if the expansion request were approved, the applicant's East Pier would encroach 58 percent and North Pier would encroach 42 percent into the public waterway. • The table below provides a summary of figures presented above: East Pier North Pier Total Distance from shore to shore at closest point 370 feet 760 feet Current Distance into waterway 170 feet 220 feet Current --Percentage into waterway 46% 29% Proposed Distance into waterway 215 feet 320 feet Proposed percentage into waterway 58% 42% Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • The marina is accessed on land via the applicant's main entrance at the end of Cardinal Road in Birdneck Point. • Various parking areas are located near the different facilities for the club. The clubhouse, golf pro shop, and marina are all concentrated at the northeast end of the property. Although most of the parking is located in this vicinity, this parking is also most in demand. • The site plan shows a total of 292 existing parking spaces for the entire club. An additional 29 spaces were previously approved but never constructed. • Since the private club was originally developed before the City Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the entire facility is not required to meet today's parking requirements. However, as expansions and additions have occurred over the years, additional spaces have been required to meet Ordinance requirements. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance's parking requirement for marinas is one space per slip. • The applicant has applied for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to allow the parking lot to remain as it is. The variance request has been indefinitely deferred until the Conditional Use Permit is approved. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB 1 # 19 Page 6 Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for a marina expansion is acceptable; however, staff does have a concern. Although the applicant has demonstrated a legitimate demand for additional boat slips at this location, the impact on the public through the encroachment into the waterway must be addressed. This is a very difficult land use proposal because the use is located in the public waterway. How much of the public waterway can be claimed by individual landowners? It should be noted that this Conditional Use Permit is only the first in a series of approvals necessary for the proposed marina expansion. The applicant will also need approval on a Joint Permit Application, which involves review by four different regulatory agencies. These agencies will take a much closer look at navigational issues and other impacts to the waterway. The completion of their review, however, cannot take place until all local permits, including this Conditional Use Permit, have been approved. For officially designated channels, the City, in its review of pier installations through the Planning Department's Waterfront Operations Section, has for more than a decade applied a policy of 25 percent of the distance from shore to shore. While not an officially adopted standard or ordinance, this policy has been utilized throughout the city to ensure that all property owners are treated equitably and that navigable portions of the waterways are not encroached upon. The policy is found in the "City of Virginia Beach, Specific Guidelines for Waterfront Construction Application Submittal." As shown in the table above, the existing piers are already well over 25 percent into the waterway. The East Pier expansion would have a particularly large impact, as it is located at the mouth of a small cove. The shore--to-shore distance in this area is quite small, and the resulting percentage into the waterway for the proposed expansion would be 58 percent. The proposed expansion on the North Pier is significantly smaller due to the greater distance to the opposite shore. However, the 100-foot proposed extension in this area would encroach 42 percent into the public waterway. Additionally, there are legitimate alternative locations for additional piers. Since this property has a long length of shoreline, there are other locations where a new pier could be built. Due to the encroachments into the waterway beyond 25 percent and the fact that alternative locations are available, it is very unlikely that the applicant will be able to obtain the necessary approvals from the Waterfront Operations Section of the Planning Department. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 19 Page 7 In sum, while staff finds that the use in terms of the marina is appropriate and can be recommended for approval, there are significant issues related to permitting by other agencies that must be overcome. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB I # 19 Page 8 4royy'�O v -07 � l ?JNW MLW � y a � f 1 GJ1P nt PROP. FLOATING PIERS fth T-0 $ SEE ENLARGEMENT r A'R �t`f � r SHEET 4 { tf of •+�VAU„� �4iL17sf1�T/ r31• Z GW & YAK" I FL4A-nNG �LL$•' d4Ch p f CLUEHWSE FAIRWAY LOT • • EEC PIERS , f - �o ` ~ NORTH DOCK EX FLOATING V= X. P1 ERS z ' _ " _ EX BUUCrEAD nE D Fli P. TANKS MIDDLE DOCK PROP. FLOATING PIERS MLW=M4w SSE ENI.�ATRiEN t i r br Ex. FLOAMNG DW( - - MAMUL Wo DALE ul Ob", rN 3 j1 2/D3 REV. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 ~~= CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB 1 # 19 •• Page 9 d tic 000 ono- d4c 4 CL a °`CL!k to r wvp �uj w� w� �W7 F=(D i co a wo tL Q 0 tn 0-u- -Iftomw aL 0 z 1$' In IR H y WO --� CLX 0 0 CL 0: 4J Q Z r z W Z �. CL x OC-) u _j0 Q <' (L. a ... C) Z vLLJ - z z t? < _X tjj Q Lu 0 W Q 0 aLq X a-u— Planning Commission Agenda �,� r' April 9, 2003 e M r ram• CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB 1 # 19 _ r .emu `` °- °°r ••t° Page 10 w� < Oyy co ` r i s s r. Usti CL Y I- N 4 V WWI 1 V1 L jL? r� y X AIL ILI IL F 1 a 1 fit! _4KAr- I fix �. _ ♦ ....+� r A p 1 f UPIf lit � in 8 Y5 4E !E 3mopdL i ,q x 9 � rye.- :, � � s ,AIL st j i Planning Commission Agenda,!�� Y April 9, 2003-'�' 4 •fir Y CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB / # 19 cue ..%0% Page 11 t.Clyyyl� 4: fix•.: uj At IL Vol 11 #.' K YY} µ r '+i.., ,�, . ra• ¢ate "" y yi'. •�. � v �.'.qb got ��. � P ��"'"i; , � ��^. v t`�. .'�ye` '��r. i h. e �410"` � :. ti � • '>�' xi �[ >� AIN- ;Kip +T YANIL. �A { J F T is Tel T @7 To ,AT/AI ■ 1= = il t" 010 =r&*JW ! 'ion Agenaa %pril 9, 2002 CLUB / # 19 Pane 12 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name• L� f+��./�L-/ ez �dl � � JigGJSrT' G L Lt $ List All Current rt10 � Property Owners: PROPERTY O N R Dismosum If the rape owner is a CORPORATIO ,list all officers of the Co t;on below (tillach list if necessary) If the Property owner is a PART�'YERsI', FIRM, or orer UNINCORPORATED ORGANIA110N, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 13 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 praperty, complete the Applicant Disclosure Section below. APPucANT DICscwsum U the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below (Aziach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, ARM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the orgaruzati on below • (Attach list if n ecessar y) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CERTIFICATION- I certify than the in ormafion contained herein is true and accurate. Ike Signature Planning Commission Agenda April 9s 2003 CAVALIER GOLF & YACHT CLUB 1 # 19 Page 13 Item #19 Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club Conditional Use Permit for a marina expansion 1052 Cardinal Road District 5 Lynnhaven Apnl 9, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #19, Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club. Eddie Bourdon. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney. I have the pleasure this afternoon to come before you representing the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club on this application for a modification and expansion of their existing marina facility. I'll begin by apologizing for the numerous delays of this application and give you by way of a brief explanation. I'll take some of the blame for the extent. I don't know if blame is the right word for it but the process has been one that we probably got a little off track on because there are so many different agencies that have to review this. Ashby Moss had asked us to go through process of the JPA process with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Army Corp of Engineers, federal jurisdiction. Also, DEQ is involved and then the Waterfront Operations Division of the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach A lot of this we have been going down that road a little ways. We also had dialogue and a meeting with some of the adjoining property owners. And, we've made modifications to the plan along the way but we came to the realization because we were told point blank by some of the agencies involved in the review process that they were not going to engage in any decision making until the City Council had granted the Use Permit for the 15 docks that we are looking for regardless and today we're not telling you and see that it's not a condition in here that this configuration that shown is the final configuration. That will be determined by those agencies in that JPA process. We have made some changes that some of the neighbors have asked us to make and we were going to make some others but we were told by the folks at the Corps that might not be what they would want to see and basically we've been told by the other agencies involved get your Use Permit and then we'll go through our process to determine and they dialoged with each as to where would be the best place to put the 15 additional slips. We got a tremendous demand for slips at the Cavalier. There are currently 77 slips. These are all "Members Only" private slips. And what we are requesting are floating docks. No piers above the water dust anchor piers on loading docks. The dialogue with the community, the dialogue with these agencies will continue from a land use perspective. obviously, the marina has successfully operated. We meet all the environmental requirements. We got sewer pump out facilities. It's a very well run facility. When you have a situation where all the docks are in control like you have here versus individual docks behind individual homes, frankly it's a lot easier to enforce the environmental regulations and see that proper steps are taken and we don't have problems with the waterways So basically, that's what the request is. Parking, I guess is an issue that we need to discuss briefly. The club has 292 paved parking spaces on the site. And, our dialogue with the community and everyone has been aware of the Cavalier's existence and presence on the Birdneck Peninsula for years, and parking is not an issue with regard to the community. People do not park in the neighborhood to use the facility. There are a couple of large Item #19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 2 events every year that you know in advance and are planned for where the existing parking may not be sufficient and then they park vehicles near the first fairway but, again, that doesn't have any impact on the community at large and that only happens on a couple occasions during the year. So, to simply come in and pave more area and put more asphalt that is not used 95 percent of the time really in our opinion does not make any sense to put down any trees or to add paved services for parking that's not necessary given the ability to park vehicles, when a member guest occurs or on other special occasions in the areas here. One evening or one day basis doesn't create a problem for anybody. So, I don't anticipate any issue there with the Board of Zoning Appeals in terms of, there being any need to come in and put more paved parking spaces in. Obviously, that could be done but I don't think anyone believes that we have a parking problem or a parking issue at the club. I will address a couple of things just so because I'm sure some of you have some questions even though and I recognize that I'm telling you where these piers will be isn't determined today. It won't be determined by City Council. Thank you, if you could leave it there for just a second? One of the things that I wanted to point out because we really, and I'm trying to put words in people's mouths. We really haven't had any significant objection that I'm aware of to the expansion here on what I'm going to characterize as the east pier. You'll note that the measurements that Ms. Moss has put into her calculations are off of a line here that is closest to the point on the other side. And, you also hopefully note that the existing piers on the south are already further into the cove than what we were talking about with these expansions. This expansion if you go in a straight line goes all the way out across to here. we're not suggesting to put anything out here but in terms of navigation it doesn't create any issue at all when you look at what's out in front of it. In this cove, there are four houses that Mr. Aspinwall owns here on the point and his dock is out there. There are four houses in the cove which three of them have docks. And, there is certainly deep water and plenty of ability to get in and out of those three homes with docks and again, this could be a fourth at some point in the future. Over here we got the same situation. The measurements have been done across from here to here. And, the dock is actually in this location. It's important to note that this is all very deep navigational waters and again, if you measure in this direction it's a lot further. Stephen, if you could put the aenal up for me please. This aerial unlike the one in your write up doesn't actually even show all the way to the other side of the waterway, which is Bay Colony. And, it is on the back of their write up. But, and thus you really don't get the real picture with what's up versus what's in your write up. The reality of this is that the marina is really in a cove. And, the navigational area, which is very, very wide, comes in and it's through here. You avoid both of these peninsulas and boat traffic is all out in this area. And, again, it's difficult because you can't see that the land is actually up in here with the way it's been cropped on the pinpoint. So, in terms, this is not your jurisdiction. I'm really not trying to get into but I want to make sure there is a complete or at least an understanding because I'm sure some of you have some curiosity. And on the other side the deep water goes all the way up to the point and again, it's in Bay Colony. There isn't going to be a marina and I don't think in any of our lifetimes in Bay Colony. And, where you got deep water you're going to put your private dock behind your individual home. There's no reason to build a pier well out into the water. Over here you see a couple of piers that are out in the water a fair amount. That is because you can see here it's shallow in this area but otherwise. Let's see Mr. Aspinwall's other piers where there's plenty of deep water you build your Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 3 pier right close to shore. And, that's what always going to be the case across the way on the single-family lots in Bay Colony. We are hundreds of feet away from them and not interfering with the flow of navigation through here, which again, people don't go close to this point. They stay out in this area. So, frankly, the Corps have told us that they don't see a problem but there but we may have to move some things around a little bit in terms of where these docks actually are located. The City's 25 percent policy, it's not a law but policy, applies regardless whether your dealing with the very narrow channel in a narrow area with shoals on either side or you're dealing with and this is open water. This is a totally different situation. And, so we think that when this whole process plays out with these agencies, a plan will be approvable for 15 slips on this site. And, I see my red light blinking. And, I wasn't here last month and I hesitate to do this but I' m going to say my peace. I do think that since the City Council has put in place restriction on how long people can speak at their meetings. Ronald Ripley. Is this another speech? Eddie Bourdon: I do think this is something and I apologize in advance. I feel like I have to say this. I think there, some thought needs to be given to the fact this is the body that's suppose to be producing a record for the City Council, and I have some concerns about the limited nature of the times that you all adopted, I think last month for presentations to this body. And, I would just like and it sounds self-serving. I don't get paid by the word or get paid by the minute. But, I do think cutting people off at a Planning Commission meeting, this isn't necessarily an application that needs a lot of time but some may. And, I do have some concerns because Council is being very strict about it. That's fine but if they don't have a record that has all the information that needs to be put on the record, you know, on some controversial applications, I don't think that's serving the process properly. Ronald Ripley: I think your point is well taken on that. And, I think this Commission feels like if there's additional information that we need to continue to hear, I, as Chairman, have no problem with that. I haven't heard anybody having any problem with that. The idea is to make sure that our meeting moves on a little quicker and you were out of town. We were able to slip it in. Eddie Bourdon: I know you had noting with me not being here but I would have said something and since I wasn't here, again, as long as it's done that way and I'm sure that with this body it will be, I felt like it needed to be said Ronald Ripley: I can tell you that we feel that way. Eddie Bourdon: Alright. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Well, we have opposition? Robert Miller: Yes we do. Dr. John Carlston. Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 4 Janet Ogren: I've been asked to read a letter from Dr John Carlston. I'm his neighbor. I live down the street on Bobolink. My name is Janet Ogren. And, he is a member of the club as am I. We enjoy the club and have enjoyed the membership there. But, I do want to read some concerns that he has. And, this is his letter. Dr. John and Mrs. Carlston at 1052 Bobolink Drive. It's Dear Mr. Owen, in reply to your letter of March 28`h we have some objections to the construction of additional loading docks at the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club. HISTORY When the north pier was approved 20 years ago, we were assured that there would be no further expansion. The director's of the club are now different than those at that time and the same will be true 20 years from now when there's another Board of Directors. The facts are that I believe this is a commercial marina under the guise of a private club. It is the only commercial enterprise in all of Broad Bay, Crystal Lake and Three Horns of Linkhorn Bay if instead of expanding to 100 slips, they were required to downsize to 50 slips they could double the fees. The income for the club would be the same and there would be no need to search for new members with the promise of a boat slip in the future POLLUTION. The voters of the club and the voters on the private property are most always good voting citizens. They are cognizant of and careful of the environment of these bays but the more votes, the more pollution including petroleum products, fleeting products, debris from boats and noise. Some of the boats have extremely loud engines. It would follow that more boats would lead to more noise. TRAFFIC. On summer weekends, Broad Bay and Linkhorn Bay are currently very crowded with boats and can be dangerous. Why wait for an accident to occur? FLOODING. And, this is where I also concur is with the large boats and the deeper drafts would probably necessitate more dredging. We understand the probability has been discussed. The last dredging significantly increased tidal flooding during storms, which we're seeing today and private properties around the bay deserve protection from this. In conclusion, we have enjoyed our membership at the club. Have used the beautiful pool, dining room and floating dock for many years, however, we are concerned about the long term effects of adding additional slips. Dr. Carlston is an allergist. He could not attend today because he was seeing patients. And, I agreed to bring his letter forth. But, I must say I don't know if he understood it was just 15 slips that there were adding. But, the club has been good with communications. But sometimes the information and we don't seek at the appropriate time. That's it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Christine Bosher. Christine Basher: I am Christine Bosher. And, I am the widow of R G. Basher, and a long time resident of Birdneck Point and a long time member of the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club. When we bought our lot on Bobolink Drive, 1044, across from the eighteenth green, this club was owned by the Old Cavalier Hotel. We were assured at that time that no boat pier would be built on the northeast side of the clubhouse in front of our property. Now there is a large pier built in front of our property, which is ugly and obstructs our view of that section of beautiful Linkhorn Bay to the east. And, you now propose to extend this pier, which would further spoil our view of this beautiful waterway When we built here 50 years ago, we could fish for crab off our dock and catch enough large crab in an hour to feed six people at a crab feast. The bay was Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 5 sparkling blue and the water clear. Fish would be jumping out of the water and often time we would catch one or two -pound Rockfish and one or two pound Spots off of our dock. We have a natural sandy beach on part of our waterfront, which we have retained. And, I could not tell you how many times we have had to clean the beach from debris, garbage, bottles, cans, fish entrails, and so forth, thrown overboard from the boats docked at the piers. Sadly, the Bay water has lost its pristine beauty. The water is now so polluted that should we catch a few crab, I would not eat them for fear of food poisoning. Over the years, we have seen the Bay deteriorate to the extent that seaweed no longer grows in the water. Seaweed is nature's way of cleansing the water and returning pollutants to the earth. And, now you want to add more pierage for boats and more pollution. It will obstruct the passageway from other boaters. It will spoil the view from our property and from others. And, once the pilings are in place, they will be there forever. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Bosher, you're running kind of long on time. Christine Bosher: I plead with you and beg you to think of the future and not cause further deterioration of the bay and the view from valuable waterfront property. Bigger is not always better. If you want a better, more prestigious club then limit the number of boat slips, making the ones you have more desirable and at the same time, less pollution, less detriment to the beautiful waterfront property surrounding Linkhorn Bay. I have copies of my comment, which I would be happy 1f anyone would like to see it Ronald Ripley: We would like a copy, yes. Ma'am. Christine Bosher: Pardon. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Bosher? Ed, would you get a copy of those for us please. Christine Bosher: Will you give them out? Ed Weeden: I will be glad to do that. Christine Bosher: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: John Aspinwall. John Aspinwall- My name is John Aspinwall. I live at 1045 Curlew Drive. I'm the immediate next -door neighbor of the club. Ronald Ripley: Push the button. John Aspinwall. Push the bottom. okay. I live on this point right here. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Item #19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 6 John Aspinwall: I'm a member of the club. I'm active in the yachting division. I know there's a need for more boat slips over there I've been past Commodore of the club. I've worked with those fellows. They're my good friends I'm standing up here talking against them and they're good friends. But, unfortunately, I believe that this particular design that they've come up with for a pier expansion is not appropriate. The main issue that I'm concerned with is the fact that they're extending their piers almost 50 percent out into the waterway. That's too much. You're setting precedence every time you extend another pier They are already beyond the one-third area and it's this pier right here that's causing the most heartburn. The club did invite all the neighbors over for a review of the plans and we met over there about a month ago. There were about ten families there. And, we all agreed that we didn't want this project at all but if you had to do it, would you make a few modifications? And, this little pier down here, we sort of said well, okay because it doesn't really extend out into the waterway and block a lot of stuff. But, this section right here was not included in those discussions. That is a revision that was added on after we met with the neighbors. This does put this pier almost 50 percent out there. If you all have counted these boat slips, there are 18. I mean this thing on the end, that's a boat slip. You pull a boat right up to the pier just like there going to do right there. That's a boat slip. There are 18 slips here. These boat slips are made for 80-90 foot boats, not the little run -a -bout. An eighty -foot boat, that's ten people. Not ten people, excuse me five. It's got a captain and about 4--5 people. So, these are sizable things that they're bringing in. But, after all that is said, I think that the neighborhood, excuse me the neighbors could live with some sort of expansion. We feel that the club is being selfish. They want to extend out into the waterway here and there when they have all of this open area right here that they could install another pier. That would stay within the footprint of the existing pier I live on this corner and around in here is the cove that has five houses in it. All of the folks in that cove oppose this except for the one gentleman who lives right next to the club. Rick Haycox says he's not going to get involved because they are my neighbors and I don't want to oppose them. Being a member of the club, I would like to see something happen over there They need more slips. And, it would be nice to have. But, these slips are being used as rental property. Is it right to put rental property out into the public waterway? That's the question. And, we're opposed to doing that Ronald Ripley- Are they renting to the club members? John Aspinwall: Absolutely. Ronald Ripley: Are they renting to the outside? John Aspinwall: No. Club members only Ronald Ripley: Okay. John Aspinwall: Club members only, yes sir. It's club members only We never take any exception to that. The club is a good neighbor. They do a lot of active work to keep down pollution. There is very little noise. Three is very little pollution. There is very little fuel spillage The club is a good neighbor. But, there is always an exception to the Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 7 things. Occasionally there's a mistake made by somebody. But, we're not up here arguing that. The main thing that we're arguing about is the access to the cove and the fact that you would be setting precedence by allowing these boats to go almost 50 percent out into the waterway. That's all I have. