The URL can be used to link to this page

JUNE 13, 2006 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF. At-Large VICE MA YOR LOUIS R. JONES. Bayside - District 4 HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M. DYER, Centerville - District J REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall- District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX. Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE. Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT. At-Large RON A. VILLANUEVA. At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - LESUE L. UUEY CiTY CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH. MMC CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH A COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 13 June 2006 I. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Conference Room II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. INFORMAL SESSION Conference Room A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 13456-8005 PHONE:(757) 385-4303 FAX (757) 385-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycnc/@vbgov.com 3:00 PM 4:00 PM N. FORMAL SESSION Council Chamber 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Stanley Sawyer, D.D. Pastor, All Saints Episcopal Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS June 6, 2006 G. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PRECINCT BOUNDARIES AND LOCA nONS a. Create new precincts and polling places b. Modify precinct boundaries c. Change existing polling places H. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION I. CONSENT AGENDA J. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code: a. Article II: ADD ~ 2-15 re Mayoral, City Council and School Board elections on the first Tuesday in November b. S 1 0-1: ADD one voting precinct, CHANGE boundary lines for two voting precincts and MOVE three polling locations 2. Ordinance to DISSOLVE and RECONSTITUTE the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission. 3. Ordinance re MODIFICATIONS to Town Center Phase III project documents. 4. Resolution to DESIGNATE the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin as the City's official Marine Mammal. 5. Annual PERMIT RENEWAL for area private and non-profit EMS organizations: a. Medical Transport b. Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. c. Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance d. Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters e. Eastern Shore Ambulance f. Network Medical 6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments: a. Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger into Lake Wesley to construct and maintain a pier extension, gazebo, floating piers, boat lift, et cetera, at 528 Kerry Lane DISTRICT 6 - BEACH b. Robert J. and Carol R. Quinn into a man-made canal in Lagomar to construct and maintain a bulkhead, dock and boat lift at 2404 Entrada Drive DISTRICT 5 - PRINCESS ANNE 7. Ordinance to REVISE categorical appropriations for the School operating fund and AMEND their FY 2006-07 operating and capital budgets as requested by the School Board. 8. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition, by purchase for public purposes, a portion of property at 420 Thalia Road from Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXCUTE all documents pertaining thereto. 9. Ordinances re Williams Farm property: a. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to SELL a portion of City property at 1068 Newtown Road to the Virginia Beach School Board re a new elementary school; ACCEPT the dedication of a right-of-way; and, EXECUTE all documents pertaining thereto b. ESTABLISH a Capital Project re Williams Park Improvements and APPROPRIATE $1,264,972 from the sale of property re park infrastructure development 10. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $43,560 from Cost Recovery Revenue and $4,944 from the Fire Department Gift Fund to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 operating budget re Operation Smoke Detector and the Life Safety Education program. 11. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $350,000 in Federal and State revenue re child care subsidies to low-income parents. 12. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $45,703 grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services to the FY2005-06 Human Services operating budget re multi- systemic therapy services to young adolescents and their families. 13. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $125,104 from the General Fund and $125,104 from the SherifP s Department Special Revenue Fund to the FY 2006-07 SherifP s Department operating budget re increased costs of the Central Booking Program. K. PLANNING 1. Application of DANNY K. MARTIN for a Chanf!e ofZoninf! District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1.,.1 Light Industrial District at 5840 Burton Station Road to develop an office-warehouse facility. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE DEFERRED STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS May 9 and 23, 2006 DENIAL APPROVAL 2. Application of BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, L.C. for a Chanf!e of Zoninf! District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District at 4416 Princess Anne Road to develop multi-family dwellings. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE DEFERRED INDEFINITELY RECOMMENDATION February 28,2006 APPROVAL 3. Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Chanfle ofZoninf! District Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on the north side of the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE INDEFINITELY DEFERRED March 23, 2004 March 28, 2006 APPROVAL OF ALTERNATNE4 APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS 4. Application ofLBH, LLC for a Chanf!e ofZoninf! District Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and B-1A Limited Business District on the west side of Princess Anne Road, southwest of Sand bridge Road, to develop a residential neighborhood of mixed units and a restaurant. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS DENIAL APPROVAL 5. Applications of OCEAN PROP~R.TIES, L.L.C. at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209, 2213, 2217, 2216, 2208 North Oliver Road: DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE a. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford b. Chanfle ofZoninfl District Classification from R-10 (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District c. Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMIITEE BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS - New Construction GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMIITEE - PPEA MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMIITEE P ARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS RESCHEDULED July 4, 2006 July 11,2006 ALL SESSIONS CANCELED July 18,2006 July 19 - August 7, 2006 August 8, 2006 BrieImg, Informal and Formal Sessions and Reorganization of City Council BrieImg, Informal and Formal Sessions City Council Vacation Resume Regular Schedule ******** If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 Hearing impaired, call: Virginia Relay Center at 1-800-828-1120 *********** Agenda 6/08/06 gw/mb www.vbgov.com 1. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Conference Room A. COMPREHENSNE PLAN REVISION - Redevelopment Authority 3:00 PM II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. INFORMAL SESSION Conference Room 4:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IV. FORMAL SESSION Council Chamber 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Stanley Sawyer, D.D. Pastor, All Saints Episcopal Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS June 6, 2006 Iltsnlutinu CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed orM considered by Virginia Beach City Council. G. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PRECINCT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATIONS a. Create new precincts and polling places b. Modify precinct boundaries c. Change existing polling places Ad 10 /15217335 Date I05/3()/200B Time/1:41 PM PUBLIC HEARING ADDING NEW VOTING PRECINCT CHANGING POUING LOCATIONS AND BOUNDARY LINES RESULTING FROM POPULATION INCREASES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH The City Council of Virginia Beacl1. Virginia at its formal session on June :1.3, 2006, at 6:00 P.M.. will consider an ordinance to make changes to the boundary lines and/or polling locations for the Davis Corner, Great Neck, Kingston. Red Wing, and BrookwoOd Precincts. The ordinance proposes that the Davis Corner Precinct be divided forming a new Haygood Precinct and placing voters in the new polling location at Haygood United MethOdist Church at 4713 Hay- good Road; the Great Neck Precinct be split placing Bay Island into the Colony Precinct at 2217 W. Great Neck Road: the Kingston Precinct polling loca- tion be moved from Kingston Elementary School at 3532 King's Grant Road to King's Grant PreSbyte- rian Church at 745 Little Neck Road; the Red Wing Precinct polling location be moved from Birdneck Elementary School at 957 S. Birdneck Road to the Fraternal Order of Police. Lodge #8. at 961 S. Bird- neck Road; the Brookwood Precinct polling location be temporarily moved from Brookwood Elementary School located at 601. S. Lynnhaven Road. which is under construction. to Bow Creek Recreation Center located at 3427 Clubhouse Road. After adoption by City Council. these changes will become effective following approval by the United States Department of Justice. pursuant to the Vot- ing Rights Act of 1965. as amended. Descriptions and maps of the precinct boundaries, polling places. and proposed polling place changes. as well as a copy of the aforesaid ordinance. may be inspected in the Voter Registrar's Office. which is located at 2449 Princess Anne Road. Municipal Center. Build- ing 14, Virginia Beach. Virginia. 23456. The public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chamber of the Administration Building (Building #1) at the Municipal Center. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303: Hearing impaired, call: TOD only 385-4305 (TOO - Telephonic Device for the Deaf). ......' . '- ...~....::..J::.: . Ruth Hodges Smith. MMC City Clerk BeaGOn June 4 & 11, 2006 15217335 Ad shown is not actual print size H. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION I. CONSENT AGENDA J. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code: a. Article II: ADD ~ 2-15 re Mayoral, City Council and School Board elections on the first Tuesday in November b. S 1 0-1: ADD one voting precinct, CHANGE boundary lines for two voting precincts and MOVE three polling locations 2. Ordinance to DISSOLVE and RECONSTITUTE the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission. 3. Ordinance re MODIFICATIONS to Town Center Phase III project documents. 4. - Resolution to DESIGNATE the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin as the City's official Marine Mammal. 5. Annual PERMIT RENEWAL for area private and non-profit EMS organizations: a. Medical Transport b. Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. c. Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance d. Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters e. Eastern Shore Ambulance f. Network Medical 6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments: a. Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger into Lake Wesley to construct and maintain a pier extension, gazebo, floating piers, boat lift, et cetera, at 528 Kerry Lane DISTRICT 6 - BEACH b. Robert J. and Carol R. Quinn into a man-made canal in Lagomar to construct and maintain a bulkhead, dock and boat lift at 2404 Entrada Drive DISTRICT 5 - PRINCESS ANNE 7. Ordinance to REVISE categorical appropriations for the School operating fund and AMEND their FY 2006-07 operating and capital budgets as requested by the School Board. 8. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition, by purchase for public purposes, a portion of property at 420 Thalia Road from Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXCUTE all documents pertaining thereto. 9. Ordinances re Williams Farm property: a. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to SELL a portion of City property at 1068 Newtown Road to the Virginia Beach School Board re a new elementary school; ACCEPT the dedication of a right-of-way; and, EXECUTE all documents pertaining thereto b. ESTABLISH a Capital Project re Williams Park Improvements and APPROPRIATE $1,264,972 from the sale of property re park infrastructure development 10. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $43,560 from Cost Recovery Revenue and $4,944 from the Fire Department Gift Fund to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 operating budget re Operation Smoke Detector and the Life Safety. Education program. 11. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $350,000 in Federal and State revenue re childcare subsidies to low-income parents. 12. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $45,703 grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services to the FY2005-06 Human Services operating budget re muIti- systemic therapy services to young adolescents and their families. 13. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $125,104 from the General Fund and $125,104 from the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund to the FY 2006-07 Sheriff's Department operating budget re increased costs of the Central Booking Program. ..!~.it-"'\h i:"~11.;1tf::Wl~t.?"'I... ,... ;.;..........;... .':-i<<'~. "0:): f,J1W ................, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Article II of the City Code by Adding Section 2-15 to Provide for Mayoral, City Council, and School Board Elections to Take Place on the First Tuesday in November MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: Local elections in Virginia Beach are currently held in May, while state and national elections are held in November. Although the City Charter provides that elections of the Mayor, City Council and School Board shall be held in May, a Virginia Code provision supersedes the Charter provisions and allows City Council and School Board members to be elected at the November general election if City Council so provides by ordinance. The terms of those elected would begin on January 1. . Considerations: Historically, voter turnout at November elections has been more -than double that of May elections. The City also would realize a considerable cost savings by holding only one election for local, state and national offices. The proposed ordinance would change the date of election of the Mayor, City Council members, and School Board members from May to November, beginning in 2008. Elections to be held under current law in May 2008 instead would be held in November 2008. As a transition measure, incumbents whose terms otherwise would expire as of June 30, 2008 would remain in office until their successors elected in November 2008 take office on January 1, 2009. . Public Information: This ordinance will be included in the normal City Council agenda process. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Requested by: Council member Wood and Mayor Oberndorf City Manager: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE II OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2-15 TO PROVIDE FOR MAYORAL, CITY COUNCIL, AND SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS TO TAKE PLACE ON THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER SECTION ADDED: ~ 2-15 9 WHEREAS, the continued success of a democratic government 10 depends upon the participation of its citizens in the democratic 11 process ; and 12 WHEREAS, government functions best when there is a high degree 13 of participation by citizens in electing government leaders; and 14 WHEREAS, more than twice as many Virginia Beach residents vote 15 ~n November elections than in May elections (to wit: there were 16 97,644 voters in the November 2005 election, but only 44,985 votes 17 in the May 2006 election; 177,234 voters in November 2003, but only 18 41,572 voters in May 2004; and 93,480 voters in November 2001, but 19 only 47,333 voters in May 2002) ; 20 WHEREAS, financing the cost of one election is significantly 21 less than the cost of financing two separate elections; and 22 WHEREAS, Virginia law provides that the governing body of a 23 city may provide, by ordinance, that the City Council and School 24 Board shall be elected at the November general election for terms 25 to commence the following January 1; and 26 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to facilitate 27 the exercise by its citizens of their right to vote; 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 29 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 30 31 That Section 2-15 of