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Aspinwall? Eugene Crabtree: John, one question. If they were to build a new pier as you propose, what do you estimate the difference of the cost and what they propose here and what they would do by building a new pier? John Aspinwall: I would say that all of this expansion is equal to about what it would cost to do one more out here. If you do one more out here, then you got the people over on this side strongly in objection to it Most of these people are here speaking against it or you have letters. Most of the people in the cove are against it here or have sent you letters. The folks over here have just now been advised of this situation. The corner lot here belonged to the Grandy's and they're subdividing that into three parcels. It's going to be three new home sites and all of those people are going to want to have piers sticking out here. It comes down to can I build 15 boat slips out in front of my house? I don't think so. That wouldn't fly. I don't know the economics of it Mr. Crabtree. My educated guess, I mean this project as they were proposed is supposed to fit within their $200 thousand dollar budget for this expansion project. And, I would assume they could build 15 or 20 slips over there for about the same price. Move it over there instead of moving it over here. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. John Aspinwall: Thank you all. Robert Miller: Paul and Pauline Beshard. Paul Beshard: I'm Paul Beshard, and I'm a neighbor, two homes away from Mr. Aspinwall I feel that Mr. Aspinwall has expressed the way we feel very adequately. I do have some concern that there might be safety risks in this presentation and my position as a graduate of Massachusetts Maritime Academy, being a merchant officer and being a naval officer. I think possibly my greatest concern, which has no control by the club or us would be the seepage of body waste into our piers. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Robert Miller: That's it. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Bourdon would you like to readdress us" Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me just briefly. And, I just to make it clear and reiterate this is a private club and there is a lengthy waiting list of members of the club, existing members of the club who would desire to be able to moor their boats in Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page S the 15 docks that were requesting to be approved in terms of that number. And, that's all that we're here today is talk about number. This configuration that is shown here is one that was suggested, again in a more less off the record discussion with the Corps of Engineers. It does not have anything, again, you're staff has and we're certainly in agreement and I suggest that you add a condition per a specific configuration of boat docks. So, where these slips will ultimately be at this point, we're not certain. Again, I'll reiterate here this does not create any impediment to navigation whatsoever because the existing pier is already further towards the shore here then this would be. Secondly, from this point, just for hypothetical purposes from here over, we're talking about in the neighborhood of 400-300 some odd feet of all deep navigable waters. Any piers over here are going to right close to shore because it's deep navigable waters and there is no reason to extend the pier out any further because they're single family homes. The Granby property, Mr. Aspinwall, is already three lots. I have the privilege of representing them on the Chesapeake Bay application but the lots have always been three lots. They are not subdividing. It already is. And, again any piers there would be right up on shore because unlike the situation on the other corner, on the other peninsula these border up all the way to the shore. The Cavalier facility and Mr. Aspinwall was very eloquent in saying that they and I want to add they don't have fish cleaning facilities. They have rules that prohibit any dumping of any waste into the waterway. That is enforced. There would be no pilings with this facility other than anchoring pilings down in the water so all you will have are the floating piers on top of the water. With that, I think that the Use that is proposed is one that should be recommended for approval. The specifics as to where the piers will be located, is yet to be determined, and that will be done with the JPA Lastly, I would just point out that there is in this area a peat bog. It is shallow and there would need to be dredging and there would be some potential environmental issues but that is certainly something that in the process that will ensue will be discussed I'm sure. Ronald Ripley Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Miller has a question. Robert Miller: Eddie, when you talked about the pier configuration, you said that was suggested by the Corps as a matter, not of record I understand, but was there a previous one or was there some definition because Mr. Aspinwall implied there was something else. Eddie Bourdon: We had a configuration that had some finger piers coming out in this direction and we had a pier coming off in this direction like this, like the little dogleg. And, we were asked by the community to remove the dogleg and shorten the finger piers that were coming off of here. And, so we were again, because we were trying to dialogue and having to dialogue to the extent that we can with everybody, you know, we looked at doing that and we talked to some folks with the Corps and actually had someone and take a look at and it was suggested that this would be a better configuration but again, off the record. And, the reality of it is we're just a dog chasing our tail at this particular juncture and that's why I can't say enough about the fact that is what we need nor to move this process forward is the Planning Commission and ultimately we'll be asking Council to acknowledge that the Use and adding some slips in some configuration is an appropriate Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 9 land use at this site. Having both docks all up and down the waterway, you know the issue of pollution exists. That's not going to go away. But the ability to control it in this environment versus individual homes is a whole lot more obvious that you can institute and maintain controls in this situation lot more easily than you can in individual docks and individual homes. Ronald Ripley- You're saying that the configuration of these in all likelihood not look like this? Eddie Bourdon: What I'm suggesting to you is that I believe this configuration will likely not change. Although at this point, I don't know. The configuration here is in no way shape or form set in stone. Fact this configuration has only been in existence on paper, a matter of maybe three weeks. The answer is we don't know at this point what the configuration will be. Ronald Ripley: Do you know the measurement if you extend that north pier main walkway across to the other side? Eddie Bourdon: It's 800 from here all the way running in a straight line is somewhere around 850-875 feet. So, the little figures that you have in here in the write up, they measure this line across from here to here as 760 feet. So, and the existing pier is 220 feet, I believe. It may be pretty close to 800, maybe 790 feet. I may have mis-spoke on my distance there. It would actually be 820 feet if you measured it straight across. I did misspeak. It's 820 if you come in this direction it's 800 if you go from up in this direction this way. Ronald Ripley: So, it's about 39 percent out in the water from that point? Eddie Bourdon: That's right. This configuration if you do it straight across is between 38-39 percent across That is absolutely correct. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Was there a question down here folks? Will did, I'm sorry. I lost my place. William Din: Thanks. Several of our speakers today have raised some concerns, I don't think you've addressed. One is the commercial aspect of the piers, whether that is a commercial aspect. Are these boats docked here year round? Originally, were these piers for the visitation of the club? And, also could you address some of the pollution aspects from the larger ships here? Are there sanitary connections to these discharges? Eddie Bourdon: There certainly are. Absolutely are. William Din: There were several concerns that I think I'd like to hear some answers to. Eddie Bourdon: It's a private club. Some of the boats are there year round. Some are not. They're members only. There's no renting of boats. There's no commercial aspect to them whatsoever. It's just club members. They do pay rent to the club just like you Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page to pay dues to play golf at the club. You pay dues to eat at the club, so the characterization of it being commercial marina. I don't think that is what was intended so I'm not going to go down that road. There is nothing in a commercial sense that exists other than the members of the club, who have boats there, pay the club for allowing their boats to be there But there is nothing else that would meet anybody's definition that I know of being commercial. All of the environmental regulations, sewer pump -outs are all there. In fact, DEQ has already given their okay to the expansion because the club does meet all the environmental regulations and requirements. William Din: Now the piers on the extension here are intended for larger ships/boats? Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. The boat sizes would range from 25 up to 80 feet. But, again, they are private vessels William Din: Okay. I don't know if you addressed all of the options where these other piers can go out. Are you saying that they built additional finger piers in front of the eighteenth fairway or green, they would require dredging in that area? Is that what you're saying? Eddie Bourdon: That is correct. No one at this point is ruling anything out. It is the club and I've neglected to mention that the President of the Club is here as well as the General Manager and Mr. Andrew who runs the boat facility for the club members but the club desires to expand by adding slips on to the existing piers as opposed to the entertaining of the issues that would be incumbent with attempting to put up another pier. William Din. Did you say these boats on any of these piers, are they moored there year round? Eddie Bourdon: Some are. Some of the members, you know, the boats are here during the summer and are south of the Mason/Dixon Line and south of here during the winter. William Din: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Eddie. Ronald Ripley: Gene? Eugene Crabtree: I'm sorry. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, I was supporting this until I came to the meeting today. ] do have a big problem because I've heard people mention that these are boats are going to be leased. Excuse me, these slips. In the proposal it said they would not be leased. They would be just for temporary mooring. I assume they were for people to come up and have dinner at the club and then go home. But, our proposal says they would not be leased, if you look at page 5 under summary proposal9 Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 11 Ashby Moss: I believe the report was referring to additional spaces beyond the 15 slips that they identified. But 15 slips would definitely be leased. Dorothy Wood: It says the applicant request add 15 boat slips. Additional space would be available for mooring but these spaces are not for lease. I thought none of these spaces were for lease? Ashby Moss: I just meant that the additional spaces would not be leased. Dorothy Wood: Where are the additional spaces? Eddie Bourdon: Originally, as I mentioned before we had an intention here, which one could tie up and yes same situation here. If you have an area here where, you know, members come and can tie up and have dinner at the club and you can count the spaces. And, that is what Mr. Aspinwall was, I think saying that the club could and that is clearly not something that we would do and obviously that can be conditioned. But, there are areas adjacent to here to these piers where members coming to utilize the facilities and moor their boats temporary. Sorry you had that mistaken. I believe, Ms Wood, the piers are for members only. We have a long waiting list of members desiring to have a pier, having a place to moor their boats. Dorothy Wood: But that would be a long-term lease or a yearly lease? It will not be a temporary lease. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: Correct. It's not monthly or anything like that. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Ronald Ripley: Gene. Eddie Bourdon: Once you get them you hold on to them should you have a boat. Eugene Crabtree- Mr. Bourdon, you keep saying that this north dock is not written in stone and that drawing we see is not necessarily what's going to happen. Were we to approve this land use and it goes from us, how do we know that if we were not in favor of that extension there, that it just wouldn't stay there? That would be the end of it? I'm saying, suppose we agree with some of the people who are against this and this going out that far, but were not opposed to the land use having more slips, how do we know that won't stay the way it is right now and not other avenues be researched or be looked at once we approve it? Eddie Bourdon: Okay. I think that is actually what your staff has already said in this write up and said this morning and what I'm repeating again today. Is the configuration of the piers will be determined by the joint permit application process, which involves the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission, the Department of Environmental Quality and the Waterfront Operations Division for the City of Virginia Beach. The Waterfront Operations Division for the City of Virginia Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 12 Beach has already put it on record. I think it's even mentioned in the staff write up that the City has "25 percent policy" that they do not generally support extending docks, piers into waterways more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway. But, you know, the other jurisdiction, the other bodies don't have that same rule and it's again, just a policy. It's not a rule. So the reality of it is, they all have to sit down and look at navigation. And, that is really the only issue with regard to the piers is one of navigation. Land use, the pier and how its configured isn't land use. Eugene Crabtree: I understand that. Eddie Bourdon: My point is simply, you know, I'm not here it won't look like that but I'm here to tell you that approving the land use of expanding the marina will in no way cause it to look like that. Eugene Crabtree: So, I asked, in fact then is part of the opposition we've heard today premature? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. And, it is our position that it's premature. It's our position that we are aware of and we're trying to placate. We're trying to work through this process but unfortunately until we can get all the players who will make that determination in the room to, you know, work through it, and there will be a public hearing that the VMRC will likely have on this. We're not getting anywhere. We have to get and frankly, and I said before, Ashby asked us to go through the process. We tried. The other agencies are saying you have to get your Use Permit so that we know that you can put 15 slips out here before we're going to engage. And so, that's what we're trying to do. And, at the same time and have been and will continue to engage with the neighborhood We're not going to leave them out of this in any way shape or form. We don't know if we can make everybody happy but the club is certainly making every effort to do that. And, work through the different issues that exist. Ronald Ripley: Barry Knight has a question. Barry Knight: Eddie, by my calculations you have five additional approval processes you'll have to go through in addition to this one? Eddie Bourdon: All those agencies is actually, there's BZA for the parking variance and then the rest is the joint permit application process through all those agencies that goes through. Barry Knight: Okay. And, how many of those are going to have public comment periods addressing each specific that they're involved with? Eddie Bourdon: The Board of Zoning Appeals has a hearing and again that's on the parking alone. The others, VMRC has a process for that. The Corps has a public comment. I mean they send out letters and they do their stuff in written form. I'm not aware, in fact DEQ has already signed off. I don't know if they have a public comment because they look at the pollution and the waste disposal issues. Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 13 Barry Knight- So, we're more concerned with the land use planning policy here and these other agencies will be in some different specific areas as possibly the encroachment to the waterway and the environment? Eddie Bourdon: The encroachment of the waterway, that's where these agencies that I've listed come into play because that is their jurisdiction. And, you can technically .. its not the Planning Commission and City Council's jurisdiction but the City Council through the Waterfront Operations Department certainly does have, you know, a stake in it and that's how their positions are put forward. The City's got to issue the permits for construction of them so the public, the neighbors that have the concerns, you know, their concerns are going to be heard and you know, I'm confident that in the end everybody has very good intentions with this project and accommodations will be made. But, we can't get there from here without it being acknowledged that the Use itself and adding 15 more slips, you know, on this Cavalier property is something that's an acceptable Use. Ronald Ripley: Joe Strange. Joseph Strange: You know the opposition brought up the fact that these slips will accommodate boats up 80, 90, 100 feet. Eddie Bourdon: Eighty is the maximum Joseph Strange: Is there a point where a boat becomes a yacht? Eddie Bourdon: I would have to say in my estimation they are already yachts out there. When do yachts become ships? Joseph Strange- I just thought in nautical terms there might be a point where a boat became a yacht. Eddie Bourdon: I've been on boats my whole life. My family has pleasure, my direct family, my uncles are on the Virginia Beach waterway. It was the Waterway Marina before they sold it to Mr. Galloway So, I've been on boats my whole life but you know, I would definitely say there are already today yachts and that's why it's the Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club that moor that but some people have had 25 foot. If I had a boat it be that size. I'd call it a yacht too. It's all that I can afford. But, there are certainly large private pleasure craft that moor at Cavalier and actually at moor behind residences, you know, in this area of the City. We're blessed to have a very beautiful. Joseph Strange: My next question is, you know when you rent a slip you normally pay for a slip based on the size boat that it will handle. If you had a slip that would only handle a 25 foot boat, you would pay less for that slip than if you had one that would handle an 80 foot boat, so I guess a fair question would be when people leased these, are they going to be leasing them and paying fees to handle an 80 foot boat? Eddie Bourdon: I'd have to ask Joe to come up and help me with the answer to that one. You're absolutely correct with regard to commercial convenience. That's absolutely Item #19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 14 right. With the club, because again it's only for club members, I don' t know how they structure their what their members pay for this. Joe Andrew: I'm Joe Andrew I'm the Assistant General Manager Harbor Master of the club. Regards to the boat lengths, they do pay for the length of the boat only, not the slip length. So, if So feet long, it's going to be paying for So -foot boat length slip. Joseph Strange- So, do you see a mixture of different size boats in there? Or do you see them being all basically So -foot boats? Joe Andrew: It will be a total mixture. I mean the waiting list comprises of that. I mean there are multiple different sizes from 25 up to So feet. So a boat that may be 65 feet in length may get an So -foot slip. So, we're going to charge them for a 65-foot boat. Joseph Strange: So, how does the waiting list work? I mean, is it prioritized according to how long they've been on the waiting list or might they be selected according to how much they were willing to pay as far as size of the boat? Joe Andrew: It's the length of the waiting list. Joseph Strange: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Eddie, if the land use were to receive a favorable recommendation and this layout ended up being what you end up getting, when you have to go through all these permits that slip on the outside that Mr. Aspinwall was referring too on the north end, is that intended to be a long term slip on the outside of the dock or a temporary slip for visiting the club? Eddie Bourdon: I'm not aware that's didn't be a slip at all but if it was anything it would be, I guess if you had visiting members here, I guess someone could tie up there temporarily. But, it's not a permanent slip. Ronald Ripley: It is a floating dock so you just tie one side off and you're on Eddie Bourdon: Theoretically, you could have someone tie up here on a temporary basis but you wouldn't do a permanent basis because you got no mooring piles or anything structure. What it would really be looking at is this area here as someone could come up in there. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Aspinwall is raising his hand back there. Mr. Miller said he'll sponsor you as long as it's new information. John Aspinwall: Thank you folks. I did speak to all of the different agencies that have jurisdiction over this and they are looking to you all as the first step in the approval process. Well, if the Planning Commission approves it then we'll probably go along with it. What do you all think about that? We have a project here that almost all of the neighbors are opposing to. These slips, the one on the end is nothing different than what Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 15 they have right now. They have a pier coming in and they have boats tied up to it and they rent those slips out. So, that is a boat slip It will be. I know the guy wants it. So, the main reason why that I'm standing up here is to encourage you all that is a first step in the approval process and then you all say its okay to go out 50 percent, I think that goes a long way in encouraging them. Eddie was drawing a line straight across here. I don't know how you're suppose to measure waterways so staff will have to tell you. But, I'm standing here is basically is which way is to the closest land? If you go from here to there that's the thing they've drawn right there and Ashby's report is 45 percent. Forty- five percent comes into play when you go from this pier and you add a 25-foot boat to it. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Paula Beshard: I'm Paula Beshard. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Beshard. Paul Beshard: I live on Curlew Drive too. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Beshard? If it's new information, other than that, do you have new information for us? Paula Beshard: Right here. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Paula Beshard- I want to submit this photograph because it's taken from the corner of our property It shows Mr. Aspinwall's point and what's going on at the club. Ronald Ripley: That's very good. Thank you. Pass that around please. Okay. I'd like to open it up for discussion at this point Robert Miller: I'll go first. Ronald Ripley- Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I'm going to go ahead and talk but I have sit here and I'm thinking that what we watched at lunch time with what's going on in Baghdad, it makes this, without disrespect to you all a little more difficult. I just can't get past that thought that they're young people over there dieing to try to make sure that we can sit here and argue about a marina. And, I don't mean to be unkind to the marina or to the people who are opposed it, but it brings to mind a lot of perspective The issue that we're dealing with is, and I think John's point is well taken. In a way, we do kind of endorse to what's been sent to us. Unfortunately, the process, if we say no and City Council says no perhaps, then the process ends right there. There is no JPA process. I did not hear and I don't think John specifically said that there was no need for additional slips. Certainly one of the piers doesn't seem to be a problem at all. And that process and I've been through It before and Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 16 it is very long process. My Chairman says a lot of attorney hours. A lot of other hours too, engineer hours and I think a lot of people take the best interest of the waterway into account particularly the VMRC folks and some of those others that are out there just for that purpose. So, my sight is it's a land use issue of a marina. And, I think there is a need for the marina. I haven't heard again anyone say there's no need for this manna and there's no need for the folks that are on the waiting list. I think the control mechanisms that I've heard and that were expressed particularly for the private club and that's important to me. That probably means more to me than a lot of the other technical details. I would not want to think of any waste and Mr. Beshard I think your point of every seeing that in our waterways. This waterway is the Lynnhaven River that connects in some sort of fashion, these two connect and we're trying to get shellfish back in. And, you think of those things to be able to have for future generations. I certainly want to have that so, I only see this as a land use issue. And the question of us agreeing that there's a need for a marina or not and I'm waiting to see what other people say. But, I will think all of you remember some young people. It's a pretty good thing. Ronald Ripley: Any other comments? Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I am inclined, from our standpoint of view in land use. I think it is an appropriate land use. However, I have some reservations on the drawings that we saw and the extent that the pier is going to stick out into and extend into the waterway past the recommended area. I don't know how we can do it to approve the land use and yet say that we're not in favor of that particular structure being jetted out into the waterway that far. As far as the land use stand point of view and the additional 15 slips, I think yes, that is a good thing and I'd like to support that. I just don't know how I can do that and not support the part of how it sticks out into the waterway. I'm not sure. Is there anyway that we can do this? Kay Wilson: If you approve the application for the Conditional Use Permit, there are no conditions that would require the applicant to conform to that or to any other configuration. You're basically hoping that the other agencies will take care of that. Ronald Ripley: Dot Wood has a comment. Dorothy Wood: As you know, I misread the application. I thought they were temporary slips and then I didn't have a concern as much But, it is very difficult situation but with all of the neighbors opposed to this, I could not support it. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Jan Anderson has a comment. Janice Anderson: Thank you. This is a land use issue and I agree with everybody on that land use issue is the marina It is a marina It is functioning as a marina. I don't think anyone has a question of that use. But, what they're asking for is for us to extend that use and I think it gets to extensive then. I think you're encroaching too much and it's too much of an impact on the neighborhood. Those are the two things that we're supposed to really draw attention to is the impact of the waterway and the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Even the facility is not commercially based. The leasing of the spaces is Item #19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 17 a commercial use I mean they are doing a commercial function of leasing for profit even though this is not a commercial site. So, I think that takes a little different turn We do have a policy even though it's a policy not a plan and you can move on the policies and that's fine. The piers they have now are three very large. They extend way out into the water as they are now. And, I think any further extension is going to be further excessive use and encroach on the neighbors and the neighboring area. My problem is the way it's setup. The applicant's put back in the dishwasher where they can't get out first because it they never get out because somebody's got to go first. But, if we approve this, there is a possibility that their site would be approved just as they are. And, I think Council as part of the membership here has stated they have a problem with and we can't really depend on another agency saying no to that. So, I wouldn't be supportive of the proposal just for those reasons. Ronald Ripley: Yes Will. William Din: I don't think I'm going to be able to support this issue either. From a land use perspective, I do agree that there is a marina there and they are using it as a marina. I think we are looking at it from an expansion or otherwise it wouldn't be before us for one. We have to be part of that process to get this ball rolling so you continue on with the approval process or disapproval process whichever it might be. I agree with Jan that this a quality of life issue that's not much different from any other facility overgrowing its use. It has to reach a point where you approve the growth of this or disapprove of it. And, I don't think I can support that. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, can I ask you a question? While he's coming up, I didn't hear. Some of the opposition didn't seem to have a problem with the quantity it's just the location And, that is what I thought I heard. And, I don't think adding these few is an unreasonable amount but there is apparently some objection to the location of them. And, my question is would you consider bringing another plan back that showed at least at the north dock where you would suggest another location for these larger slips? Eddie Bourdon: Ron, you heard actually the same thing that we heard through the process and I'm sorry other people didn't hear the same thing. There's a number of slips have generally have been an issue and those other may say 10 versus 15 or whatever. The problem we have and I'll say it again, we've got to move the process forward to the people who can make the decision on where the slips should go We can give you three or four different configurations of slips. That's easy The point is none of them mean anything. That's the reality. Until the Corps of Engineers, VMRC and Waterfront Operations people, you know, get down way in and say this is where the slip should be. And, it may wind up being 12 versus 15. But, the one thing I know is that, you know, we've had concurrence on the middle pier but again, you know, what John says is not what the agency said to us. They tell us, you know, we're not going to just because it's on a Use Permit doesn't mean were approving that pier by any stretch of the imagination there or somewhere else But, you can spin it anyway you want to spin it. Ronald Ripley: I'm not speaking for the Commission. I'm speaking as to what I see. And it looks like the north pier if that could be reconfigured? It sounds like the middle Item # 19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 18 pier wasn't really that intrusive and if somehow that north pier can reconfigure or another pier added to the companion pier. Eddie Bourdon: We're not adverse to any of those things. That's my whole point. I don't think I can say anything more. What you see up there, we're not here today telling you to approve it that way. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: That northern pier, maybe I wasn't being really clear. We are not asking you to approve that northern pier. We're not even asking you to approve the other pier. We're just asking you to approve that we can attempt to add 15 boat slips to this site and it won't have a negative impact from a land use perspective. We don't think the use of the pier creates a problem for anybody. We recognize the northern one creates issues and we're not asking you to approve that configuration in any way shape or form. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Well, I'm going to make a motion to approve and I'm sure I'm going to hear something about that and I'm also going to tell you that I'm not approving the configuration of the piers, either one of them, any of them or even the possibility that this whole thing will be approved. Only the Use Permit to allow for them to possibly get 15 spaces and they may not get 15 spaces of any length. We do not know. But, I'm not approving the plan. My motion is to approve the Use only. Ronald Ripley: We got a motion by Mr. Miller. Do I have a second? Kathy Katsias seconded it. Kathy Katsias: I concur with Bob. I'm not approving the plan but I'm approving the fact that the club needs 15 additional slips. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Dorothy Wood: Respectfully Mr. Miller, I can't go along with your motion. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You all ready to vote? Jan, do you have a comment? Janice Anderson: Just a quick question. I'm going to go with Dot on that if you're approving the addition of 15 slots they've got to go somewhere and so my opinion is this is already been expanded in 1988. I think it's at its max now to loin with the neighbors and both of them be good neighbors to each other with the residential property. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Are there any other comments? Joe? Joseph Strange Yeah. We keep saying this is a land use but it really is land use on a public waterway. You know, in some ways and it may sound stupid when I say this but it's almost like someone expanding their property out into the roadway I mean if you Item #19 Cavalier Gold and Yacht Club Page 19 look at it in that sense and I guess my question is if we approve this are we approving 15 slips? Are we saying put 15 slips somewhere or are just approving? Ronald Ripley: That's what we're saying. That's the motion. Joseph Strange: If we approve this we are approving 15 slips, I'll have to vote no. Ronald Ripley: okay. Alright, we're ready to vote. ANDERSON CRABTREE DIN HORSLEY KATSIAS KNIGHT MILLER RIPLEY SALLE' STRANGE WOOD AYE 5 NAY 5 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE NAY NAY NAY NAY NAY ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 5-5, is that what I see up there. The motion ties. Kay Wilson: The motion does not pass. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all for your time. Ronald Ripley- Thank you. Okay, is that the last item? Alright, we want to thank you for coming today and Mr. Scott, thank you again for a good agenda. The meeting is adjourned. AfapD-8, Gpin 1466-88-3703 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (additional parking) — Granted 12-11-01 2. Conditional Use Permit (church expansion private school) —Granted 1-11- 00 Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) — Granted 9-24-91 3. Change of Zoning (B-2 Community Business District & R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District) — Granted 12-7- 99 4. Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle rentals) — Granted 6-25-96 5. Change of Zoning (R-7.5 Residential District to B-2 Community Business District) — Granted 3-12-91 6. Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle repair) — Granted 11-13-89 LA BF Irk 1h `=J it�i tea- _ r.� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: K & E, L.L.C. — Modification of a Conditional Rezoning MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: An ordinance upon Application of K & E, L.L.0 for a Modification of a Conditional Re„zoning approved by City Council on December 7, 1999. Property is located at 5102 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 1466883703). DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSViLLE The purpose of this request is to amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement in order to modify the proposed architecture of the dairy retail facility and to eliminate the previously proposed retail center. ■ Considerations: The property, zoned Conditional B-2 Community Business District, currently houses the existing Yoder Dairy facility This facility is not used for the manufacturing of milk but rather as a central milk delivery center, a bottling facility, and some related retail. The existing business and buildings have been located on the site for approximately 60 years. A conditional rezoning was approved by City Council on December 7, 1999, which changed the zoning on the site from B-2 Community Business District and R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District and Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District. Proposed Proffers 1 and 2 require that any development adhere to the layout, landscaping, and architecture of the proffered plans and elevations. The applicant has decided against proceeding with the originally proposed retail center and wishes to develop the site with the dairy and associated retail/gift shop. Proffers 1 and 2 are requested for modification because this cannot be accomplished with the currently recorded proffers. Also, the original proffer agreement specifically disallowed childcare centers on the B-2 site Modifying Proffer 3 now allows such a use as it has been determined not to be objectionable The revised Proffer 5 reduces the allowed height of the monument style sign from twelve feet, as originally proffered, to eight feet. Proffers 4 and 6 remain unchanged. K & E Page 2 of 2 The request for a modification to the Conditional Rezoning Agreement is acceptable. Due to changes in the economy and the proposed realignment of Princess Anne Road, the applicant is not able to construct and lease the larger scale retail center as previously approved At present, the applicant would like to move forward with the demolition of the existing dairy facility and construct the proposed dairy and retail/gift shop The structure will be approximately 240 feet from the existing right-of-way The property adjacent to Princess Anne Road will remain vacant and will be subject to Planning Commission and City Council review in the event that the property owner wishes to develop the site beyond the current plan. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an existing use and the proposal will enhance this area. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: Planning Departmentr�J�� K & Eq L.L.C. / #141 April 9, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: D08-21 1 -MOD-2002 REQUEST: Modification of a Conditional Rezoning approved by City Council on December 7, 1999. ADDRESS: Property is located on the north side of Princess Anne Road, 155 feet west of Bellingham Road. Said parcel is located at 5102 Princess Anne Road. Ajar D^s , 77 T_T-r. G PI N: 14668837030000 +✓ D -- condo Gp:n 1466--88—3 703 E� Planning commission Agenda% ,�z uti./ram, Y April 9, 2003 i K & E L.L.C. / #1 4 `'*�' ° R .•°•` Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 2 — KE M PSVI LLE SITE SIZE: 2.46 acres STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A. K. Smith PURPOSE: To amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement in order to modify the proposed architecture of the dairy retail facility and to eliminate the previously proposed retail center. Major Issues: • Degree to which the requested modification meets the intent of the original rezoning and provides for future orderly development of the site, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property, zoned Conditional B-2 Community Business District, currently houses the existing Yoder Dairy facility. This facility is not used for the manufacturing of milk but rather as a central milk delivery center, a bottling facility, and some related retail. The existing business and buildings have been located on the site for approximately 60 years. Surrounding Land Use and.,Zoni[!g North: . Vacant, part of existing dairy operation / Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. / #14 Page 2 Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District South: . Princess Anne Road, daycare, office, single family dwellings / 0-2 Office District, R-10 Residential District East: . Single family dwellings / R-5D Residential Duplex District Vilest: Auto sales, day care / B-2 Community Business District Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing The applicant could develop the site as proffered and Zoning: approved by City Council on December 7, 1999. This agreement included the redevelopment of this parcel and the 1-1 parcel behind this site to the north. The proposal included an attractive retail center with the dairy as the "anchor." The existing Yoder Dairy facility was to be demolished and replaced with a new facility including 16,060 square feet of retail space, Miller Door retail operation of 5,995 square feet and a new Yoder Dairy facility consisting of 18,400 square feet of bottling, retail and delivery areas. The redevelopment proposed a total of 40,455 square feet of retail and industrial building area. The applicant agreed to remove the existing non -conforming sign located on the property and replace it with the new retail center sign represented in a proffered rendering. The plan further indicated that the retail center would be comprised of eleven (11) retail bays of 1,400 square feet each. The Yoder Dairy facility, itself, was to have a "Country Store" and administrative offices. The actual dairy operation (bottling) was proposed in a new building located just behind the proposed retail center. The applicant had indicated that the uses to be established in the retail center included gift shops, specialty shops, eateries and novelty shops. The approved proffer agreement eliminated the more intense and intrusive uses which could be allowed in the B-2 Community Business and 1-1 Light Industrial Districts. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. I # 14 Page 3 With Under the current proposal, the site could be Proposed developed with the 16,000 square foot dairy facility on Zoning: the existing 1.15 acre Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial parcel (this portion of the site as well as the residential component are not under consideration for the modification), as well as construct an 1,800 square foot retail store/gift shop connected to the dairy on the southern side of the facility located on the remaining 2.46 acres currently zoned Conditional B-2 Community Business District. The landscaping, the layout of the parcel and the building's elevations are tied to the proffer agreement. No substantial changes to any of the submitted or depicted information is permitted without additional review and consideration of the City Council. Zoning History On this site, a conditional rezoning was approved by City Council on December 7, 1999, which changed the zoning on the site from B-2 Community Business District and R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District and Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District. The recorded proffers are listed below in the Proposal section. In the last several years, several Conditional Use Permits were granted for churches in the vicinity. Within close proximity, a Conditional Use Permit was granted for a motor vehicle repair facility in 1989. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 12 inch city water line in Princess Anne Road and a 6 inch city water line in Century Drive. This site may connect to city water. There is a 12 inch gravity sewer in Princess Anne Road and an 8 inch gravity sewer in Century Drive. The site must connect to city sewer. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. / # 14 Page 4 �' Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The current City Master Transportation Plan designates this segment gment of Princess Anne Road as a 120 foot divided highwaywith a multi -use trail. The he right-of-way width required to accommodate future relocated Princess Anne R ' Road in the vicinity of the site is 130 feet. However, relocated Princess Anne Road will be shifted in a southerly direction away from the proposed development. When comparing paring the conceptual site layout with the City Council approved Alternate "B" Preferre d Alignment for relocated Princess Anne Road, it is apparent that ad ditional dditional right-of- way is not needed from this site for the proposed Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) administered intersection construction. Ho wever, it should be noted that the VDOT/City Alternate "B" is conceptual and that the e proposed two r ' r r " (Existing) Princess Mote Rd. r r Y � pry�* `�,..�- wf d' ti A • • 1L 5 ~ T 4 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 & E, L.L.C. / # 14 Page 5 (2) lane "access" or "service road" may undergo reconfiguration during the upcoming Princess Anne/KempsvilleMlitchduck Intersection Improvements (CIP 2-048) project design process. The improvements are proposed to raise the capacity of the intersection to meet future demands and to eliminate congestion. Construction of this project is slated to begin in July 2006 with completion in July 2008. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use — 550 ADT Princess Anne Road 30,000 ADT' 14,800 ADT ' Proposed Land Use 3- 100 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by the entire existing dairy facility 3 as defined only by proposed 1,800 square foot retail/gift shop Public Safetv 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 concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Hazardous materials used, stored or sold onsite must comply Rescue: with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code requirements. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained prior to occupancy. Fire code permits may be required at the time of occupancy, contact the Fire Department for permit information. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the front of the subject site lies in a corridor planned for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. I #14 Page 6 Y 'UR %0 Summary of Proposal Prgposal The Conditional Rezoning from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District was approved by the City Council on December 7, 1999. The Conditional Rezoning has 6 proffers: 1. The Property shall be rezoned and developed substantially in accordance with that certain site plan entitled, "A Conceptual Site Layout and Landscape Plan of Yoder Retail Center," dated September 7, 1999, and prepared by MSA, P.C., a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Site Plan"). The property is to be rezoned from existing B-2 (@ 2.60 acres), and R-5D (@ 3.76 acres), to B-2 Conditional (@ 2.33 acres) and 1-1 Conditional (@ 1.20 acres) with R-5D zoning remaining in the approximate amount of 2.83 acres, as more specifically set forth in the Site Plan. 2. The architectural design of the principal structures on the Property shall be substantially as shown on that certain exhibit consisting of a drawing entitled, "An Elevation Plan of Yoder Retail Center," dated July 15, 1999, prepared by Cox, Kliewer & Company, P.C., copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Rendering"). In addition, the exterior building materials and colors of the principal structures on the Property and for all portions of the principal structures on the Property shall be substantially as shown on the Rendering. There are two primary structures proposed for the site- the retail center and the dairy processing facility. The retail center, which will be the only structure visible from the street, will be steeled framed with the primary materials of the street facade being brick, painted wood sidings EIFS and aluminum storefront. The two side walls of the retail center will be primarily brick. The dairy processing facility, which will be located behind the retail center and not visible from the street, will be a steel framed building with pre -finished metal panels for the exterior walls. The rendering depicts the proposed quality level and architectural theme for the building, intended to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The uses permitted on the Property shall be restricted to all those permitted by right or permitted by conditional use permit upon approval thereof by City Council in Conditional B-2 and 1-1 zoning except that the following uses shall not be permitted: Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. r #14 Page 7 Conditional B-2 Zoning: Bicycle and moped rental establishments, dormitories for marine pilots, dwellings attached or multi -family, eating and drinking establishments without drive through windows, when not freestanding and incorporated inside a mixed use building, home occupations, housing for seniors, disabled or handicapped persons, including nursing, maternity homes, child care centers, hotels and motels, motor vehicle sales and rental, and off -site parking facilities. 1-1 Zoning: Explosives manufacturing, storage and distribution, facilities for construction, maintenance and repair of vessels, military installations, petroleum processing, piers, wharves and docks, ship supply establishments and facilities, storage and processing of salvage, scrap or junk, terminals for freight or passengers arriving or departing by ship, and wholesale and retail establishments dealing primarily in bulk materials delivered by ship, or by ship and railroad or in combination. R-5D Zoning: Animal pounds, shelters, commercial kennels, auditoriums, beverage manufacturing shops, boat sales, business and vocational schools, child care centers, eating and drinking establishments with drive through windows, funeral homes, furniture repair, greenhouses, plant nurseries, liquor stores (package only), museum and art galleries, newspaper printing, private clubs, lodges, social centers, adult bookstores, explosive manufacturing, storage or distribution, construction/maintenance of vessels, military installations, petroleum processing, piers, wharves or docks, ship supply and facilities, storage of salvage or junk, terminals for freight or passengers for departure by ship, and wholesale/retail facilities involved in shipping by railroad or ship. 4. Any exterior mechanical equipment located on the roof of the retail center shall be screened from the view of the public right-of-way by the front canopy treatment and parapet walls on the side. 5. A freestanding monument sign erected on the Property shall not exceed a height of twelve feet. No portion of the signage on each sign shall protrude beyond the sign face area and the sign face area shall be the same width as the monument base of the sign. Any freestanding sign constructed on the Property shall be substantially the same exterior building materials and colors as the front facade on the retail structures. 6. Site Lighting on the Property shall be internal focus metal halide. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & B, L.L.C. / # 14 Page 8 Modified Proffers Proffer 1 and 2 require that any development adhere to the layout, landscaping, and architecture of the proffered plans and elevations. The applicant has decided against proceeding with the originally proposed retail center and wishes to develop the site with the dairy and associated retail/gift shop. Proffers 1 and 2 are requested for modification because this cannot be accomplished with the currently recorded proffers. Also, the original proffer agreement specifically disallowed childcare centers on the B-2 site. Modifying Proffer 3 now allows such a use as it has been determined not to be objectionable. The revised Proffer 5 reduces the allowed height of the monument style sign from twelve feet, as originally proffered, to eight feet. Proffers 4 and 6 remain unchanged. PROFFER # 1 The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with that certain site plan entitled, "Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan of Yoder Dairies, Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, dated March 12, 2003, and prepared by MSA, P.C., a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Site Plan"). The modification of conditions shall apply to the property identified in the Site Plan, comprised of approximately 2.46 acres, more or less, and currently zoned Conditional B-2, and shall not otherwise effect any other parcels previously rezoned. Staff Evaluation: This revised proffer states that the property zoned Conditional B-2 will be developed as depicted on the site plan. The once proposed retail center has been eliminated. The only retail element remaining on this site is in conjunction with the proposed dairy facility on the Conditional P 1 property. All other elements set forth in the original proffer agreement concerning 1.20 acres of Conditional P 1 and 2.83 acres of R-5D zoning will remain in effect. This revised proffer is acceptable. PROFFER # 2 The architectural design of the principal structures on the Property shall be substantially as shown on certain exhibits consisting of drawings entitled, "Retail Elevation Yoder Dairies," dated March 12, 2003, and prepared by Cox, Kliewer & Company, P.C., copy of which has been Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. / #14 Page 9 exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Rendering"). In addition, the exterior building materials and colors of the principal structures on the Property and for all portions of the principal structures on the Property shall be substantially as shown on the Rendering. The Rendering depicts the proposed quality level and architectural theme for the building, intended to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Evaluation: This proffer replaces the original proffer that addressed the design of the retail center that has been eliminated. This proffer requires the retail/gift shop building on the property zoned Conditional B-2 will be in conformance with the submitted drawings. This proffer is acceptable. PROFFER #3 The uses permitted on the Property shall be restricted to all those permitted by right or permitted by conditional use permit upon approval thereof by City Council in Conditional B-2 zoning except that the following uses shall not be permitted; Conditional 13-2: Bicycle and moped rental establishments, dormitories for marine pilots, dwellings attached or multi -family, home occupations, housing for seniors, disabled, or handicapped persons, including convalescent or nursing, maternity homes, hotels and motels, motor vehicle sales and rental, and off -site parking facilities. This shall not effect the uses previously enumerated for the R-5D and 1-1 zoning. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The original proffer agreement specifically disallowed childcare centers on the B-2 site. This modification now allows such a use as it was determined not to be objectionable. The original elements addressing the uses specifically disallowed on the 1.20 acres of Conditional 1-1 and 2.83 acres of R-5D zoning will remain in effect. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. / #14 Page 10 PROFFER #4 Any exterior mechanical equipment located on the roof of the retail center shall be screened from the view of the public right-of-way by the front canopy treatment and parapet walls on the side. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable as there are no proposed changes. PROFFER #6 A freestanding monument sign erected on the Property shall not exceed a height of eight feet. No portion of the signage on each sign shall protrude beyond the sign face area and the sign face area shall be the same width as the monument base of the sign. Any freestanding sign constructed on the Property shall be substantially the same exterior building materials and colors as the front facade on the retail structures. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. It reduces the allowed height of the monument style sign from twelve feet, as originally proffered, to eight feet. PROFFER #6 Site Lighting on the Property shall be internal focus metal halide. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable as there are no proposed changes. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated March 24, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Site Design • The subject site is located near a large intersection (Kempsville Road and Princess Anne Road) and the corridor is developed with a mix of commercial uses at this busy intersection. • The site plan depicts the proposed 16,000 square foot dairy facility on the existing 1.15 acre Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial parcel. This portion of the site is not under consideration for modification. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. l #14 Page 11 • The connected 1,800 square foot retail store/gift shop for the dairy is depicted on the southern side of the dairy facility and on a portion of the remaining 2.46 acres currently zoned Conditional B-2 Community Business District. • The required number of parking spaces is exceeded on the site plan for the retail establishment. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • Access to the sites is provided via a two-way 24 foot wide drive off of Princess Anne Road along the western portion of the site. • A right turn lane into the property is proposed on Princess Anne Road as one travels to the west. There is an existing left turn lane on Princess Anne Road in the east bound direction. • A pedestrian sidewalk and right of way dedication is proposed along Princess Anne Road. Pedestrian access appears to be adequate. Architectural Design • The submitted elevation depicts the approved gray prefabricated metal dairy facility in the rear of the proposed retail building. The dairy facility on the 1-1 Light Industrial District is not under consideration with this request; however, it is important to show its relationship to the new structure. • The retail/gift shop structure is depicted with a primary exterior building material of cement fiber board (Hardi-plank) shown as light gray to complement the dairy facility with dark gray architectural grade shingles. Final color selections will be neutral and complementary to the green accent colors elsewhere on the fagade. • A beige continuous masonry apron to the sill course is shown along the base of the fagade, running the entire length of the building. The base of the colonnade pillars will be wrapped with this brick. • A colonnade is proposed on both sides of the retail structure and provides cover to the dairy's office on the west side of the facility. • The trademark green and white colors of the Yoder Dairies are present on the striped awning above the retail entrance. The sign and decorative vent are depicted Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. / # 14 Page 12 above the awning. • Colonial style windows are shown with six (6) mullions over one (1). • The windows and the doors are trimmed with a white color trim. Corner board/trim in the same color is also proposed. Landscape and Open- Space • The depicted foundation landscaping exceeds the minimum required by the City's Zoning Ordinance as the landscaping is depicted along the length of the dairy retail shop and the dairy facility. • A 15 foot wide, Category IV (mix of evergreen trees and shrubs) buffer is depicted along the east property line where the B-2 portion of the site abuts the residential district to the east. A 25 foot wide, Category IV buffer is depicted along the east property line where the I-1 portion of the site abuts the residential district to the east. This portion of the site is not under reconsideration. • A more detailed review of all landscape requirements will be performed during final site plan review. Evaluation of Request The request for a modification to the Conditional Rezoning Agreement is acceptable and recommended for approval. Due to changes in the economy and the proposed realignment of Princess Anne Road, the applicant is not able to construct and lease the larger scale retail center as previously approved. At present, the applicant would like to move forward with the demolition of the existing dairy facility and construct the proposed dairy and retail/gift shop. The Yoder Dairy facility has operated at this site for more than 60 years and has served the needs of the surrounding community. The redevelopment of this site will allow the applicant to operate a state-of-the-art facility and to improve the appearance and operation of the existing business. While the architecture of the proposed retail store is a departure from the approved elevations from 1999, which used exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) and other nontraditional elements, the revised elevation is in line with staff's vision of more traditional architecture styles (Colonial, Georgian) for redevelopment of this area of Virginia Beach. The structure will be approximately 240 feet from the existing right-of-way. The property adjacent to Princess Anne Road will remain vacant and will be subject to Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L. L.C. / #14 Page 13 Planning Commission and City Council review in the event that the property owner wishes to develop the site beyond the current plan. Staff is currently working with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on issues related to the improvement of the Witchduck Road and Princess Anne Road intersection and surrounding property. The Princess Anne/Kempsvilie/Witchduck Intersection Improvements (CIP 2-048) project is designed to raise the capacity of the intersection to meet future demands and to eliminate congestion. Construction of this project is slated to begin in July 2006 with completion in July 2008. Issues related to the redesign of the intersection include access, median breaks, realignment, landscaping, and impacts to surrounding properties. Staff has been working with the community and will continue to work closely with the applicant to improve access for this property and all other sites along the current Princess Anne Road that will lose direct access with the new alignment. It appears the location of the dairy and the retail facility will not impede any future plans for modifications for access, etc. At this time, the final details of this VDOT and City project are not finalized. However, staff notes that the proposed road for ingress/egress shown at Princess Anne Road (located on the western property boundary) will perhaps be only a temporary access to the property. The initial detailed plan for the long-term access to this property and those to the west of it is to run the access along the eastern property boundary to facilitate traffic movement to a future median break that will enable trucks and other vehicles to safely turn into the site. The proposed new alignment of Princess Anne Road will necessitate all traffic moving from the west, north and south to perform a U — Turn to gain access to the site with the entrance as shown on the proffered plan. Staff recommends approval of this modification to the proffers with the proviso that the access to Princess Anne Road as shown is subject to being relocated to the eastern side of the property as plans for CIP 2-048 proceed. 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 Citv Codes. Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. / # 14 Page 14 v Z fit M d 9 F t 5� l Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 w'l O y i K & E, L.L.C. / #14 `` �, - •'` Page 15 QOF 2 Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 K & E, L.L.C. I # 14 Page 16 aA $- �c w4�s�� i 4''er 0 Gus r.' ¢` +� -? "' Fi`yM� ? � � i ,.-..%f' � ' .. t •<i-yM3 . i•' � T' �� },r �. ..M. . � + •ISM_ - AW ., � }.. :♦' -±b �* '� , - � tl yip �;t - ' JY� 41" _ `� ��;♦ � �''•' �N- • r PPP""- {•_R`� It y 2'*y, -�i •: yam, v 'C i� +'' ,C�.n �i t ILt'. r (. .,,. , � f '•,�' _ -� � � . � 1" s dam' a,or•' � � « of . -� S+" V ih • Ark jvw F � �� ' ,♦� , ?4 � ��♦k.�f.^ ''�' - � , - " _ - . - „fir #°� a 41. ++ Y * t p ��..AN • �.k.•: /; .� -ate_. a� ' ILI AWN WA Ak 140f • i �� J�t' »'� t may' �r .,u; � r � � .4.a+... -yF �.1� 6 LSO r-�` • Mf�`yy.i ��-�- -fi �' �f: , rf' w ..t , N' Fp' _ rs ..'..' , •... _ .. �.,.f AP/ lk e.7 Al 11ASd L .LLJ-1 v. �'+f�v�,..y,�.+nn'.w., '11 .eh ,.. • ...ion,. . v., Planning Commission Agenda April 9, 2003 KF E_ L_L_C_ / -t JaOF APFLICATiON PAGE 4 OF _0 OnMcATIoN of CO4_,%,U0NS CITY OF VIIZGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT App&aWs N-amc K & E , LL C List All Current Property Owners: Kenneth H_ Miller Elsie L. Mi.1 jer PROPERTY OWNER DISCLosuRE If the property ow= is a CORPORATIOIN, list aU officers of the Corporation below: (Attack list if ) NIA If t&e property owner is a PARTNERSSIPT FIRM, or other UM4CORPORATED OR"NIZATION, hst all manbe s or partners in the mwization below- Maack hst f ) N/A i Check here if the property owner is NOT a corpwation, patacrsh�p, firm, or otber uamccapor ed an. If the app&=1 is not the ca7rent owner ofdw pvperty„ co lets the Appikant Disclaswe seaiion halm; APPLICANT Discwsum If the applicant is a CORPORATION, hst all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach hst if necessary') Kenneth R. Miller Elsie L. Miller Ifs apphcant is a PARTNERSMP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, hst all m� abm or partam is the orgraaization below: (Attach list if necessary) N/A Check here ff the apphc a= is NOT a corpora wA firm, or other umncorporated mpnxzaton_ CERTIFICATION: I certE& that the information contained herein is trace and uccurata r � Pnnt Name Planning Commission Agenda April 97 2003 K & E, L.L.C. / #14 Page 18 Item # 14 K&E, L.L.C. Modification of a Conditional Rezoning 5102 Princess Anne Road District 2 Kempsville April 9, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: I will go onto Item #14, which is K&E, Limited Liability Corporation. It's an ordinance upon application of K&E for a Modification of a Conditional Rezoning approved by City on December 7, 1999. The property is located on the north side of Princess Anne Road, west of Bellingham Road. It is in the Kempsville District, District 2. Mr. Perry? Michael Perry: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Perry. I'm a local landscape architect. I'm representing the applicant. We've read all the proffers and we're in agreement with them. I understand that there was one concern Mr. Din about the area in front after the demolition. The best that I could say that it would be a groomed "pasture." It will be seeded and maintained. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #14" Hearing none. Will, could please comment on this item? William Din: Yes. Thank you Ms. Wood. I'll be glad to comment on this item on K&E, Item # 14. I represent this area and I'm glad to see that this area is subject to redevelopment here with a revised dairy area. I'm glad to hear that there's going to be a pasture out there to go along with that, so maybe there will be some cows out there some day. However, the staff has recommended approval of this item and we as Planning Commission have agreed that it should be. This is a change to a modification to a conditional rezoning that was previously approved by City Council back in 1999, subject to the changes at Princess Anne Road and the economy of the times has caused this applicant to reconsider the initial retail center that he was putting in this area. However, he feels like he wants to continue on with the development of the dairy building itself and we agree with that, so the building will update this area. It will change the visual appearance from Princess Anne Road subject to the changes of the realignment of Princess Anne Road in the future. The area will still be subject to redevelopment of the front portion of this pasture when that occurs, so the Planning Commission had no objection to this and felt like it was an improvement to this area and I hardily agree. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Din. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda, # 14, which is K&E, L.L.C. and that has six proffers. I'd like to move to approve this item. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion made to approve the item read. Do I have a second? Seconded by Don Horsley. Any discussion? Bob. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item # 14. My firm is working on the project. Item # 14 K&E, L.L.C. Page 2 Ronald Ripley: So noted. Ready to vote. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY AYE SALLE" STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0, with the abstention so noted, the motion passes. FORM NO P 5 1 B W. �g41A-B c ✓40P tell (4,: op t 4 Oil S s Op OUR NA�� .� City of Virginia Seach In Reply Refer To our File No. DF-5712 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilson INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE RE: Conditional Zoning Application K & E, L.L.C. DATE: May 15, 2003 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 27, 2003. I have reviewed the subj ect proffer agreement, dated March 243 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure FIRST AMENDMENT To PROFFERS CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 24 day of March, 2003, by and between K & E, L.L.C., a Virginia Limited Liability Company, owner of the Property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto ( hereinafter referred to as "Grantor); and the City of Virginia Beach, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Kempsville District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 3.61 acres, more or less, as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter the "Property); and WHEREAS, the Property is subject to an Agreement including proffered covenants, restrictions and conditions, dated October 26, 1999, accepted by Grantee and recorded on December 97 1999, in Deed Book 4178, at Page 1887 ("First Proffer); and WHEREAS, the Grantor has filed a Modification of Conditions Application with the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, so as to modify, in part, the First Proffer; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has requested the Grantee accept a modification to The First Proffer; 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 competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, including those listed above, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned Conditional B-2, are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's Modification of Conditions Application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed modification of conditions, in This Document Prepared By. Douglas W. Davis, Esquire DAVIS & ASSOCIATES, P. C. Wynngate Business Park at Greenbrier 516 Baylor Court Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 (757) 420-7722 757) 424-3293 facsimile LAw apFcm o GPiN. 1466 88 3703 Clam s Assawns, P.M �EAICE, VA � -I- After Recordation Return To: UW Cr Own s RM 111MAPEAKIN VA addition to the regulations provided for in the existing Conditional B-2 zoning district by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation and use of the Property; and NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro Quo for modification of conditions, 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 these Proffers shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title: 1. The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with that certain site plan entitled, Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan of Yoder Dairies, Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, dated March 12, 2003, and prepared by MSA, P.C., a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Site Plan") The modification of conditions shall apply to the property identified in the Site Plan, comprised of approximately 2.45 acres, more or less, and currently zoned Conditional B-2, and shall not otherwise effect any other parcels previously rezoned. 2. The architectural design of the pnncipal structures on the Property shall be substantially as shown on certain exhibits consisting of drawings entitled "Retail Elevation Yoder Dairies," dated March 12, 2003, and prepared by Cox, Kliewer & Company, P.C., copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Rendering"). In addition, the exterior building materials and colors of the principal structures on the Property and for all portions of the principal structures on the Property shall be substantially as shown on the Rendering. The rendering depicts the proposed quality level and architectural theme for the building, intended to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood 3. The uses permitted on the Property shall be restricted to all those permitted by right or permitted by conditional use permit upon approval thereof by City Council in Conditional B-2 zoning except that the following uses shall not be permitted: Conditional 13-2: Bicycle and moped rental establishments, dormitories for marine pilots, dwellings attached or multi -family, home occupations, housing for seniors, disabled, or handicapped persons, including convalescent or nursing, maternity homes, hotels and motels, motor vehicle sales and rental, and off -site parking facilities. This shall not effect the uses previously enumerated for the R5D and 1-1 zoning. 4. Any exterior mechanical equipment located on the roof of the retail center shall be screened from the view of the public right-of-way by the front canopy treatment and parapet walls on the side. 5. A freestanding monument sign erected on the Property shall not exceed a height of -2- Lew offices cF Dom s P.C. VA eight feet. No portion of the signage on each sign shall protrude beyond the sign face area and the sign face area shall be the same width as the monument base of the sign. Any freestanding sign constructed on the Property shall be of substantially the same exterior building materials and colors as the front facade on the retail structures. 6. Site lighting on the Property shall be internal focus metal halide. 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. All references to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto refer to the City Zoning ordinance of the City of the Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the modification of conditions is approved by the Grantee. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions, including (1) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administration made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the City Zoning ordinance of this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition to the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: 511 LOW a of ors & 41 vac. 0 VA K & E. L.L.C. ame: Kenneth R. Miller Title: Member By. rv, 0 -, c Name: Elsie L. Miller Title: Manager INDIVIDUALLY: By: ame: Kenn R. Miler w By: ne-�-'j Name: Elsie L. Miller COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z day of March, 2003 9 g 9 Y by Kenneth R. Miller and Elsie L. Miller, individually and as the sole members of K & E, L.L.C., a Virginia Limited Liability Company, on behalf of the Company. /Z I No ry Public My commission expires: 31� -4- EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being near Kempsville, in Kempsville Magisterial District, Princess Anne County, Virginia, as can be seen by reference to a plat made for Yoder Dairies by C.R. McIntire, Civil Engineer, which plat is made a part of this deed and is to be recorded herewith, and describes the property as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe on the North side of the Kempsville Road at the Southeastern corner of property belonging to Yoder Dairies, Incorporated, thence along the center line of a ditch North 36 degrees 40 min. East 233.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence along the center line of a ditch and its projection thereof North 65 degrees 00 min. West 351.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence along the center line of a ditch South 62 degrees, 28 min., East, 984.5 feet to an iron pipe on the Northern side of Kempsville Road, thence along the said Northern side of the Kempsville Road North 75 degrees, 12 min. West 432.3 feet to a point; thence continuing along the said Northern side of the Kempsville Road North 65 degrees 57 min. West 317.4 feet to the point of beginning; and containing 17.60 acres, more or less. L A w Owes of Dom s AgSomffM P.Q Gpin 2419-58-7079 _ t� F w CITY CIF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Authorizing the Enlargement of a Nonconforming Single -Family Dwelling on Property Located at 210 79th Street -- Linda Daniel MEETING DATE: May 279 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application (# L03-212-NON-2003) of Linda H Daniel for the Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use on property located at 210 79th Street (GPIN 2419587079). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN ■ Considerations: The site is zoned R5-R Residential Resort District, in which although single- family dwellings and duplexes are allowed uses, only one such use may be located on a given lot. Because the site contains both a duplex and a single- family dwelling, each structure is considered a nonconforming use. Thus, any enlargement of either structure (in this case, the duplex) requires approval of the City Council The applicant has added a 38 44 square foot addition to the eastern side of the duplex in the rear of the site The new addition is used to house a washer and dryer The applicant was unaware of the requirement for a building permit. The addition matches the existing structure. No other work is planned for the site. ■ Recommendations: The proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as appropriate to the district as it was prior to the construction of the addition. The request, therefore, is acceptable as submitted Approval is recommended. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager. v 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT OF A 2 NONCONFORMING DUPLEX ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 210 7 9TH STREET, IN THE DISTRICT OF LYNNHAVEN 4 WHEREAS, Linda H . Daniel (hereinafter the "Applicant") 5 has made application to the City Council for authorization to 6 enlarge a nonconforming duplex situated on a certain lot or parcel 7 of land having the address of 210 7 91h Street, in the R-5R 8 Residential Resort District; and 9 WHEREAS, the said duplex is a nonconforming use, in that 10 there is also a single-family dwelling on the same lot; and 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning 12 Ordinance, the enlargement of a nonconforming structure is unlawful 13 in the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such 14 action upon a finding that the proposed structure, as enlarged, 15 will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning 16 district than is the existing structure; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 18 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 19 That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed 20 duplex, as enlarged, will be equally appropriate to the district as 21 is the existing structure. 22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 That the enlargement of the Applicant's duplex is hereby 25 authorized as submitted. 26 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on 27 the day of 28 CA-8881 29 wmm/ordres/danielncuseres.wpd 30 R-1 31 May 15, 2003 2003. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Depar t of Planning APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: do l Department of Law 2 LINDA H. DANIEL May 27, 2003 General Information: REQUEST: Addition to a Non -Conforming Use (38-44 square foot addition to the eastern side of the duplex in the rear of the site for a washer and dryer). The site has both a single-family dwelling and a duplex; having both on one lot is not allowed in'the R-5R District. The addition requires City Council approval. ADDRESS: 210 79th Street Mae to Scale Linda H. Dante 11 1 1` 1 ,111 1�• ti �� 1 1 1 11 ,1 j4 _ j ,1 a�� , •1 y� 1 1 ` 1 `, � ',� 1 ir` 1 1 1 1 ► 1+ � � 1 , 1 1 j �� 1 1 1 < 1 1 yl ST 1 1 1. 4 VI U147 1 Ln l� 11 V 1 11 1 �1 1 1 00, Seashore 1111 1 1 Stateark 1 1 '1 o `� 11 1 1 C' I 1 llln 1 ST G PI N : 24195870790000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 6 - BEACH Gpzn 2419-55--7079 Change to a Non -Conforming Use LINDA H. DANIEL Page 1 SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 7,500 square feet Faith Christie Major Issues: Insuring that the addition of a laundry room to the nonconforming duplex dwelling unit is no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and is as appropriate to the district as the existing structure. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zonin A single-family dwelling and a duplex occupy the site. The site is zoned R5-R Resort Residential District, which permits a single-family dwelling or a duplex. The site has both a single-family dwelling and a duplex, which is not allowed. Thus, expansion of the duplex through the small addition is an expansion of a non --conforming use. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin North: 79th Street Across 79th Street are single-family and duplex dwellings / R5-R Resort Residential District South: Single-family and duplex dwellings / R5-R Resort Residential District East: Single-family and duplex dwellings / R5-R Resort Residential District West: Single-family and duplex dwellings / R5-R Resort Residential District Zoning History There has been very little zoning activity in the area. The site was zoned R-D 2 Residence Duplex District until 1973. From 1973 to 1988, the site was zoned R-8 Change to a Non -Conforming Use LINDA H. DANIEL Page 2 Residential District. The site has been zoned R5-R Resort Residential since 1988. The existing structures were built in 1945. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is wooded and is in the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The site is connected to city water and city sewer. Transportation 79th Street is a local street. This is an old established neighborhood with no through traffic. There are currently no projects in the Capital Improvement Program to improve the roadway. Public Safety Police: No comments at this time Fire and No comments at this time. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as Suburban Residential / Medium and High Density. This is an area that is planned for residential uses at or above 3.5 dwelling units to the acre. Summary of Proposal The applicant has added a 38.44 square foot addition to the eastern side of the duplex in the rear of the site. The new addition is used to house a washer and dryer. Change to a Non -Conforming Use LINDA H. DANIEL Page 3 The applicant was unaware of the requirement for a building permit. The addition matches the existing structure. No other work is planned for the site. Evaluation of Request The proposed enlargement is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as appropriate to the district as the existing non -conforming use. The request, therefore, is acceptable as submitted. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Change to a Non -Conforming Use LINDA H. DANIEL Page 4 791"H STREET FORMERLY HUNDRED & SIXTEENTH STREET so Change to a Non -Conforming Use LINDA H. DANIEL Page 5 ot dor �� i 4 r � - .nR" "• 1� �,¢ i°' •o.�- a 04 ;o-wA lk Ar �F ➢jt4v :c. , � : - . 'Y�}�. 1�' seµ" • i "►, a.w.w;e W. } ,A 'lam r R ;R_ +{.'Y• .-,Mark ?7t"tk• , ,<,r v - lit - •'�" .. �6r.-. _ r fit_] j�y� v r . .r5 �� ,� y �,., w +.� •�` �„'w . >x. s 4. VV Ik let 211 Af �.r i gyp. Kr .t t dw . - 4 r. . . .01 'yw ' j,, ` Vim,} x'. t�_ t. r _�' .. '.' < < +�' ..1'r�' t T <�_ '�' ;�•' '� .- f �°%C a .. r .. ry v � "' .Y .. Y ��*' ... f � 1 �f•�yy}� '�+.p `' �►: 44, ;,t-- If S4� Ij 44 arJge to a ninon-uontorming use it f LINDA H. DANIEL ' 6 Pane .t W- W cn DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: LINDA U$t All Current ProOwners: p rty PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, l'st all Officers of the Corporation beiovr- (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 fist if necessary) y Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ff the appliciant is not the current owner- of the property, compute the Applicant Disclosure cvbn befow.. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, Irst all officers of the Corporation below: (Alta list if necessary) It the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP} FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below, (Attach bst if necessary) �..w\ .rs r. r/ �yrrr. ti� A Anry M /i i�iV..�/M �Y✓'r ��yy.�.�, M'^.�/MrY.•R ti � _ �� .w Check hate if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization CER,nFICATION: f certify that the information contained herein is true Td accurate �f 2 G; • Signature ion-Conforrnjng Use Application 'age is of 10 kbduk-d 10 16 2002 Prirt! !Name Change to a Non -Conforming Use LINDA H. DANIEL Page 7 NACA o C ?,, lop Uv .r Z. ip s CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendments to the Master Transportation Plan MEETING DATE: May 27, 2003 ■ Background: (a) An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Master Transportation Plan by the addition of a portion of Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road and the removal of a portion of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road to the Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway right-of-way. (b) An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Master Transportation Plan by the adoption of an alignment for improvements to Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road. ■ Considerations: Item (a Nimmo Parkway, from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road, was removed from the Master Transportation Plan by City Council on May 22, 2001. The ordinance proposed by Item (a), as referred to the Planning Commission from the City Council, will add back this portion of Nimmo Parkway, with a 100 foot wide right-of-way as a divided roadway with a bikeway, controlled access, and a scenic easement. At the same time that City Council removed this portion of Nimmo Parkway from the Master Transportation Plan, the Council also added to the Master Transportation Plan a 125 foot wide right-of-way segment of Sandbridge Road from Princess Anne Road east to Atwoodtown Road and a 70 foot wide right-of- way segment of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandfiddler Road. The proposed amendment would modify these additions through the following: 0 Change the 125 foot wide segment of Sandbridge Road to a 70 foot wide right-of-way as an undivided roadway with a bikeway and scenic easement. 0 Remove from the plan the 70 foot wide segment of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road east to the Nimmo Parkway right-of- way. This portion of Sandbridge Road will be improved to provide City of Virginia Beach / MTP Amendments Page 2 of 3 safety improvements in various locations under a current Capital Improvement Program project. The "Alternative Version" of the ordinance included in this package is the same as the version referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission except for the following: 1. Deletes the reference to the portion of Nimmo Parkway, from Atwoodtown Road east as being a "divided" roadway. The designation on the Master Transportation Plan Map would be "100BCS" (100 foot wide right-of-way with bikeway, controlled - access, and scenic easement). Such a designation indicates that the road when constructed can be a two-lane undivided roadway, even though the recommended right-of-way width is 100 feet. 2. Changes the eastern end of the removed segment of Sandbridge Road from Sandfiddler Road to the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way. The ordinance, as referred to the Planning Commission, would have removed from the Master Transportation Plan the segment of Sandbridge Road from the eastern end of the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way to Sandfiddler Road. The "Alternative Ordinance" has the result of leaving this segment on the Master Transportation Plan. Item b The amendment proposed by Item (b) will further modify the alignment shown on the plan for the portion of Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive east to Atwoodtown Road, shifting it southward consistent with the recommendations of a recent study of the Sandbridge Road Corridor. Staff recommended approval of both amendments. There was opposition to the requests. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve Item (a), as referred by the City Council. The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention to approve Item (b), as referred by the City Council. The Planning Commission, in approving Item (b), commented that they desire that the "City Council be aware that when of if when they realign Sandbridge Road, they take into consideration that there may be a farm heritage park in that locality." The Commission desires that this new alignment not negatively impact that possibility. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes City of Virginia Beach / MTP Amendments Page 3of3 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the "Alternative Version° ordinance for Item (a) and the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission for Item (b). Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: � 61(� CITY OF VA. BEACH - MTP / # 9 & 10 May 14, 2002 Background: The City Council has referred to the Planning Commission the following two proposed modifications to the Master Transportation Plan. 9. An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Master Transportation Plan by the addition of a portion of Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road and the removal of a portion of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road to the Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway right-of-way. 10. An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Master Transportation Plan by the adoption of an alignment for improvements to Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road. Nimmo Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road was removed from the Master Transportation Plan by City Council on May 22, 2001. The ordinance proposed by Item 9 will add back this portion of Nimmo Parkway, with a 100 foot wide right-of-way with vehicle lanes, a bikeway, controlled access, and a scenic easement. At the same time that City Council removed this portion of Nimmo Parkway from the Master Transportation Plan, the Council also added to the Master Transportation Plan a 125 foot wide right-of-way segment of Sandbridge Road from Princess Anne Road east to Atwoodtown Road and a 70 foot wide right-of-way segment of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandfiddler Road. The amendment proposed by Item 9 would modify these additions through the following: 0 Change the 125 foot wide segment of Sandbridge Road to a 70 foot wide right-of-way with a bikeway and scenic easement. 0 Remove from the plan the 70 foot wide segment of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road east to the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way. This portion of Sandbridge Road will be improved to provide safety improvements in various locations under a current Capital Improvement Program project. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY of VA. BEACH - MTP / # 9 & 10 Page 1 The amendment proposed by Item 10 will further modify the alignment shown on the plan for the portion of Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive east to Atwoodtown Road, shifting it southward consistent with the recommendations of a recent study of the Sandbridge Road Corridor. The map below shows the portion of the officially adopted Master Transportation Plan affected by the proposed amendments, including the changes to the Map that are required by the amendments. '� � ryk� �.� �~ j.� � ke, t" Sa' �'�`�} 'web � ti{Y y� � 'S�; • S ow i yr% .� ?0BS 4xN�R a;� �j Segment to a added Y 4�y.7� R 4t Y a ` Y 4 {wt 71F4$ Acute y R r ,44. to - q� 6 be S � • 1 �A V �e�o�e ?SUBS h �� I To be added v' 100, bikeway, controlled -access, and * ` scenic easement A� a } w UBS = undivided roadway with bikeway and scenic easement In addition to the above Map amendments, the following modifications must be made to the text of the Comprehensive Plan: Page 166 (second paragraph) �, BrA_ Planning Commission Agenda May 149 2003 CITY of VA. BEACH - MTP / # 9 & 10 sh, o, o. Page 2 "The following are the Controlled Access highways designated on the General Corridor Concept Element map: 1. Ferrell and Nimmo Parkways, from Indian River Road to Sandbridge If 1k16WW%W%e%A1LWWWR Road (includes portions of Princess Anne Road) 2. General Booth .... " Page 167 (bottom) to 168 (at top) "Aesthetic Overlay corridor segments designated on the General Corridor Concept Element are: 8. Nimmo Parkway, from General Booth Boulevard to Sandbridcge Road." Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Agenda May 14, 2003 CITY of VA. BEACH - MTP I # 9 & 10 Page 3 A.1ternati.ve Version 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE 3 MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY THE 4 ADDITION OF A PORTION OF NIMMO 5 (FORMERLY FERRELL) PARKWAY FROM 6 ATWOODTOWN ROAD EAST TO SANDBRIDGE 7 ROAD AND THE REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF 8 SANDBRIDGE ROAD FROM ATWOODTOWN ROAD 9 EAST TO THE N IMMO ( FORMERLY FERRELL ) 10 PARKWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 11 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general 12 welfare and good zoning practice so require; 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 15 That the Comprehensive Plan ( the "Plan") of the City of 16 Virginia Beach be, and hereby is amended and reordained by the 17 following amendments: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 To the Map of the Master Transportation Plan: 1. Add 10OBCS (100 feet wide right-of-way, with a bikeway and controlled -access, scenic roadway) portion of Nimmo Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road. 2. Remove 70 UBS (70 feet wide right of way undivided scenic roadway, with bikeway alignment) from the plan along Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown east to the Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway right-of-way. 27 COMMENT 28 Nimmo Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road was removed by City 29 Council on May 22, 2001 from the Master Transportation Plan. This Ordinance will add back this 30 portion of Nimmo Parkway and remove the portion of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road east 31 to the Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) right-of-way. 32 This version differs from the one recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in 33 that this version does not designate the subject roadway section as a divided highway and the version 34 recommended for approval by the Planning Commission removed a portion of Sandbridge Road from 35 Atwoodtown Road east to Sandfiddier Road, rather than the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way east to 36 Sandf ddler Road. 37 38 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 39 Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA-8734 ORDIN\NONCODE\mastertransord. wpd R-2 May 21, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planni Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: is, Department of Law 2 1 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING 2 COMMISSION A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE MASTER 4 TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY THE ADDITION OF A 5 PORTION OF N IMMO ( FORMERLY FERRELL) PARKWAY 6 FROM ATW OO DT 4TVI N ROAD EAST. TO SAN DBR I DGE ROAD 7 AND THE REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF SANDBRI DGE 8 ROAD FROM ATWOODTOWN ROAD EAST TO SANDFI DDLER 9 ROAD 10 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general 11 welfare and good zoning practice so requLre, 12 BE IT RESOLVED By THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 13 BEACH, VIRGINIA 14 There is hereby referred to the Planning Commission, for 15 its consideration and recommendat l-on, a proposed amendment to the 16 Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Master Transportation Plan for 17 the addition of a portion of Nimnmo Parkway from Atwoodtown Road l8 east to Sandbridge Road and the removal of a portion of Sandbridge 19 Road east from Atwoodtown Road to Sandf fiddler Road A true copy of 20 such proposed amendment is hereto attached 21 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 22 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23 That the Planning Commission be, and hereby is, directed 24 to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the 25 aforesaid amendment no later than sixty (60) days after the date of 26 adoption of this Resolution 27 COMMENT 28 The Resolution refers to the Planning Commission a proposed eaten@meat to add Nimaso 29 Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road to the Master Transportation Plan 30 31 32 33 34 The Res6lution also dhrects the Planning Commission to transom to the Qtv Council its recommendation concerning the proposed amendment within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 2003 CA-8733 bkwilsonlplanningcommission R--2 - March 5, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Plann n apartment 2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY 1 Law i epa ent 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE 3 MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY THE 4 ADDITION OF A PORTION OF NIMMO 5 ( FORMERLY FERRELL) PARKWAY FROM 6 ATWOO DTOWN ROAD EAST TO SAN DBRI DGE 7 ROAD AND THE REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF 8 SANDBRIDGE ROAD FROM ATWOODTOWN ROAD 9 EAST TO SANDFI DDLER ROAD 10 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general 11 welfare and good zoning practice so require; 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 13 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 14 That the Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") of the City of 15 Virginia Beach be, and hereby is amended and reordained by the 16 following amendments: 17 To the Map of the Master Transportation Plan: 18 1. Add 10ODBCS (100 feet wide right -of --way, divided 19 roadway, with a bikeway and controlled -access, 20 scenic roadway) portion of Nimmo Parkway from 21 Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road. 22 2. Remove 70 UBS ( 7 0 feet wide right of way undivided 23 scenic roadway, with bikeway alignment) from the 24 plan along Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown east to 25 Sandf iddler Road. • aI&I _a 4a i 27 Nimmo Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbridge Road was removed by City 28 Council on May 22, 2001 from the Master Transportation Plan. This Ordinance will add back this 29 portion of Nimmo Parkway and remove the portion of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road to 30 Sandfiddler Road. 31 32 Adop�ed by the Council of the City of VIr inia Beach, ach, 33 Virginia, on the day of 2003 CA--8734 ORDIN\NONCODEImastertransord wpd Rrtl January 31, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT 5 Ti annepartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Depa t of Law VA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 rQ 11 12 13 34 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAI NIN G TO THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY THE ADOPT I ON OF AN ALIL GNMEN T FOR i MPROVEMENT S TO SANDB R I DGE ROAD FROM UPTON DRIVE TO A T WOODTaWN ROAD WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general wet f are and good zoning practice so require, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA There is hereby referred to the Planning Gommiss:.on, f or ts cons iderat zon and recommendat for , a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan pertainz.ng to the Master Transportation Plan ray the adoption of an alignment f or improvements to Sandbridge Road f rom Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road A true copy of such proposed amendment is hereto attached BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA That the Planning Co*nm3 s s i on be, and hereby 3 s , directed to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the aforesaid amendment no later than sixty (6 o ) days after the date of adoption of this resolution 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 COMMENT The Resolution refers to the Planning Commussioa a proposed amendment to adopt as alignment for Sandbndge Road from Upton Dave to Atwoodtown Road on the Master Transportation Plea The Resolution also directs the Planning Comanssion to transmit to the Cgy Council its recommendation concerning the proposed amendment within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2003 CA8733 Slcwi1son/ward/mtparesolution doc R-1 March 5, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT &bO2 Planning artment: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ''� �►� III � � Depart i AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ? COMPREHENSIVE PLATS PERTAINING r 3 TO THE MASTER TRANS P ORTAT I ON 4 PLAN BY THE ADOPT I CAN OF AN 5 ALIGNMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO 6 SANI]BRIDGE ROAD FROM UPTON 7 DRIVE TO ATWOODTOWN ROAD 8 9 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, genera. 10 welfare and good zoning practice so require, 11 NOW,, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 12 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 13 That the Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") of the City 14 of Virganza Beach, Vzrg2.n3.a be, and hereby is amended and 15 reordained by the f of lowing amendments 16 To the Map of the Master 'Transportation Plan 17 1 The alignment of Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to 18 Atwoodtown Road shall be as depicted as Hybrid #1 on 19 the attached map, dated January 7, 2003 and 20 incorporated herein by reference 21 22 CT 23 24 This Ordinance mall adopt the align3nent of Sandbndge Road from Upton Dave to 25 Atwoodtown Road as recoramrnded by the Citizen Advisory Committee and shown on 26 the attached reap 27 28 29 Adopted by the Council of the Csty of Vlrgin:La Beach, 30 Virginia, on the day of 31 2003 32 CA8734 Bkwilson/ word/ mtpaordznance doc R-2 March 6, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Law Depa� tmen Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan An ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Master Transportation Plan by the addition of a portion of Nimmo Parkway (formerly Ferrell) Parkway from Atwoodtown Road east to Sandbndge and the removal of Sandbridge Road from Atwoodtown Road to the Nimmo (formerly Ferrell) Parkway May 14, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #9, The City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan. And we do have speakers. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have believe I have four speakers in support. One that is not identified and then eight that are opposed to Item #9 and then some of these speakers are also in support Item # 10, as well as being opposed to Item #9. Ronald Ripley: So, how many total do you have there? Robert Miller: Thirteen. Ronald Ripley: Thirteen. First the order of this 1s that we're going to have Mr. Scott make a comment about what the reasons for this is and secondly, I need you to be mindful of your time and we have a timer. Timer, if you haven't already noticed is this yellow light and a red light. The yellow light gives you a warning. There's one minute left. And, when the red light goes off, the time is up. So, I need to stick with that so once you see it, please stop and we'll proceed. Mr. Scott would you kind of brief the public as to what the purpose of this matter is. Robert Scott: Yes. I'll very briefly bring you and everybody up to date on what we have. First of all, this particular part of it, which is an addition to the Master Transportation Plan, I will say 1t adds back a section of Ferrell Parkway that had been taken out by previous Council action. That particular alignment has been part of our transportation plans for at least 30 years. But it was taken out by the City Council in the recent past. It is not on the Master Transportation Plan today. The proposal here is to add it back in as a 100 foot wide divided roadway. Those that favor this approach usually cite the fact that it is a more direct route to Sandbrldge and it is a safer route than the route that would follow the existing alignment of Sandbrldge Road, even if it was somewhat improved as to alignment and so forth. Those that are opposed to it ordinarily cite the environmental impact of this road. Both those for and against can do a much better job than I can of citing the reasons. I don't mean to do that. I'm just trying to capsulize what has been the discussion over the last several years. The other section is a new concept that has been forwarded by the Council for consideration and is down in the lower left hand portion. It is a readjustment of the existing alignment of Sandbndge Road, which will bypass a problematic portion of Sandbndge Road and make that alignment safer and hopefully better. It is through, what I would call "virgin" land for the most part through open field. Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 2 It does not follow the alignment of any existing road. That idea has not ever been on the Master Transportation Plan before. It is a new idea and that is not a return to the Plan that we adopted. It is a brand new idea. And, those that favor that usually cite safety reasons for being safety and avoidance of the impact of newer houses that front on Sandbridge Road along the existing alignment favoring this new route. So, these are the two proposals that are being brought to you by the City Council and you're requested by the Council to go through the process of evaluating them and to hold this public hearing and do it today and make a recommendation back to the Council in a timely fashion. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Scott. Also, in the interest of the public, Planning Commission last month received a complete briefing from staff on this particular project. And, we had a lot of questions, quizzing if you will from the Commission to the staff and we're not going to go back through that today. We really want to hear what you have to say because we have to make up our mind as far as a recommendation to City Council. Secondly, many of the folks up here who have served on the Planning Commission for a number of years and have been through this issue before when it came off the Master Transportation Plan. So, it's not an item that we take lightly. It's not an item that we're not very familiar with so I just want to make you aware of that some of the background. So, with that said then Mr. Miller, would you please call the first speaker? Robert Miller: And, I will note also that I think we agreed this morning that we vote on 9 and 10 separately but many of the speakers seem to have signed up for both 9 and 10 and if it's okay with you Mr. Chairman, that they would present for both at this time so we don't have to go back through the same speakers again. First speaker is Ann Henley. Ann Henley: Good afternoon. I'm Ann Henley. I'm a resident of Colechester Road. My family has lived in Princess Anne County since the 1850s. And, we have always lived either on Sandbridge or Colechester. I am in favor of adding Nimmo Parkway back to the Master Transportation Plan and doing improvements only to Sandbridge Road. Sandbridge Road is a two-lane road that many cars travel daily. As a matter of fact there was a car in the ditch this morning at 11:30 between McClanan's curve and Hells Point Creek. Cars are constantly going into the ditch along the road. Nimmo will give us another way to our homes and eliminate the need to widened Sandbridge Road. If we widen Sandbridge Road some sections would be widen 110 foot, some 90 feet. It would disturb people's homes, their businesses. It would disrupt church. There are two churches on the road. I'm also a member of Tabernacle Methodist Church, which is now one of the churches on the historic register for the City. It received an award a couple of weeks ago. And, that church was built in 1830. And, some of that property would be affected by the widening of Sandbridge Road. And, the church is in favor of building Ferrell Parkway and improving only Sandbridge Road. And, Item #10, if Ferrell Parkway is built, I don't see a need to change the alignment of Sandbridge Road because we would have two ways into Sandbridge. Aligning Sandbridge Road the way that it's on the map would take possibly one home at the corner of Flanagan's Lane and Sandbridge Road. And, does anybody have any questions? Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 3 Ronald Ripley: Questions? Ann Henley: Okay. Thank you. Robert Miller: The next speaker 1s Paul Rousseau. Paul Rousseau: Good afternoon. My name is Paul Rousseau. I lived in Sandbridge continuously since 1978. I originally came to Sandbrdge back in the 1965 at Dam Neck as it sale over there. To me, this has been coming up in public meetings since late `70s and it's been discussed very in depth. And, there is definitely a separation for people for it and people against it. To me, it's basic common sense. We do need another way out of Sandbndge. Elevating Sandbrdge Road to keep it from flooding is a very cost prohibited project that would encompass disturbing quite a few people who have lived for many, many years. To me, people said it's a beautiful scenic roadway to Sandbrdge would be ruined by building Sandbndge Road. I mean Nimmo Parkway or Ferrell Parkway. Sandbndge Road can stay as it is and build Ferrell Parkway, which to rile is the most cost effective, at least environmental impact of any alternates that have come up. And, any study that has been performed, every recommendation has been to put Ferrell Parkway in. I applaud your decision last time when you voted 11-0 in putting in Ferrell Parkway. And, I hope you do so again. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Carl Strass. Carl Strass: My name is Carl Strass. I live in Sandbrdge Shores I'm retired from the Environment Division of the Department of Justice. I'd like to say a few words about the permit process that I've heard raised a number of times in dealing with Nimmo Parkway. The U.S. Supreme Court within the last year or two came down with a decision, which narrowed the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction made it clear that the Clean 'Water Act was meant to address something that had to do with navigation. And, so the Corps of Engineers was told to look at these things, the permit process from a somewhat different perspective. In some ways this follows up on a dispute that's gone on for a while. About 10 years ago, the Corps of Engineers issued a manual for Wetlands recognition Prime Wetlands and Jurisdictional Wetlands. And, Congress didn't like it much. About eight years ago in a Committee report they excoriated the Corps of Engineers for this and basically said we want you attend to your knitting and look at prime wetlands and don't spend that much time on wet woods. The nght-of-way for Nimmo Parkway is mostly wet woods. There are some prime wetlands but the proposal is to bridge the wetlands and not fill it. So you should find it substantially difficult to get a permit from the Corps of Engineers to build Nimmo Parkway then you might have had say five or ten years ago. And, also you might also find 1t much more difficult to get a permit to change the configuration of Sandbndge Road in a significant way because my understanding is that any significant change to Sandbndge Road might involve a filling of prime wetlands. In filling in this type of marsh, I think you're going to find it a hard sell to get the Corps of Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 4 Engineers to let you fill it. I think in terms of practicality you may find it much easier to get a permit to build Nimmo Parkway then to significantly improve Sandbndge Road. I think that should be a factor in your consideration. If there are no questions, I really have nothing else to add Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Robert Miller: Thank you. William Bailey. William Bailey: Sir Ma'am. I'm William Bailey. I'm with the Virginia Beach Professional Firefighters and I'm here today to support Item #9 and I don't have any particular objections to Item # 10. I'll leave that to you all. I'm not going to get into which road is best for environmentalist or best for the community but what I'm here to talk about is public safety. From my standpoint, I don't know how this thing works. There's a fire station right there. That's the Sandbndge Fire Station. All of this is Sandbridge. There's another fire station right there. This fire station to respond to Sandbridge, which would be the next closest station, has to come down this road. It's about 7.2 miles. With this road from here to here, it's 4.9 miles. It's about 2 minutes 20 seconds if you can get up to speed coming down through there. It's fairly apparent that is not a great deal of time for someone taking the scenic route to Sandbridge but for a fire truck or for a police car, its life or death. I referred when I spoke before Council on this issue, there was a fire up in W. Warwick, Rhode Island where 196 people were killed. It's up to 199 people were killed. That building was totally consumed in three minutes. That's the example that I would like for you keep in mind. That's why we have pushed for Nimmo Parkway to be put back on the Master Transportation Plan for a very long time. When it was taken off in 2001, we weren't supportive of taking it off then and we would like to see it back on there now. We think time is of the essence and that is all that I have to say. I ask you to support number nine and do what you want with number ten. I think it's safer if you put number ten 1n there also but I guess that's somewhere down the line for City Council to decide how they are going to pay for that. Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Dorothy Wood: What is up to speed Mr. Bailey that you can go that quickly? William Bailey: Well, if I can get down Nimmo Parkway I can run that truck about 70 miles per hour. If I go down Sandbridge Road I can probably get maybe 25-30. Ronald Ripley: What was the time again going down Sandbridge? William Bailey: Well, I didn't actually measure it but Dr. William Brown. I came out to his house to meet with him and discuss this issue. He measured it and he said it would take two minutes difference going down Nimmo Parkway at 55 MPH. My contention is that I can go a lot faster down Nimmo Parkway then I can go down Sandbndge Road. Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 5 Ronald Ripley: Going down Sandbndge would save about two minutes faster? William Bailey: Two minutes longer going down Sandbndge Road. Ronald Ripley: okay. William Bailey: Straight shot, 4.9 miles or 7.2 all the way around. Ronald Ripley: Okay. William Bailey: Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Wesley Petticrew. You didn't mark whether you were support or opposed. Wesley Petticrew: I am opposed. Good afternoon. Chairman Ripley and the rest of the Planning Commission, my name is Wesley Petticrew. I am a rising second year student at the University of Virginia. I'm 19 years old and I've lived in Sandbridge all my life. So, I have experienced many years of riding and driving Sandbridge Road. I do strongly believe that eliminating a few of the curves, elevating the road and most importantly decreasing the speed coming off Sandbridge Road will be sufficient in increasing the safety along the road, so I do support number 10, Mr. Jones' proposal to improve. Some people believe the Nimmo VII needs to be built to provide a second way into and out of Sandbridge. They don't believe that the Fleet Training Facility at Dam Neck provides a capable exit for ambulances, fire equipment and emergency road closings on Sandbndge Road even though it has been proven time and again that it will be a perfectly suitable exit for these purposes. Some people also believe that Nimmo VII will provide the necessary second road into and out of Sandbndge. However, these people fail to acknowledge that the last 1.1 miles of the road will be the same thus only Sandbridge Road is an exit to the west of that segment. Some people also believe that Nimmo VII will provide relief from the Saturday morning change over during the tourist season. The ten a.m. check out and the three p.m. entry for the new week of arriving tourists. However, the two primary realtors will still be located on the same 1.1-mile stretch of Sandbridge Road, which is not part of the Nimmo VII nght-of-way. Therefore, whatever, inconvenience that's now experienced at these times, will not change with the building of Nimmo VII. Some people believe that we need Nimmo VII to evacuate during the times of hurricanes. Recently, the National Hurricane Center announced they would now be predicting Atlantic storms five days with a great degree of accuracy. Once you find it very hard to believe that the 1300 Sandbridge homes cannot be evacuated in the five days leading up to this. I just ask you in conclusion that some people believe everything they see and hear about the building of Nimmo Parkway but lets make sure we acknowledge only the facts before we make such an important decision in our lives. Thank you very much. Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 6 Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Next speaker is Don Youngs. Don Youngs: Hello. I'm Don Youngs. I live in Lagomar. And, I'm opposed to the Nimmo VII extension and in favor of number 10, Jones proposal. Some time ago we became aware that a letter had come from the Virginia Beach Chamber of Commerce to the City Council favoring the Nimmo VII extension. And, my question was does this really reflect the attitudes and the opinions of the businesses along the Sandbridge Road? So, I drew up a statement and inquired of these businesses along the Sandbridge Road. And, the statement says something like, "We are aware that if the Nimmo Parkway were built from Upton Street to Sandbndge, our business would be adversely affected because of the Sandbridge traffic bypassing us and being diverted from General Booth Boulevard to and from Sandbridge." As I took this statement and petition around, just about everybody along the Sandbridge Road was willing and glad to sign and there's a column for the business affected, their signature and their position. And, most of these people were either owners or managers or president or vice president. And, the businesses that did sign this statement were the Junior Market, Lagomar Pizza, the 7-eleven at Nimmo, Movietime, Eclectics, Always Summer, the 7-eleven at Sandbridge Road, the Food Lion, Tiki Seagrnlle, Nails by Martha, Color Nails and South Beach Hair Salon. I wrote a letter back to the Chamber of Commerce and I would like to leave a copy of that with you along with these signatures so you can look at that. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Next speaker 1s Marilyn Danner. Wynne Rentz: My name is Wynne Rentz and I have a sick child at home so I'm switching with Marilyn. Robert Miller: You were next. Wynne Rentz: Oh I was, okay. Ronald Ripley: What is your name again? Wynne Rentz: I live in Lagomar on Atwoodtown Road three houses down from the proposed right-of-way at Nimmo and Atwoodtown. I do not support putting Nimmo VII back on the Master Transportation Plan. I do fully support that Mr. Jones' spur to Sandbridge Road alternative, which would bypass Lotus Gardens Community, giving them relief from the traffic they now face. And, I would appreciate the same consideration for the Lagomar community. Many people are unaware that the addition of Lagomar Phase 7, Nimmo VII would really be slicing through many subdivisions to Sandbridge Road. We have many traffic issues now on Entrada Drive and we do request a neighborhood collective road but we don't want to see a highway, which I do appreciate Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 7 the fireman's services to our City, I do not appreciate the fact that he is going to be taking a fire truck 70 MPH through a neighborhood. And, there are homes in the Lee Section that literally are being built right now, right here, I mean their backyards, their front side of the homes. This is an issue that when Lagomar many years ago discussed this no one thought about the 400 homes that were going to be built there. It's important for you to know that there's a grown majority of citizens who will fight this Nimmo VII project every step of the way. And, also it's important to know that discriminating agencies will limit public opposition when they can serve the permit. There are two other points that I would like to snake. Before we bought our home and I called the City to ask them about the status of this road and they said that if it ever got built it won't be for 20-25 years because the City has too many other priorities. The reality is it's a road project. This road project is not one of them because there is a viable alternative to improving Sandbridge Road. There's also a lot of misinformation that was mentioned earlier. Probably the most important is the fact that people believe that Nimmo is its own exit point into Sandbridge Road where it goes back into Sandbridge Road. If this is necessary for long term transportation needs and if its necessary for safety, what purpose is it serving if it goes right back into the existing Sandbndge Road especially since it may never be permitted or it may not be any money for many, many years and do thing that a straighter shot is going to be safer? Look at Shore Drive. In closing, I want to present you with a petition from Lagomar Community with over 200 signatures of homeowners that support the improvement of Sandbridge Road, building a neighborhood collective instead of the parkway and foregoing Nimmo VII, allowing to spend it's resources and greater priorities, which there are many. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mr. Scott, can I ask you a question at this point? Our current Master Transportation Plan, does it still include the Nimmo Parkway that's the dashed line to Atwood and Atwood to Sandbndge? Is that current Master Transportation Plan? Robert Scott: I think that has been reduced. Let's take a look just to make sure. Ronald Ripley: Or is it Sandbridge Road? Robert Scott: The current plan if you look at the map on page. Ronald Ripley: Because we're just adding a piece to it. Robert Scott: I'm trying to find the map. It's not in my packet. I would take from that is that section that you see dotted is on plan. Ronald Ripley: That is on the Master Transportation Plan now. So hopefully folks do realize that's already part of the plan and what's being added are just short sections. I'm sure they're aware of that but I wanted to point out the distinction I'm sorry, go ahead. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Marilyn Danner. Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 8 Ronald Ripley: While she's coming here. What made me think of that is the speaker before is she was indicating the possibility of traffic in that area. That has the possibility of happening now already because it's on the plan. I just wanted to point that out. Yes, ma'am. Marilyn Danner: Commission members, Mr. Scott, I'm Marilyn Danner. And, this is my first time attending one of your meetings. My first time to speak and I find it fascinating. And, I see that you're being fair. You're listening to what input is there and you seem to be making a judgment on what's come before you. That encourages me because I wasn't sure that was the way it worked. When we had this before the City Council for every speaker that was in favor of Nimmo VII, there were two against and many of those two against had large routes that were also aginst going on with the Nimmo VII. We know that it will represent a lot of money as far as the permitting process goes and all the effort and energy that will be put into it. Everyone agrees, even the person who is pushing it so hard, that it can't happen for a long, long time. And, yet, I'm just a little fearful. If you approve it and it goes to Council and they approve it, it will happen sooner than we can afford to let it happen. We know that money is a real issue right now and it needs to be juggles. And, there are so many needs in this City and it's your responsibility to wisely determine what is really a priority. I do not feel for the three minutes saved it is worthwhile and I don't feel for the invasion of the land and the animals and the nature that is there that it is worth all the trouble and all the expense of doing it. I think it's just a political move and those that are against it, I stand nothing to gain by being invested. Many of those in favor of it have a lot of financial gain that could come from that. So, I encourage you to vote against it and make the recommendation not to approve it. Also, I encourage you to approve number ten, for I am in favor of that and just that part of it. It's a wise thing and I hope it happens very soon because it's an important thing. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Cheryl Petticrew. Cheryl Petticrew: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Cheryl Petticrew and I have lived in Sandbridge since 1978. I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm here opposed to number nine, which is putting back the Nimmo back on the Master Street and Highway Plan and I'm in support of Mr. Jones' number 10 proposal. In 1776, our founding fathers wrote "we hold that these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." Later in 1863, Abraham Lincoln spoke saying, "four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on to this continent a new nation conceived of liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." In 1945 in the book "Animal Farm," George Orwell wrote, "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others." In a public hearing on March 11, the City Council decided 8-3 that Nimmo should be returned to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the proposed road through the wildlife refuge should be placed back on the City's Master Transportation Plan. Now, lets look at the rest of the story and you decide whether or not the City Council's decision was based on a philosophy of the founding fathers, Abraham Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 9 Lincoln or the writing of George Orwell. At that hearing, there were 59 speakers that were against the reinstatement of Nimmo on to the Master Street and Highway Plan. � Y Thirty nine percent spoke in favor. But lets look a little closer. Among the 61 percent that spoke against were representatives of the Back Bay Restoration Foundation with a membership of over 1000. A representative of the Hampton Roads League of Women Voters, a representative of the Lagomar Community with a petition of over 200 p , a representative of Friends of Back Bay with a membership of over 400, a representative of the Sierra Club with over 1500 members, a representative of Audubon a biologist employed by the federal government, a representative of the Wetlands Board and a person representing the businesses along Sandbridge Road. Among the 39 speaking p g against was a president, a representative of the firemen union, a member of the Tabernacle Church and a representative of Friends of Ferrell. In addition the people against reinstating this presented City and Federal government facts on road safety, non flooding emergency evacuation cost and the environment. Now I just appreciate pp you letting me talk and also I want to point out and again in the Virginian Pilot today there � y was an announcement about this public hearing. And, again they say there were 40- people that spoke equally for and against this and that is just not true. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Molly Brown. Molly Brown: Good afternoon members of Virginia Beach Planning Commission. I am Molly Brown and I live in Sandbridge and I am President for Friends of Back Bay. Y Please do not recommend putting Nimmo VII on the City Master Transportation Plan Why would you want to build a major road through the peaceful neighborhoods when there is another alternative? Something that changed in the 30 ears that people say that thisY p p Y t plan has been in effect, why would you want to build a road throug h the Back Bay National Wildlife Area? It's an area the Congress has appropriated over 20 million dollars in the last 13 years to protect. And, Mr. Knight, you know personally about that p y t project and you know that it is a very important project. And, on that map it fails to show you and I would like to pass this around, everything that you see in green has been purchased since 1991 by the Fish and Wildlife Service, so the need for the road this was zoned for Sandbridge by the Sea, over 3100 homes and then Mr. Garcia had some property right here. And, he willingly sold to the Fish and Wildlife Service and that was over 200 homes. So, we have eliminated the need like this road was ever put on. And that continually is forgotten. And, I will let you see this map so actually see you can y what's in green. Even our own Virginia Beach Department of Economic Development i p n their current advertising campaigns recognizes the value of the Back Bay Natural Resources. This ad "Flights Arriving Daily" appeared in the March issue of Coastal Living_ The birds and ducks of Back Bay are being used to attract tourists to our City. Y Virginia Beach Economic Development knows that ducks means bucks. While even the logo is a duck, Virginia Beach all kinds of fun. We do not need another road to Sandbridge according to the experts. With the total build out of e Sandbrid only two g� Y lanes of traffic are required According to the experts, we do need to preserve that of Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 10 which we all cherish our natural resources. I ask you not to put this back on the highway for the very reason that the need for the road has gone away. The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge has expanded in this area and we do have another way out of Sandbridge and that's through Dam Neck. And, they have always been very courteous any time we have emergency, hurricane evacuation, the gate is open 24 hours. Thank you. Are there any questions? Ronald Ripley: Questions? Thank you very much. Molly Brown: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Jim Phipps. Jim Phipps: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jim Phipps. I'm a resident of Sandbridge. I am opposed to Nimmo Parkway In the Sunday paper, in the Beacon section they printed the agenda for City Council. You may be interested to know that this item is scheduled for the hearing by the Virginia Beach City Council on May 27h. What are we doing here? Has a decision already been made? The Virginia Beach City Council has often been criticized for holding shame hearings. Not more than a year ago, Jim Reeve stood before City Council, then as an irate citizen, stood right where I'm standing, turned his back on the Council and castigated the Council for holding hearings where decisions have been made prior to the meeting. I hope gentlemen and ladies, I hope that this not a repetition of that kind of an issue. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: The next speaker, I believe is. Sorry. Ronald Ripley: I think we have a question. Dorothy 'Wood: Sir? Sir? I wanted to make sure you realize that we make recommendations to the City Council. Jim Phipps: Yeah. I'm quite aware of that. And, they have already assumed that this is coming up for a hearing. They're assuming that your recommendation is to put Nimmo back on the map. Dorothy Wood: Sir, it would come up regardless of how we vote. It comes up to City Council. Everything that we vote on goes to City Council regardless if we vote yes or no and they make the final decision. So, just because it's advertised to come to City Council doesn't mean that they're assuming how we will vote. Jim Phipps: Jon Glass is as wrong then as I am because he made that same comment in today's paper. We both stand corrected. Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page I I Dorothy wood: Thank you sir. Robert Miller: The next speaker, I believe is Herb Jones. Herb Jones: I have a question of clarification before I begin. I would like to speak to both nine and ten. I'll have three minutes on ten as well? Ronald Ripley: No, we're combining the two. Herb Jones: You're combining the two. Oh, okay. I would like to take my time to address the safety issue, which is off cited as the reason for the need for Nimmo VII. Authorities will tell you that a safe road depends on three things, engineering, education and enforcement. "Sandbridge Road is far from the most dangerous highway in the City according to the police statistics on traffic accidents but the narrow road is perceived as a hazard because many of the twists it takes enroute to Sandbridge", source of that quote, Virginian Pilot, August 24, 1990. This quote appeared two days after a crash. Notice I didn't say accident, occurred on McClanan's curve a mile or so west of Sandbridge. Three people were killed in the accident, two of them children. when the driver's case came to court in January 1991, no jail time was given to the dnver. The plea agreement was nearly rejected by the Circuit Judge in the case because the driver was drunk at the time of the accident. No road can be engineered which will stop a drunken driver from crashing. That takes education and enforcement. "The captain of the Sandbridge Volunteer Rescue Squad estimated that half of the 50 accidents a year on Sandbridge Road are at McClanan's curve. The City does not assign a high pnonty to Sandbridge Road said traffic engineer John Herzke. In a study of accidents on 69 rural road segments the stretch including McClanan's curve came up 37 out of 69. The study was based on a number of accidents and not weighted for seventy of accidents or fatalities. Herzke said, "it's not one of the worse roads in the City." source, Virginian Pilot, August 141) 1990, three days after that fatal crash. Fast forward now- 13 years, 2003. The City is still collecting high accident location data on rural roads in Virginia Beach. There are now 82 such rural road segments. In the most recent analysis for the years 1991-2001, the segment of the road that includes McClanan's curve was ranked as 48th most dangerous out of the 82 rural road segments. Not even in the top half. News Flash: There were 50 accidents a year on Sandbridge Road in 1990. The most recent data showed there were 92 accidents over the three year period, 99-01. That's 30 accidents a year. 1990 -- 50, 2003 — 30, pretty neat improvement. In only some cosmetic changes to the road have occurred to the road in that time. In fact, the only segment of Sandbridge Road, which appeared in the top third of all the rural roads in the City, is a half -mile stretch from Atwoodtown Road to Flanagan's Lane. It was ranked 6th most dangerous. Guess what? In Mr. Jones' alternative to Nimmo VII, that segment of road would be eliminated Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Questions? Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 12 Herb Jones: I have by the way the articles from the Virginian Pilot that I quoted if anyone would like to see them? This is to show their veracity. Robert Miller: You can pass them around if you like? Herb Jones: Okay. Can I have them back? Robert Miller: Can he have them back? Kay Wilson: We normally keep them. Robert Miller: The next speaker is Eve Estes Butts. Eve Butts: I love this sign. Relax. Ronald Ripley: Well. Eve Butts: It's great. Thank you for hearing me today. My name is Eve Estes Butts. And, I'm the Executive Director of the Back Bay Restoration Foundation. BBRF was founded almost 20 years ago to be the voice of Back Bay. Years ago, Back Bay was a pristine area, providing habitat to multitudes of birds, fish and other wildlife. Due to the deteriorating water quality and lose of habitat populations have declined. Our organization is dedicated to projects to improve habitats in Back Bay. The construction of Nimmo VII would have a severe negative impact on Back Bay. Granted, where Nimmo VII is proposed there's a cleared utility easement but the clearing required for the construction of the road will destroy valuable wetlands, old growth bald cypress, upland forest valued for it's bio diversity. The wetlands that would be destroyed by Nimmo VII have not been previously disturbed making them much more valuable, in fact, irreplaceable. Can we afford this environmental loss? I urge you to vote no for Nimmo ViI. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. Robert Miller: That's all the speakers. Ronald Ripley: Okay. That's it for the speakers. Does anybody else wish to speak for or against, we'll be happy to hear you? Okay. Alright. I would like to go ahead and open this up then for discussion among the Planning Commissioners. Does anybody wish to address this topic at this point? Charlie Salle'. Charlie Salle': Well, as most people are aware, this item came before us about a year ago. When the issue came up as to remove Nimmo Parkway from the Master Transportation Plan and I was one of those that voted not to do that and even then admitted that some day in a university planning school this particular slide would show up as text book example of how not to plan your road system if you were to remove that Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 13 section of the roadway. I haven't heard anything today that changes my analysis of the situation on which I voted last time. I think the 20 years of wisdom that went with the plan previously still stands. I hear a lot about the environment issues regarding Back Bay and note that the decline of Back Bay's water quality and bird population has gone on with this roadway and although I'm sure there would be some impact as to the actual area of construction which I'm sure will be mitigated in the context of any permit that were granted. I don't see that would create a significant environmental issue. So, in my mind I haven't seen anything that would change my conclusion that this road ought to be a part of the Master Transportation Plan and I'm going to support putting it back on. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Charlie. Is there anybody else to speak? Bob Miller. Robert Miller: I like Charlie don't feel like I had seen anything to change my feelings about this. I feel that the environmental permitting is within the responsibilities and the abilities of the City to be able to do that. The engineering of a road as direct as this to Sandbridge, it doesn't escape anyone's eye not only from looking at a map from just the literal piece of ability of driving down Sandbridge Road. And, I think the fireman was correct. My concerns for the safety factor that is not perhaps that is not being weighed as heavily as some other factors. As far as financial gain goes, I don't see specific financial gain to someone in Sandbridge. We have a certain number or lots down there and amount of property. There are people living there and I don't see that they specifically gain. I think there is a gain to the fact that they have certainly an improved safety situation and a better ability to exit and enter into the Sandbridge area. Going through Dam Neck. That is a very troubling thought to me. Through all the issues that have been around since 9/11 and unfortunately are realistically perhaps will reoccur. I think we have a responsibility to our military folks to respect what they have there and to understand that is their responsibility to us to take care of us. And, I don't see that as a feasible alternative. I think Charlie said it very well. My hope and continual hope is the improvement of Back Bay and I think we are beginning to see some of that even though, certainly you said we are not. We've seen other reports that would indicate that we are seeing improvement to Back Bay itself. But, I don't see this road as being something that takes away from Back Bay in anyway, shape or form. As far as our founding fathers go, I think that right that so strongly supported is actually why were sitting in front of you appointed and why the elected officials who have to make a decision in a couple of weeks. Mr. Lincoln in 18631, it's a nice comparison and again, a very important date and a very important message that he sent, but I don't see that has changed anything as far as our responsibilities go and the responsibilities of the elected officials. Hove "Animal Farm" ties into that was a little bit of a reach for me. And, I apologize that I couldn't quite do that. I thought that was perhaps inappropriate to be put in the same sentences with the founding fathers, the Bill of Rights and Mr. Lincoln's speech. I do think that everybody that comes before us suddenly becomes a complete expert on this but the experts have told us and have told us as Charlie said over the last 30 years, this road belongs here. So, I'm going to support the road being there. Ronald Ripley: Will Din, did you have a question? Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 14 William Din: I have a comment. Ronald Ripley: Sorry. William Din: I also was on this Commission when the vote came to remove this piece of road from the Master Transportation Plan and I voted against that also. I think the people who spoke before us today need to make sure that they're clear on what were adding today. The purple section of this road that's on this neap, the dotted section is already there and will continue to be there. And, it's there and will essentially take and end Nimmo Parkway where the purple section starts there and the road will continue down at Atwoodtown Road over to Sandbndge Road from my understanding. So, it dumps all of this traffic into Lagomar. I think some people need to understand that's Nimmo Parkway comes right to that point and ends and goes down Atwoodtown to Sandbndge and it continues around Sandbridge around. What were doing here is adding the purple section back on to this Master Transportation Plan. Whether or no this road is built in the future because of money problems or whether permits are obtained or whether there is a real need for safety, I think this will determined in the future. I think we need the option. I think from a planning standpoint it needs to be there. Item 9 adds that purple section to Nimmo Parkway. Item 10 provides for the improvements to Sandbridge Road. I think both of those are needed. I support both of those and I'll be voting in support of that. Ronald Ripley: Dot Wood. Dorothy Wood: I will also be support the motion. And, I was also on the Commission about a few years ago when we voted on it the last time. My reasons are the safety issues, although it might only be two minutes. If someone was having a heart attack I think those two minutes are very important. And, also we're talking about our military base, I would be very concerned if we were either in an orange or red. I'm not sure which one is the highest alert, whether or not they would let us go through the military base in case of an emergency. For that reason, I will be support it. If you like, I'd make a motion. Ronald Ripley: In dust a minute. Gene. Crabtree and then Barry Knight. Eugene Crabtree: Just a quick comment. We can sit here from now until ever and listen to two sides of a story. There are two sides to every story, your side, my side and the nght side. We're going to try to look today to decide to some extent what's the right side. Statistics can be skewed on both sides to support what you want to support. And research has proved that over many, many years. For what's the best for Virginia Beach, the citizens of Virginia Beach, the military, the folks who live at Sandbridge, the folks who will come there to play in the summer. I am going to support this to add the purple to our Item 9 and also Item 10 because I think when we look at both sides and evaluate it, it's the only right way to go. Therefore, I'm going to support it Ronald Ripley: Barry. Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 15 Barry Knight: We are just putting this on the Master Transportation Plan. I think Nimmo's needed for hurricane evacuation route. Chances are we'll get federal funds because of that and it will be placed out of the flood zone. So, if there is a flood in there, the chances of us getting out of Nimmo Parkway are going to be a whole better than Sandbndge Road. Nimmo is two miles less distance. It's straighter. And, the contention that you can go two miles further on curves in just two minutes, I don't think it's true because I believe you'll be to dangerous. I know people that are afraid to go visit people that live in Sandbrdge because they are afraid of the curves on Sandbndge Road. They know that they are a safe driver but how do you explain to the person, the lady that lost her kids. She was doing what she was supposed to be doing but the other person hit her. Now, she's lost children. So, I think it's a safety issue. You have to watch out for drivers on the curves and a safety issue because of the firefighters. Also, if we do have a terrorist episode and we need to evacuate Sandbndge, odds of Dam Neck letting us go through there would be kind of slim. And, also to address where we are aware of hurricanes five days in advance that isn't always the case. And, even if it was the case, nobody intends to leave until the last minute. Also, Nimmo is going to have less disruption to the landowners, specifically of course the landowners who have lived on Sandbridge Road all their life. And, once the Fish and Wildlife, if they were to ever get this piece of property, we'll never get it back because it will take Congressional approval to get this land back and the mission of the Fish and Wildlife is once they acquire land it's never to give it back. I'll certainly be voting in favor of it. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. And, I made a comment also that I also served on the Commission last time this item came before us and I did vote to not take if off the Master Transportation Plan. And, I will be voting the same way today. I think other reasons have been said here for me and I've always been concerned about the safety issue. It's critical in my thinking right away it's owned. Mr. Scott, doesn't the City own all the right-of-way in there now or not? Robert Scott: I believe we own all the right-of-way in there. Yes Ronald Ripley: When we were asked to take it off, we just couldn't get by the logic of removing it and I know it's political and I know a lot of people out there are passionate about it. And, I totally respect that. But were just coming at it from a point of view of what in our mind makes the most sense. Right or wrong, that's the way it will come out. Alright. We're going to vote on item separately. I think that was the comment or would you care to vote on them together? Robert Miller- I would prefer that we vote on them separately. Ronald Ripley: Okay fine. Could I have a motion for to deal with Item #9? Dorothy Wood: I'd move that we approve Item #9. Item #9 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 16 Ronald Ripley: A motion to approve by Dot Wood Item #9. Seconded by Barry Knight. Any discussion? Call for the question? AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE" AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT Item # 10 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan An ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Master Transportation Plan by the adoption of an alignment for improvements to Sandbndge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road May 14, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: Could I have a motion of Item #10? Joseph Strange: I'd make a motion that Item # 10 be approved. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Joe Strange to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded by Will Din. Comments? Bang Knight: I'd like to make a comment. Since the time that City Council approved the realignment of Sandbridge Road that you can all see on the map there, it's come to our attention that there may be a move under foot to add a farm heritage park in this area. And, it may be the gateway to the rural south of the City. And, I'd like under the comment area for City Council to be aware that when or if when they realign Sandbridge Road, to take into consideration that there may be a farm heritage park in that locality. Ronald Ripley: We want that to be a real clear message to City Council when this motion goes forth. Barry Knight: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: And, I need to abstain from this item even though I'm not doing the Sandbridge Road project by that realignment goes through the property that my firm is working with. Ronald Ripley: Any other comments? Alright, so we'll call for the question. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY AYE Item # 10 City of Virginia Beach/Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Page 2 SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0 with one abstention, the motion passes. Ms. Ginny SanCilio Chair, Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce Virginia Beach 4512 Virginia Beach Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Dear Ms. Sancilio: It has been brought to our attention that you have recently corresponded with the Mayor and City Council of Virginia Beach urging them to reinstate Nimmo Parkway VII on the faster Transportation Plan of the City. we assume that you are aware that if this is done a-nd is forwarded to the Hampton Roads Punning District that some other road' the City will have to be deleted. With that assumption a given, let us juxtapose your position with that of an economic development ad in the recent issue of Coastal Live, where it stautes, "Conte visit the new seashore to Cypress Binding and 'Wildlife Trail in Virgm' is Beach," Guess where that cypress part of the trail is located -- right smack dab in the middle of your supported parkway. Think what impact that might have on the birder's experience. Additionally, Sandbridge Road is part of the birder loop and deserves to be upgraded for the safety of the birders who will be visiting the area. With that assumption a given, let us juxtapose your position with that of the Virginia Beach web page which displays a beautiful picture of the Back Bay near the vis.itor's venter — touting it as a tourist destination. with tourism one of our City's major economic engines, and ecotourisrn especially birding, one of its fastest growing segments, how does your mission of promoting conmm%rce fit with your position on the Parkway. This is after all a unique piece of real estate, environmentally speaking, in the Commonwealth of Virginia if not the entire country. Your position would divide it through one of its roost sensitive area& Think what similar destruction of wetlands and their function to filter did to the Back Bay and its plentiful duck population forty or sixty years ago. Thin what a seemingly innocuous decision to use DDT to control greeds did to the bald eagle and osprey populations that are only now coming back because of environmental controls which were put in puce. Each and every action we take should consider the environmental impact on ALL living species. That is precisely why environmental impact studies are often required. More germanely, however, to your mission is the impact of the road on coerce. Attached you will find a document sgned by most of the businesses along Sandbridge Road. Essentially, they are saying that they support the improvement of Sandbridge Road as the pn"mary corridor into Sandbridge. were they asked prior to your g of the letter to the Mayor and Council? Obviously, they don't believe that sentence of your communication, which states, "In these tough economic tiros, we can say with confidence that businesses served by Sandbridge Road would suffer financial loss." The document signers are saying the opposite — that Nimmo VII would hurt them financially. In your letter you state that "logic would dictate that a cleared right of way built exclusively on city owned property would be the most desirable alternative" -- going on to state the that you are not experts on environmental issues. You should know that the cleared right of way that you write of is a utility easement — 30-40 feet wide with buried weer lines beneath and power lines above. A new two-lane road, according to Dean Block Department of Public works, would need a width of 110 feet, which means a much wider "cleared right of way". ale it is true that the City already owns the land., it has not been cleared. If interested in looking at this beautiful part of our City, I would be happy to escort you at your convenience. For your further convenience and edification on some of the environmental issues facing the City, i invite you to Visit a web site at www 1 Uofinendsvb com or you can contact me at donyoungs a 'ndspring. coin Sely, i7a�n VDon Y sings Member, CREST 2404 Tono CT Virguua Beach, VA 23456 cc.11&. Agricola. hlleyera Oberndorf, Mayor, Virginia Beach City Council, Virginia Beach r...ay w ►- ._.�;..---_' '_ "_- "1 . +'_ ';,. -:5P "1...-' n• _i.'4 .4 �`,1.�rrL/1! - .vrN ��- „ '"�7T ! - - _ - - . tI • •�•••;' . L-w , tip" 7' -l!'f, � '�•+.' 4w "`LA`S a��"�� a,'1,,• �'?, -, _-.:r r7•+,X�• ra, .ai■„•�+�•►�,- r t !' vM a +J► - �' � ..:-_;'' ". .ate .. 7 - ..:...". - _ t rr .. r 4 �4'�, . � f-:Zic-,� " onr-:_ �- ,, r,r-,� I� tc 5. J sr ^!"rn • Z"` `��^` �'y' -r^, -.]A +•:-. f'�-.. :r r .J.r 1,+ "r'=� �" ,"i�'r�'r�..� '..-1.�,• - - hr � f . _~ • C" t✓ -. .r.. .!• r ! u :-' 7 z 3 fir•. �'+� .t . :s_,. �,. r ,�� t . �� :I:!�,.- _,'-" • t'.v� "--`+: .,--!'�'._-_r.L'r�. �` " r. • �y.r�-f'•._ Lam,+~ i`�;.�' '"r��w4i /�+ , r'1 _ r `` _ ar•t - '' a ' -" - • .-. % ---,,-�,-,�r --`•-' ^-.r'.._ ar. -L-:-l'.�,.._ �,�.-r 1 ,r.-r�r-Y, ^..•+[•:�:a'`+.'-tr`h--.,r - �•�-.+'�..+r�..,�'•.-:.. ..,r•-; •.ow- �`ul .-.._.,,,�_.�.,....:� rY-�s `� .I �� - = :-• -, +� r�.�,;. -. +..r S y w • • �. �`•!..i. .ti ..� z : r • r 7. nC" ,r �L. �' r'1' _.w '�� -�y'�r 1: ' • 7r C r �•`. . -1 F r _ ti -1 . 3; •a-' - aw ., a j ,mot- . w �',. •y .,,„K L.-,%�' ,� r'�- r- {,��. �` y`+ w / /� y t-� J a r, .s" T•, R +y - + �, F e - -v �,r 'L• -r_-y .� �` - :/--t , --- .+ - r i +_ . • _^e- ��' '�•• . - - +-: r.� .AJf n } yr - a F .£'. r L �./�`'. y + - 1 _ r w. f'Y` '-� & �--S _ "'!--"-�-"!- : .. ,Lr _�ti� � r � �/r -::F �-r�� i - r-, Zd �.� �.r ' �' I' ' y-, '1`` R , ` :ter')+� ' 't. I '.,'- f r -R I _ ' - s--"'� v . J _. _ : r r.�•■r ti. ' .�.± r-y: - - • �,.�►f'1'� r.0 �t �� i f .� - - r ��.•-•' r, . - f _ r^ . . c'", - - .. '-I _ • _ _ �. , 1. Z':., _^r+ ►-fir- .■..-'r �...,ir r• ___'f ''�.�-�t v`�� •_r _ -- �u---, _� -- 1' _ , _ _ r r_ t • _ L, ,','r,f t:..1.-'w''_•'�-.7 - ..�-..�.�.�_.+5- y-�_•�...sr'r' _ w��` JT"`� �r_"x; 1 i - y r- ";- n. a- �'•� z�'i-!: - - -��•. y '`.' ,,. ,� _-a•....1. --,r ^-'rr 1 ' �'-��, r+�_ • . �t�_•J�_ _ _ �- y ,�'•�.../'•"„ - _ - l \`. -� _ 1. _ 'r a' _ f: v �, w - . . _ r� ;.,. `r . . .-'i - ' ti• ■r.ir �.+^ •l' �..."-_� . _. _ i .,. -- ± a ,n I .. _ - -A - r:' `ems' Y; �-:�• _. ";'% -tee^-"+ R-- r -r < -.� `ram �ti - a _ .. , , .. r1 _ - _ _ _'T , - �. . .1^1_ . �ir•� . _i ` 1 , ` .Li ti �r - •� t . . r _ _ .. :.'} _ _ •�". '.. ` - .-+-.r' ".r - L-W h•. .r-r •"� r - _ ,.� - _ . . ' yamI. r`• - - _ ". ',�, fir. t�^_ry - - - - .,.-. ++ I . . . Mi . .. . . _. L . . . . - . . - I . . - , ' I I - .. ' . ' ' ' . - - � . - .. . . : . M. , � lb.. I - I. - - - -- � - I. . . . . . .. - . . . �D- : '' .. - . '. - I . . ' I _ .. � . ., f w ±r _ .. - s .' . .Nz ` -mot ,, -' T ice" ci - . I. . . - . I , . . - . . - I.. . . . - _� - - ' �Kll . , . . � - , : . . � I If . I . ' '� . . = - -_ ' � . . - `}'�=� . _ t•-"--, .-. to -, . , ti 1L ( ] . . - I : - � i s lw C ry'. + - � •:,# r - 1�ks - C' .' _ & 1, �, - . . . I . . 1. ' 1. '. �� " . - ' . . sktk�-% r. � - . � - ' . - .. ;a', is - :��..'.'�4 , .f I . . - I ".- -" , - . - I ; . 'L -_ , . . L . , _.:dl, . . . I -M . - "j - .1 . - - I .. - 4 gk-,-e . . - - - - - r - - a .. f'. - ' 1 4" ' . . . . I . . . . - , - ' �4 ' ' . !.' __' - .��. Z i., % . . ' _. . . . e.3 f , :;- .. . - '� I '. -11 i + - vey, J- J` _ �--. fi r _ i .'+ aT . - .. r 1r .�` _ - _ rL • - •�; -I. ? r_ a_j2-_'r~` .is^_ yY- Z. - _ - _ . - - • %•. _ _ • . .`�' , ' may_] -. - i - r . , �•. . f' +A1 1` _ ) Lam. :'N -• �r r ~..J y .IY...T rr_ r i •` " ti '[ -ate • ray?„ - , ' f , -'-. /'-y�.�. - ',- ..' .-I .... '_ � )- ^%- 'I _1k . �-! a v - - + 7. ' - -:- ; r 1 1,. -' , - - .J - _ - "... ,"S - � - ; - _ 7� .J. y' •+ .`` ti. r - "i •. _ �J' �. f _. 7 •I J v',%' 1, L T L . -� �.I; fl-r` .il: ^"' ' :.. �' .r `� •rr1 •L, ti r •-•• -7K• i'lr 'a • + -� . �, 'T _ J' ► _41.4;.r '-,,x 'i '`•_7 _ " . - - . •'`' �1 T _ _ a } '"`� - .'.:- ;r.-:ice ;;',�'.r �I ,: ih: . ,:.,1 '.l' ;"'- ,7- i - ~ �• . � C"yS['Y�.j. - ,y„� -t ' - ~ l'! } 3"._ ' �. ,ram ■ J � i 1 .r- �' {. .S - ';-:' - _ ti w"_- r �j7 :� , k1-- ice. ;�. - .tea • .ai . flr r� , I. ' ,-,! f - •y,y..�- .� �a ^,'T_- 'r` _� .•r', x_ _-ice r 11 ., }'3 r� ` A^ I .,I ` r� _ . -4 �• +r`!•! , •/T +� -.. � I' • -- rr..fr . .4 .. - I ' '' . ) 1 . • a a ' +-- r l ' � '+ •' ~�- r{ r --i. � '�'� - r ..r�- 4. 't ti. � . - . "N4 _ 4- r - .qa. ' � 1' _� - . r • ,. - f �./ , _ r .. �:.La� ti- �` r�"]� a - 1t":sit"cr- -r• VR _ -..� ;�'' ,Y , r :'' t +" .,., _ _ -�' ;7I f r.7Jr:. may, "+ , �a t•`:} =.«? - �_ _ +-' -s -ti" "--1��'�-. +!+ tip` -a ,;,-- - J•' .1a.�,!+. 1 ! f r 7 fr .{� ti - - I-. ' - . ../'- Z''I-,.� --' - i-i- 'r r ` ~ 11 ,�_�' ... .._ .- ��'. 1. f1 7"'' •� ...... M i-I. ,Y- ':-- r_L,' ' ~, tiiT s;-. - f - , .' r]ft. 3iL' `�- •� 'n - . �(r,'~ - .L `.'. ��' f' 'r �- - -'�. �T �.cw•..._ ..r�.xi►. ...� ;: ,C'r. S' c 4»,_ :�+ �^ _ 'h Y'. -1._Z. 7L •�.'. .7. �- �' .}- ►,`.�'". .L !rb' .�'1 .r�i„' .:!�`•+ 4 �''.- r• :.'Ur �`y,- tiyL ^; ';`7 _ '�'{" Ji _ ^r` -W.J -..r ��-:jj-lj`�._?' -- •e�: //��7'�•- . +f '�� y •{v _-y.7c- _ -f '�. ?�• .`.�.',Jl`y�,� �'i*-\'..�: .ti �. •r _* �_�ff� 'f,`'•�r-`�.''r".'1Lya� r' -r -' .-- _ �/ _.-- - .� ; V � . TAT' ^' .* !.'f�� v �� r. r ` ``{. - r ! �' T- • 4 } ,t :'ry 't yt �` �' __ �. - L. •f'.... .\ r �-. .r y� _,IA• -J �.� - 't! •Af�� +�.` _'�. '� ��.l f xr'• '�' �'► 'r. �.~�.fC_ o- ��'t,^ _ -f� 1 - 'i'' '+. + ,1 ti _ I , _ ;� ++ l r - : `J T - 1.}L-- I► � P Y l T i _ .+'Y' _ r p/y�i. }'r7MY r+f 4 ` t � - Y - .o � = -. r �.r, " s.? _.y . +]�,. i I. _ ! � � ` - ' JJLL��t�tt _:' _ �) �►•{y _ ' • ti Y' �- r • sr _ 'rY i 7�■•� r - >kl�� ''S� _ +'-+.R M, -'� .! _ •�.�; Yy. `,;,. _ - - - � _ .. , ''{ .�^ �V. s} .-. •. - a• - +I - -,(c- 1 - ) �'.'+-r'C. ` - .- -_r• 3,'_ 7-L. - M1C rl r. ._> _ ... , \ 1.--s■1. _ +ti�"L - .-.ate .-.+t�-�- ' y- '*L� ~ .�"•` ,�' •rs �. i•.'� +`-.' -r �'� err : J -'i 7-y�y ''.` •• J' "'_ -- � •v.'r+.r• - ^; - w' • 4-1� !�' ja ��r'�' "'�[;t+�r�' ,� •�.i L }^-_�' ^ '1 v- +7.' ` �� _ y ].- • - T'�•- _ L. '4,,, - �.+'1►._ �•■_ . `, �i ti A. !y. , � � .� . y>.h�� = • + � CC �� y - � .�, r. '^rld 6 �. •a_ - ti , A t «%/ �'j..� ,� '•;:'. �v,,. •'r"• �•_'�� =� ` -� y, '�+'' ;,� r' ��"Cy-: �+ _ : - _-� May #r. .-� �j t•i �� -r '=�� ii 'L •_ f• ty,>•, ti a ' '-�' .r�r_-.`^ '� •{ `(� - - lf!{' �"J� #' - .%- %�.,.ti_ , �' �e w.�.� I. j, �' •r• - ' �'e�v. ' 1 �I � � -.L. �` V1'`i , •L._ �a '.- 'ia. ti ter.- - a�.•`''_ - r �y - }��/• � z •f .-r`-• 1. � � ,,, a -Y.L _ J - �` - '-j In ti"w y 'k r`4' - r '• ; i �J • _ 1' _ \,yr,- + � ' ;M ,*-« f.t' �',; t'".k - �-� - Y�..14 •- - -'-; .! -r r7 l:;I If I +l- rt'^' .`R•+ �.. r.� - .�R - _ -a-` .�i} r ` l` • _ �• .k'_ '1 -.-n'4'< _-- • f ',� ,w �. /• ._ --I R•'•-1 -' _ S ` • , i - j'� `� i �,,,iy r+�`'�` " !� `�� .. . - :r L. �'r ' - ••-fr`'"t•+l•-;� . •.. - t i'- = �' !'/'t L a/. `. t_rC?', _ - fir T} 'r.� Ve . a rr « `J E'7' �.L 1. ~ -. - '. rL� •r+' - _ j `•; - y - l- `� v_ JC r r : � .. :,L - r " - _ ►i a ' � , i' J r ti � ti 4 ._ y�~ % ,.�•y,•,-„ �� -:��_ `. f:-1- _� aF.%s(i�� .a-• 4•�y,�„�j,'"r`+I=�C++mil., •!r__t7,-�'�C- `'jir-- ~1i'�: ��.� rL^ ? y '.i.�•_ .�-]. "�= - '`'+l: _ _ t rL�. -~: 'a *'h •� a, t ~s+,- �l •L,r .�• ! ' k-1 'a F �.s i'-+.Ly `+1 ��' _ 1 't `', �' '� ' f /!J + ��'i� - 5 .Tt 'r.� . - *+ _`�- r f' ' .. ,'�•'._• •. f ♦ '� -ta t `rrt.: y y r tit ", ! _ j v: r h„? '. r,.,` . s. . si'--+!^~r • ,y~' -M'I f -I �1+;, �;_�r' '-e �. -_'�s .\ - , :r'T i\*"' :y^,,r - r~ '�Ly- y`{ �. .s4 11 ,�' • rtt�-=�1111111 .f- �L. Sri _ . r, -r~ram- -�' `- ,{' '•ir . ,A- '�• . y> /t,-�^ j It - - '�� -'. ��, `''• .�r •:7. �•�'... .-, �,'-!,� r .ri- --.i ; , , - ♦ - rye I. f'` t, - Y,,~- T,h. � ��1 ;.�Lr '{ d� +� rr. - .�• -- _ �' +� _. ^ -15- - , _ I �.. �- . i // - . .'fir' 1.- - .r I . ! [ _ _ rr r. III•.3J` �'1. +c nr a`,• `' ■-i ii, i - `�:�. .,1 f'`��',.�_ . a I . J J.:- / , _- . -mow,; vr' • . -'P L� ` '_ "�:y� r�rl .r'.- : :{-r~ ;ate \r{;' _ • , !.r . .' J'. 1. -.�• •x1, • _ `/' i l (� Y r,•- .. -'1,• i. �7 r- - _ � L.; 1, - '�� rr I-- f / �, • 7 .�r�) r�Y,� .w• _ .i': )� i.:.. 4, -7 -I- .r -I.- r L" '? `.,. I �. �.. .'}`1.... '+ _ ''o_ L ` �/• Lil ,''1 ', '' y'. r`1 ." � `Jy-y' :� '1��'- tr .. i. , ti r � .r ��, r•� r -C _ 4�� -�� k.. :�, /�� . r - f vi �: rr •l- •'. I . +fir _7 ti� tih M '•_+ r VV" •- _ ,Z.* a- _4 _ L I y - +-� 'j ,. I . - d ,^�L - .ram ,' - ,-y. +'. �� iF - - * /a . , , - `. ; i _ - - .., _ . ' r ► 1.'. „_• •.• I' -C t_ I L - ` • • j '� �` - •..1r .. - fT : •=.i . - 1• _ _f, .,tom •- - -. ,y - •r �• 'y ♦' �Y , _ r"'C'-. ,r�� . . - _ '. • - -'� ,r'.. I � i. _ 1. ram_ -' �. - V __rY•� 4'.N �' Tr ;r�♦.,YT' -f ' t(�Iz -y 7;_-_ - ,, �,- _ � 1• _-. - ' _ ��a j -{• r •��r1 'T�- !: - = 1 , ~� f L . s "^��{f _ ,�' i yw v - �� .' -, y 4 '" } :' 1 * -{- a I _ t 1. ' h► ':'af' ^_zz „1 .'. r Lj ' .. `1-1 '� Y •,{, L'r �.. _b .Pi ■ rb _6 . -� . _ 'i- "_r_' I- _ .:r.; .. i . - L1 ,�f�4 - }? .jr';cJ -r `_ _ y, �Y_.•�f r- .w�7, y� - rwi �! Ya_.�,��- ,a-r• v• �c .le 'f _ I. r.. " � :•j ,- - .Y - , ''C - �+ ./ -J - .`%I- IS.K+^ . -{r ,r .�Ii ..F`f .. _y�ti 1w .r � � �• I -_ -� ;�.0 ' z7_'7 .•- , 1 _ - .t ,Z '•;�• - ea- J.�+y � ter-- ./,i�7` r ., - I;� - ,` . - - � .� r ,r`� . •. • �a 1' _,• --r� i. - i•�.L 'f`+ .' . i ` -��L r ,. �1�'� r r -`yam , '� 'aa, ,�'1�aT ' "� +f i 'J - ►� -r.•� x •-r, .• {r' 1+-,r j i 1a,, -.. }• f J'r.. - r ti -� •/, .;r 3-V 'Th +rtr';• +� _-i;r'-7 t. - - L• _ Sr - ,4 JJI ,..`�R J�•. - -- - _W►- - - � y ^'7+ • - r • ' -,' . .., -� J, t- - '� . y .�- f � �� r -•. _�i w. . . -'!�y 10 I . . . .. . -, : . : _;,�'_?..A- "- 4I.-; . *' '"' )!_&�;;t -I . r,f - -',�.- ':-rP-�-- "!L +�rJ,. ter' `� - •� ��. yw'� `thy may,, ' x ♦ _�f ti,;^�J -Y �' - - i ~ .f _ . :v . - 1I. 7-- - .. .C_ _•%%``'' f � , ;`r t'1 4�� J, •+y"? � l � j ' ' [ � ..i 7 ,a-- I... - , ai 1 r a _ •- � - .. ' - :[ 1 . r _ . . It I. :tip- :, r, r r ,r ,-'±%`_ Jf-.T •F �r'J�y .f �`!./'-` /�y j /i'yif��J�.•• s _ _ _ , _.- _, .r .,'�� I _ .. .. I-ki){v ,_ it , . -7 C r� / -r' �- *^✓ ` ,~+ -� -1 '. /i •J1 1 L. •+�r J.' ,•"?i„ 7 . i Ran ItIa C Say No to NIOMMO. We the undersigned do not wit a two or four lane highway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary constraints, we favor makino incremental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood. We do not want the speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Sandbridge would bring. we are against building a highway through our neighborhood and through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mar! -I Stgnsl�ue Print Name Sbss! Address Telep6on� 7o7 jj dLA 14 JqA JR60%re q;t 90 1?1 �.obeil- 6e�Ji ; 7-3ry5 dalk Q;o 721-11161 030 /� /CSoft o��3s�8 tz4e 5v" 4r,6 7-axI4074 m►a h' jj�76 le 2Z97 6 Jro UO r fA W Af .23o2r 4XIOIX004 R 7-210133 �r 6 - ! 99 7 14�(Y PA � 0 4 `�"� %" ---W- OrAw Z\*>v7 PAmiN keo! Jaws a d 8s'1 �� 7 a./,�S IL*LFXI C AM Isov 0 P,4;*LAJ Protect Back ay.' IWO Say No to Ni"mmo., We the � do notwant a 4-lane Parkway trough our Neighborhood. Dueto budgetary oon�ran�ts, s�etY, and our oonoe�ns for Lego Mar's q�ity of fife, we favaor ma�g in�mentai i�aprov�ments to Sandbsidge Road aid bmldmga 2annighhcDledo� Nn righ-ofway, o service o� neigbbo�oods. We do �t want the speeciimg, c�'im�, noisy traffic , aid com l devebpmnot tl�t I*iimmo Parkway to Samdbridge would being. We are against balding Feaell/Nmm�a VI through our Neighborhood aad Fea+elUNrmmo VII t�+�ngh Ba�cic Bay R,efug�. We vwold lie to have a biliking Pith along the Nnmm VII rigbdr-of -way firom Atwoodtown Road to Saa�dge. Protect Lago Mar.' r. mW, " A. Al t Rai I �O .- i V"W' I Alow 7AI mg ` 1 .. r I 0 • r. "d�,W9 10.7 U" Old 'A r i j W 1 0, W-- a 1 V (f Protect Lago Mar.' 1`� C 14 Say No to NI'mmOf We fibs imdersigued & not a two or €oiQ lane highway tiu+nugh our neighborhood ar�d do mot wait a badge butt on Atwnodrown R+oad. Due to budgeter constrakds, we favor m� impro�emeaa�ts to Ssaa6cidge Roadaid budding a 2-lane Op coIleaor, along the Pt+oPoserl Nmmn ri f t-of wary, to se�vic�e rna �eighborl�od. We do not want �e speadmg, caim+e, now, and oommacial devaebpm+ent ttmt Nmfmo Pa&w" m igw�on�d big. We a�+e a�aia�t b�n'g a higharaY boo�Bacg Bay Refuge. ourn Protect Lago Mar.' S P�iitt Maas Adir� TeMphone 716ro."'A. Vio 7 7 be 1*2 i)A O.&L4 a,a^� �.�►-a a fir. Yq 7 VA aSAJ& 10 41 rdZ 1+u0 7(o f Z Y• y Tt,.t to c.T' --F1 2q bJ % orp a 7a/ 3j�q?/ o jlN � SoM �fo/ 7-' o cr Vk �A o73'J�s6 OF 701 Oz 06;jlaw_�4 24�7 �Tr�t -721-4g2( JJIQ�iR i� AR.K vQa Cir f Z6 - (t s' � Sf �c A Yh "i Protect Back day! Im Say No to NIMMOW10 We the undersigned do not want a two or four lane highway through our neighborhood aid do not want a bridge built on Atw+oodtown Road. Due to budgetazy co�raints, we favor making ia�emental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lain neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood We do not want the speeding, crim+�, wise, ate. commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Sandbridge would aging. We are against building a highway through our neighborhood and through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mar! dw AP AP AMR tec Back Bay! Say No to Niammom, %OF We the imde�aed do not wit a 4-lene Pa�vay onrNeigbbo�d�ood Doe �o wry o�mts, shy, and our co8oerm liar %ado ma's �iEy of � v�ee � dal �co�ts � S�lo�ridg+, Road and bum a 2-lmoe ne+gfibcuhaodooHa�o� al�ogg th��a'oPcaedNi�� rwWof�9, 10 service ote g%ba�Irood� W� do not �t �e 9peoain� cry mid traffic sa�m)s, and oo t d ent #hst N�mm� P ID Sao��ri�c �oRdd brims. We aye a�st F VY lv hood �d FecreD/N�mo�u VII tit�ongh Bact �y R+efii�e. We void � 1u base a b�"�g Pith ab� the Nmmo VII right -of -fir fromA&woodkmn Rid to SmAridgm. PrIWMIALec99L Lago Mar! MUs�s 1!4tFl400 —/DO "07 dopeL ej. //K SAWA� /036 944cASee J°D `721 T t � TaOor n c. A40W i LAg V, &7 Lr f1_ Sal Ave it, 2,5-z,-if-WE Aj EL Sa r e1)]tjrAa._� ' i 6e9 0,P V 7 Ll Rr m 4_92yjz� 07ZI I lY; !' <C�—� /� 7L rrIv Dr 'I aG c1�.:: Etcn PZ %2l -7715 Protect go Mar,', I Say No to NoImOf Protect Lego Marl Say No to N'IMMO.I We the undersigned do not want a two or four lane highway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary constraints, we --- favor making incremental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood We do not want the speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Saadbridge would bring. We are against building a highway though our neighborho through Bank Bay Refuge. Protect La Mar.' Sigre Print NaoM arsst TNepiw" LO S &OW 1411d� 10 (r- A 03 0 ie;wmoo� Paw WAr( zoo C. rk zr'H✓ LFlDec- ARt/I 4'i'i3 ss Mev� sr 4W6& � sta, zarc:Z2. 1-2-rr 3 6.j.n��rx. � AON n eJ -9v'Y Protect Back Bay! Say f No to N"Imm�■ We the undersigned do not want a two or four lane highway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary constraints, we favor making incremental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood. we do not want the speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Sandbridge would bring. we are against building a highway through our neighborhood and through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Marl. Signature Print Name Street Address Telephone CQ118{,v�t �At�l�►'+-�.kih a �tvn�ta 51LISA ku� -S�Ule 48� EA Pr" Cd W-M 3`t �4Mi tie" %.1.60 uj'z' (q Z- ' .�UAIc4 14A&&-Ay aqcl a & Aul#w70 krp I 12-- t -z , lvajvn //a// /00 inoC IV?/'1p 05�� .- �ui�e-r-le-7een.. too 731-30�9 v V� � I�x 10 OtOk CAw��ua r �.. /oz4 RaR�� 7z�- gV15 k 72hy 34-•5 Protect Back Bay.' say No to NI"MMOI We the undersigned do n.,jt want a 4-law Parkway through. our neighborhood do not grant a bridge bum or. AtweWtwn Road. Due to bWgetwy consuaW& we favor king emeab nprove ents to ;aadbMge load a building a 2-lane neighborhood coffee or, along the proposed Ninnno right -of way, to SMIIM our neighborhoodL We do no s want the speeding, cm' ne, noise., and conmweial development that Nimm Parkway- to bridge would bring. We are building PerreEVNumo 'I through our neighborhood and FerreWimnw VU &. ugh Back Bay Refuge. PTOtect go s 3"m 00, Zee � w f AA -�. �'CJokvz� Tslep"ne -aos: ZWAFAWZi�r"j s Say No to I tumor We the undersigned coo ns )t wet a 4-1am Parkway through our neighborhood and Ala not want a bridge built ov Atwoodtowa Road. Due to budgetary conshaints, we favor making icrementa improvenwnts to SwAxidge Road and building aE ?-lane mighborhood eoflec,, or, along the proposed .Tian m. right -of way, to semc:e our neighborhood. We do no., want the speeding, crim, noise, and commercial development fat l Ira Parkway to S aWbridge would . We are age building Fer reEVNimmo VI tbrough our neighl mrhood and Ferre&Wimma VII Hugh Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mar.' Feint NanM ltr�t Address Tel cCC�Gc'rCi�ys�s/� �/d/-�� 12V 7"V �>7 USA �z.Li�fct VS 4mA, z/-a27ri i r 1kaA zoo PAR �onc�a 14Y/6/1 95eLs o ;s q;) -,5 Y35 qA 6- �.Vgl %s ��r� �'It La �Y-%-,,-� r� 7.0 i-ym�' --7 8� y�nT'fi6C� U-5 (CxY,,^ W�t�-�PP Lt2l_�5�f 2 ri ay No to N"Immo. We the undersigned do not want a 4-lane Parkway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary co ' ts, we favor making incremental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood. we do not want the speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Sandbridge would bring, we are against building FerrelYNinnno VI through our neighborhood and Ferrell/Nimmo VII through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mart. Si re, Print dame Aid Tek*dmne Uaee 0 Y Vz( 6 163 r ' kietsTi--wv sToi-qc- !"ibol !AS B-*'-#S5C%5 asc LA (I f C 'FA Say No to NIOMMO. We the undersigned do not want a 4-lane Parkway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary cos, we favor making incremental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood. We do not want the speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Ni mmo Parkway to Sandbridge would bring. We are against building Ferrell/Nimmo VI through our neighborhood and Ferrell/Nimmo VII through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mar! Sigre Prime Name Street Address TNephone Steef ,�04 �d.�AN,.•,�o yi717,9 W. Ho �� Ho�„�� 230o H�ac�ue.bt�rY TrAI� 3�9-Sa25 R Rfit„ L A 6r,bo vivo ,e:o env Ct 721-m 596 Z kevoo- qpq Ri-O brow, Ig I - 71- 9 {�nn� yap ►^^a.► qOq e;u &4VA& d, 301-- aIJ(o 41 on rne **W 4VO rZ 75Z?/ lea I Kea) R60 Ln. ?v 0- 0 1 C /0� LQ V ren H eS*S revinoc 721 96s 41 �C L4 a Sr /L`� %8S Gos Age- �iQZip� �� TG�a zb -sy6 z -40 CI Say No to NiMmo.I We the undersigned do not want a 4-lane Parkway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary constraints, we favor g incremental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood We do not want the speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Sandbridge would bring. We are against building Ferrell/Nimmo VI through our neighborhood and Ferrell/Nimmo VII through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mar! r+e Print Neste Street AddrSO SO S_ Telephone ?4 4C COOVtid Wa* arl .77 s� �.i rz/-5/77 �.�-01�ur� 'A� S• r�r� 1� r� n > � C'cv&,�,�. 4 3 Cam,n+ 12&41 z 2.t - u Sa �t S� �•� /�lTRRYN n?• 9 3& AAL�� kZ �t "3 - dop #40 W amp AT tho 1&tAAW JQ J&Pre# /UO4-1 -S �M �R Z1K T�K RA &I MOM 7ZI f&* as fl, �� c.�� uj000To Qo TS 25 ►,��C � "Y %C*o C034* rdw 4U be 'Cf Cevq'5 OMAIL '0 r <10 S say No to NIMMOM We the undenigned do not want a 4-lane Parkway tb rough our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary conshaints, we favor m�al`mg incremental improvements to Sandb9ridge Road and building a 2-bane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our neighborhood. We do not want the Speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Sandbridge would bring. We are building Ferre!YNimmo VI through our neighborhood and Fc= Nimmo VR through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mar! Signature Print Name Sb�ee�t Address Telephone f � �L G /010 '79 64J�6- ZIA �3 4 o a - 'l of i - 5'4 !a ` �K� �Enl �� R�r� c�•Z-�s—�Sl Act 44 q h <: it 7z.1 - 51ci 3 9el, Gxsi.x/�c�C 7- - I gvmc: S1!2�2 ZAU q4 (Dar e-E> C�S 4ZII �S�,xrt L yll Lop 940 J f -f -rmjw-� 46 -7.7 e CO- 'I 7'> IIvur- *3ro tfl,�Jb,,5 W NO W I Say No to Irmo. We the undersigned do not want a 4-lane Parkway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge built on Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary constraints, we favor making incremental improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood collector, along the proposed Nimmo right -of way, to service our 110 neighborhood. We do not want the speeding, crime, noise, and commercial development that Nimmo Parkway to Sandbridge would bring. We are against building Ferrel /Nimrno VI through our neighborhood and Ferrell/Nimmo V11 through Back Bay Refuge. Protect Lago Mar! Signature Print Name �raet Address Telephone a hghRu&eII M6 CO6 4aWI"A2346 721-4323 5kovo�.liv- /brat% 000V rD C /�iirup �rnni�v {�tncy IagS Ku51w Cfi t{95-(od0.5 � Fl, ,n S, ej - y/3cejla - MJUVIg�3 Gsi�, �EV icH� 6.1a� O9((Qsmbz+u�➢cS')t 7z]-ai�9 /1J6. a IL flu I %&.CVbM 5M `7 •�.e�lv .W.�.LDA�, Z�-S�L� rA 6u o Cjjta6'r< - 9! U O u Oki r .E)ay No to NIMmol We the undersigned do :ot want a 4-lane Parkway through our neighborhood and do not want a bridge bui t o i Atwoodtown Road. Due to budgetary constraints, we favor making increment- �i improvements to Sandbridge Road and building a 2-lane neighborhood eolie, tor, along the proposed Nimmo Wight -of wkv, to service our neighborhood. We do nl !t want the speedg, grime, noise, and commercial development that Nimm Parkway to 3andbridge would bring. we are against building Ferrell Nimnio VI through our neighbodwod and FerreI Nimmo VII through Back Bay Refuge. F'rotect Lago M nt Iaa-ne Stroet A&dfess Tel no _ , . "�.« o. 0,� 0 0 A L on Ift dr� T —76Z1—vVAv %L-0- L-- --4.— -7-7 ;07 .S %%aj +Awn tF �lab Oen �:SmAJ ji��111111111111��I 1 I air 1 cow 4 7U�G3 z r tecesa �p�' 1 CpsFG 1"14rgU ;s:se 8z9 costa Grard� 7ZI 6&AV t� K J� - ( m^n(?, r.-I ay No to N We the undersigned do r..3t ww t a 4-park,%vay tbroour neighborhood and do not want a badge built al. Alwoadtawn Road. Due to budgetary co we favor making mcremenui I improvements to Sandbrddge Road building a 2.4ane neighborhood collex-tor, along the proposed Nino r gW-of way, to service our neighborhood. We do raft want the speeding, trim, nose, and cormilUICial development tit Yn = Parkway to '.;wWbridge would Mn. We are nst Ferrell/Nhnmo VI through our neigh- borhood a Ferr eHlNbnrnaVII throes Back Bay Refuge. ProtectMar.' Pint K�ne I Str+eat /4ddr+ess I TNsohone I q1DCQ'nn0�ltatSl �f��0 ��?0 'Y210-6 ZBO !7 0!�Avd%C2- - �eeesd u�z8o rAll� Loq��rtxla-p 664 lizat p},.mom 4 ua -- 2. 9 6 8 as09 wn 4a l� a�o5 Mayntanf- yzG` 539 Ill 69-Ot two 'OCA.0 1 -7 2-( - Z- S t g 2 16.ESWIIA C1 7A/,w'71 V q Ite ED 7-MC( c� o� rr�h��lJ�I`A) 16 � Say No to NIOMMo! We the undeasigosd do not warns a two or four lane highway through our ieighborlood and. do not want a bridge built on Atwao&own Road. Die to budgetwy cotes, we favor miming increto SuOridge Road and building a 2-inns neighbothood oolhxAor, al+ang the p[oposed Nmuno sight -of way, fi4 service our neighborhood We do not want the speadi� cue, now., aad oomme�al development that NmQmo Parkway to Ssndbridge would being, we are M9F a highway t�Orongh our neighborhood and through Bask Bay R+e£uge. Protect Lago Mar.' Print ties. !treat A�Airess Naphoae TC6 c D�A S1p /� �r{lI�A�IF �)(Icl AmO o c-�. 95rI-�F03-93sy s7 EVFe41>4 �-`ha5 �'�,�ir,: AAP V,4 % R A I,f lL KC-iJ5 ?Y7S C-,n(iRFl 'f2 b 6 6Sy 60%,, ue w1 C6voe. Z'f 77 C»+�+%>4 - 1- 4 / 0 3. CU cJ14 RC14 Protect Back Bay! 'i o Whom It May Concern: We are aware that if the Nlmamo Parkway were built from Upton Street to Sandbridge, our bushiess would be adversely affected because of Sandbridge traffic bvpassing us and being diverted from General Booth Boulevard to and from Sandbridge. Husixiess Affected v�o f i % ` ) .fJ so, jo 6/410 ck;� �i Oil Signature r I � i air -u-& Position of_uien atu re r�W4 et, 1 01A hAQA-/ f i 1 � 1 l 'to Whom it INIAY Concern: We are aware that if the Nirnmo Parkway.were built from Upton Street to Saacibridge, our business would be adversely attested because of Sandbridge tratfic bypassing us and being diverted from General Booth Boulevard to and from Sandbridge. �3usiY��Sy .��fr�cte�# Y L Sio llatlire Position of Signature To Whom It May Concerti: We are aware that if the Nimmo Parkw*y� were built from Upton Street to Sandbridge, our business would be adversely affected because of Sandbridge traffic bypassing Lis and being diverted from General Booth Boulevard to and from Sandbridge. Business Altected SOUTH BENCH HAIR SALON 2nature Position of Sianature S Subt: The Virginian4NIot Archives Date: 03/20/2003 10:40:38 AAA Eastern Standard Time From • wpbrownmdl@cox.net (William P. Brawn) To: Hertram f aol. com (Jones, Herb and Lorraine) X_t-cto� �`1 }to HamnRoads.com » au 'ons /autos !homes / j4ts /yellow naaes « PilotOnGne.com p�� b VtY, 1��n�NewsLibrary Archives Onli nle �got Search the print edition Search Tics Setup account Service Fees DU[ DRIVER GETS NO JAIL IN FQmright notice DEATHS OF SON9 2 OTHERS Published: January 15, 1991 Section: LOCAL, page DI Source: Kerry DeRochi, Staff writer 0 1991- Landmark Communications Inc. A woman charged in a car wreck on Sandbridge Road that kilted her son, niece and sister-in-law was given no prison time Monday after prosecutors told the judge that she had suffered enough. As part of an agreement with prosecutors, the woman, Marylyn S. Kalvig, 34, received a five-year suspended sentence for two counts of involuntary manslaughter, charges that could have carried 20 years in prison. A third charge of manslaughter and two felony child -neglect charges were dropped. "She committed the crime, but let the punishment fit the circumstances," Commonwealth's Attorney Robert J. Humphreys said in an interview. '"She lost her child. There's little the state can do to punish her rnorer" But the agreement was nearly rejected by Circuit Judge Robert B. Cromwell Jr., who told the attiomeys that he was uncomfortable accepting it because Kalvig was drunk at the time of the accident Kalvig had a blood -alcohol level of 0.13, prosecutors have said. The state presumes d ru n ken ness when the level is 0.10. "The defendant was intoxicated," Cromwell said. "There's no question it was a tragedy for everyone involved. There's arrays a haunting possibility that without alcohol, this may not have occurred." Tuesday, March 18, 2003 America Online: Hertmml (C) The accident occurred at 3 p.m. Aug. 12, when Kalvig and her family were returning from a day at Sandbridge. Kalvig was driving a red 9988 Ford Fiesta on Sandbridge Road when the car spun out of control on the sharp, treacherous bend known as McCtanan's Curve. The car slammed into a Buick corning from the apposite direction, killing all three Occupants of the Fiesta's back seat. Kalvig's 6-year-old son, Peterson, who was sitting behind her without a seat belt, died of a neck injury. Janet Doran, 26, and her 5-year-old daughter, Sarah, were also killed on impact. Kalvig's brother, Edward Lee Doran, who was sitting beside her, was airlifted by Sentara Nightingale helicopter ambulance to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital. A grand jury in September indicted Kalvig, of the 1800 block of Gershwin Drive, and Doran. Prosecutors said Monday that they would drop a child - neglect charge against Doran on Wednesday. "We just figure at this point, she pleaded guilty and there's no real interest to be served in going any further," said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Cummings. This article is O 1991- Landmark Communications Inc. and may not be republished without permission. For Vff*gw*-P1kA reWed ardAw bilOM qumb . call News U ra;y at 1-80 . For search question, ew" us. Ham ,OM, and Sigl Ordure Headers Return -Path: <wpbrownmdl @cox.net> Received: from r1y-xg01.mx.ao1.com (rly-xg01.mail.aoi.com [172.20.115-198]) by air-xg01.mail.aol.com (v92.17) with BSMTP id MAiLINXGI I-503e79e=f, Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:40:38 -0500 Received: from lakeo0l.cox.net Oakern oOl .cox.net [68.1.17.244]) by rly-xg01.mx.aol.com (v92.16) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG44-4463e79eOd92da; Thu, 20 Mar 200310:40:09 -0500 Received: torn cxf 39575b ([68.10.20.34]) by la ke nmtaoO l .cox . net Ontefflail vM.5.01.04.45 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20030320154008.MKHWI 4921.lakentaoOl .cox.net@cx839575b>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:40:08 -0500 Message4D:<003bO1c2eef8$eb2aa040$22140a44@hr.cox.net> From: *Wiliam P. Brown" <wpbrownmdl a@cox.net> To: "Jones, Herb and Lorraine" <Hertram1 a@aol.com> Subject: The Virginian -Pilot Archives Date: Thu, 20 Mar 200310:39:39 -0500 MIME -Version: 1.0 Content -Type: mukipartlakernative; boundary="-IEN .NextPart 00O 0038 01 C2EECD.021174C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMO-Priority: Normal Tuesday, March 18, 2003 America ChTme: Hertram t �4 ti For Wgim m-No# related ardwe bikV guesbons, call News Library ad 14800-896-5587. For search Questions, e-mal Lis. Ha R and Blot Onfne Headers Retum-Path: <wpbrownmdl @cox.net> Received: from dy-zd04.mx.aoi.com (rly-zd04.mai1.ao1.corn [172.31.33.2281) by air-zd02.mai1.aoi.com (v92.17) with ESMTP id MAILINZD24-37f83e79c3ae3e5; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:35:42 -0500 Received: from Iakemtao0l .cox.net Oake oOl.cox.net [68.1.17-244]) by rIy-zd04.mx.aol.com (V92.16) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYlNZD410-3b63e79c387103; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:35:03 -0500 Received: from cx639575b ([68.1020-341) by Taker oOl.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id<20030320133502.l.JJP14921.lakemtao01.cox.net a@cx639575b>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:35:02 -0500 I~Aessage-ID: <000901 c2eee5$71 a119e0$22140a44 a@hr.cox.net> From: "Wiliam P. Brown"' <wpbrownmdl@cox.net> To: "Jones, Herb and Lorraine" <Hertram1 @aol.com> Subject: The Virginian -Pilot Archives George Owens's Death Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:34:33 -0500 MIME -Version: 1.0 Content -Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--= �NextPart 000 0006 01 C2EEBB.88665CA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 America Online: Hertram 1 Ed Weeden - Nimmo VII -41 Pag I From: "Kurt Schroeder" <kschroederl9@cox net> To: <bscott@ vbgov comma Date: 5/12/03 7.23PM Subject: Nimmo VII Mr Scott'. I would like to voice my opinion in support of the "Jones Spur" alternative as well as oppose the placing of Nimmo VII on the Master Transportation Plan. This is an unnecessary road that causes great ecological damage to one of the last great undeveloped areas in Virginia Beach Please copy my email to each planning commission member. Sincerely, Kurt Schroeder 5613 Sedgemoor Road Virginia Beach Ed Weeden - Planning Commission Hearing May 14th-VOTE NO NIMMO VII' Page From: "Bruce & Amy Van Kleeck" <ABVanKleeck @ cox net? To: "Robert Scott" <bscott@ vbgov com> Date: 5/13/03 9 13PM Subject: Planning Commission Hearing May 14th-VOTE NO NIMMO VII' Dear Planning Commission Members As I'm sure you are now very much aware, there are countless reasons to oppose the placing of Nimmo VI on the City MTP. I would like to focus on one of them -the safely and well being of my children and my neighbors children My home sits approximately 150 yards from the intersection of Atwoodtown Rd. and the proposed Nimmo Parkway extension (Nimmo VI I). Should this road be allowed to proceed as Mr. Reeve would like, this intersection will be the thoroughfare to the ever more popular, Sandbridge Beach area. There will most certainly be the need to construct a traffic signal Without question, the quiet and tranquil community of Lago Mar will be turned into another Dam Neck Road and London Bridge situation While I understand the need to provide traffic relief to the newly constructed Back Bay section of Lago Mar, this can be done relatively painlessly by constructing a 2 lane "collector " road from Camino Real to Upton Drive. This will also resolve the very serious traffic problem , both residential and construction, on Entrada Drive in Lago Mar, as well as provide access in and out of Back Bay Lago Mar Show the residents of Virginia Beach City Council does have it's priorities in order-Children's Safety Above Business Self -Interest' Vote NO to put Nimmo back on the City MTP. Bruce Van Kleeck 2576 Atwoodtown Road Lago Mar Ed Weeden - Planning Commission hearing _ � _ Pag A�- 11\ From: <KristinJos @ aol comma To: <bscott @ vbgov comma Date: 5/13/03 8 43PM Subject: Planning Commission hearing Mr Scott, 1 will not be able to attend the meeting on May 14, please pass this along to Planning Commission members Planning Commission members, I want to express my opposition to adding Nimmo VII east of Atwoodtown Road to Sandbridge Road to the Master Transportation Plan. By holding on to the possibility that it may be built in the future takes time and money away from the more viable alternative, improving Sandbridge Road. I do support Councilman Jones's planned improvement to Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road. Furthermore, as the City begins approving development projects in the Transition Area the need for the Southeastern Expressway becomes even more important In order to build this road, the City will face many wetlands issues, not the least of which will be government agencies' approvals and mitigation of the damaged wetlands. The wetlands for this mitigation is in the Back Bay watershed, including the Nimmo VII ROW. It seems prudent for the City to spend its time and energy working with the federal agencies instead of against them for both Southeastern Parkway, which the City needs now, and the Sandbridge Road improvements, which the City will need in the future The City doesn't have the money to build Nimmo. VDOT doesn't have the money to build this road when it has very limited resources to spend on much more important regional transportation needs. The Federal government is too occupied rebuilding the infrastructure of countries half a world away and is not spending money on roads such as Nimmo I along with many citizens of Virginia Beach, as well as the permitting agencies, and local environmental advocacy groups are asking you to have the political courage to do the right thing and vote no on putting Nimmo VII on the MTP Thank you. Kristin M. Joslin 2217 Mansion Cross Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Ed Weeden - Planning Commission hearing My 14-Nimmo VII Page From: "William P. Brown" <wpbrownmdl @cox.net> To: "Scott, Robert" <bscott@ vbgov comma Date: 5/12/03 1:01 PM Subject: Planning Commission hearing My 14-Nimmo Vil Mr Scott, please pass this on to the Planning Commission before the hearing on Wednesday. Planning Commission members, I want to express my opposition to adding Nimmo VII east of Atwoodtown Road to Sandbridge Road to the Master Transportation Plan. I realize this is a wish list and there is no funding for this road. However, by holding on to the possibility that it may be built in the future takes time and money away from the more viable alternative, improving Sandbridge Road. I do support Councilman Jones's planned improvement to Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road Furthermore, as the City begins approving development projects in the Transition Area the need for the Southeastern Expressway becomes even more important. In order to build this road, the City will face many wetlands issues, not the least of which will be government agencies' approvals and mitigation of the damaged wetlands. The wetlands for this mitigation is in the Back Bay watershed, including the Nimmo VII ROW. It seems prudent for the City to spend its time and energy working with the federal agencies instead of against them for both Southeastern Parkway, which the City needs now, and the Sandbridge Road improvements, which the City will need in the future. The City doesn't have the money to build Nimmo. VDOT doesn't have the money to build this road when it has very limited resources to spend on much more important regional transportation needs. The Federal government is too occupied rebuilding the infrastructure of countries half a world away and is not spending money on roads such as Nimmo. A public/private partnership for a road to Sandbridge is ridiculous. Do you think anyone would pay a toll to save 3 minutes on their trip to General Booth, only to be stuck in a real traffic jam or real road flooding? I am sure that the Planning Commission hearing on Wednesday is strictly pro forma, since Nimmo is already on the Council agenda at the end of May. However, I along with many citizens in Sandbridge and Lago Mar, as well as the permitting agencies, are asking you to have the political courage to do the right thing and vote no on putting Nimmo VII on the MTP. Thank you. William P. Brown, M D. 2232 Sandpiper Road Virginia Beach, VA 23455 721-5011 Ed Weeden - Nimmo 7 µ _ N Pa From: Del McNeely <earthlovr@ earthlink.net> To: <bscott@vbgov.com> Date: 5/12/03 7.11 AM Subject: Nimmo 7 Dear Mr. Scott, Please convey to the commission my objection to the proposal to put Nimmo 7 on the city plan Please consider the Jones' alternative proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Del McNeely Ed Weeden - commission meeting _5/14/03ri Page 01 From: <eoast @ springmail comma To: <bscott@ vbgov com> Date: 5/11/03 10.38PM Subject: commission meeting 5/14/03 Dear Sir: I reglarly use Sandbridge Road and find that it poses no problem for the reasonably careful driver. I am opposed to placing NimmoVII on the Master Transportation Plan, I am satisfied that our tax dollars can be put to better use Would you please send a copy of this email to each member of the Planning Commission? Thank you Edward L. Oast 2316 Sandfiddler Rd Va Beach, VA 23456 EWeeden - (no subject)µ x T y Ny µ � Y� Pafr From: <Parcross @ aol.com> To: <bscott@ vbgov. com> Date: 5/11 /03 10 25PM Subject: (no subject) l oppose Atwood Vil, and support Jones connection/bypass. Parker Gross-2324 Sandtiddler Ed Weeden - Nimmo Parkway VII Pap From: <MJack67508 @ aol.com> To: Robert Scott <bscott @ vbgov com> Date: 5/11 /03 2 42 P M Subject: Nimmo Parkway VII Dear Bob, 1 would like to voice my opposition to the proposal to place Nimmo V11 from Atwoodtown Road to Sandbridge Road on the Master Transportation Plan . In addition I would like to voice my support for the "Jones's Spur" alternative that will give a new alignment to Sandbridge Road between Upton Drive and Atwoodtown Road Please provide a copy of this e-mail to all members of the Planning Commission Thank you, Maurice B. Jackson 1125 Ditchley Road Virginia Beach, VA 23451 4f28-1470 CC: William P. Brown <wpbrownmdl @cox.net> Page 1 of 1 Stephen White - Planning Commission hearing From: <KristinJos a�aol.com> To: <bscott@vbgov.com> Date: 5/13/2003 8:43 PM Subject: Planning Commission hearing Mr Scott, I will not be able to attend the meeting on May 14, please pass this along to Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members, I want to express my opposition to adding Nimmo VII east of Atwoodtown Road to Sandbridge Road to the Master Transportation Plan By holding on to the possibility that it may be built in the future takes time and money away from the more viable alternative, improving Sandbridge Road I do support Councilman Jones's planned improvement to Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road. Furthermore, as the City begins approving development projects in the Transition Area the need for the Southeastern Expressway becomes even more important In order to build this road, the City will face many wetlands issues, not the least of which will be government agencies' approvals and mitigation of the damaged wetlands The wetlands for this mitigation is in the Back Bay watershed, including the Nimmo VI ROW It seems prudent for the City to spend its time and energy working with the federal agencies instead of against them for both Southeastern Parkway, which the City needs now, and the Sandbridge Road improvements, which the City will need in the future The City doesn't have the money to build Nimmo VDOT doesn't have the money to build this road when it has very limited resources to spend on much more important regional transportation needs The Federal government is too occupied rebuilding the infrastructure of countries half a world away and is not spending money on roads such as Nimmo along with many citizens of Virginia Beach, as well as the permitting agencies, and local environmental advocacy groups are asking you to have the political courage to do the right thing and vote no on putting Nimmo V11 on the MTP Thank you Kristin M Joslin 2217 Mansion Cross Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23456 file://C:1 T1Temp\GW)00008.HTM 5/14/2003 Page 1 of 1 Stephen White - Planning Commission Hearing May 14th-VOTE NO NIMMO VII! From: "Bruce & Amy Van Kleeck" <ABVanKleeck@cox.net> To: "Robert Scott" <bscott@vbgov.com> Date: 5/13/2003 9:13 PM Subject: Planning Commission Hearing May 14th-VOTE NO NIMMO VII! Dear Planning Commission Members: As I'm sure you are now very much aware, there are countless reasons to oppose the placing of Nimmo VII on the City MTP. I would like to focus on one of them -the safely and well being of my children and my neighbors children. My home sits approximately 150 yards from the intersection of Atwoodtown Rd. and the proposed Nimmo Parkway extension (Nimmo VII) Should this road be allowed to proceed as Mr. Reeve would like, this intersection will be the thoroughfare to the ever more popular, Sandbridge Beach area. There will most certainly be the need to construct a traffic signal Without question, the quiet and tranquil community of Lago Mar will be turned into another Dam Neck Road and London Bridge situation. While I understand the need to provide traffic relief to the newly constructed Back Bay section of Lago Mar, this can be done relatively painlessly by constructing a 2 lane "collector " road from Camino Real to Upton Drive. This will also resolve the very serious traffic problem , both residential and construction, on Entrada Drive in Lago Mar, as well as provide access 1n and out of Back Bay Lago Mar. Show the residents of Virginia Beach City Council does have it's priorities in order-Children's Safety Above Business Self -Interest! Vote NO to put Nimmo back on the City MTP. Bruce Van Kleeck 2576 Atwoodtown Road Lago Mar file://C:IWINNT1TempIGW}00008 HTM 5/14/2003 L. APPOINTMENTS EASTERN VIRGD41A MEDICAL SCHOOL FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT City Council, in trying to be more responsive to the needs of citizens who attend the meetings, has adopted the following time limits for future Formal Sessions Applicant or Applicant's Representative 10 Minute Attorney or Representative for Opposition 10 Minutes Other Speakers -each 3 Minutes Applicant's Rebuttal 3 Minutes THESE TIMES WILL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO.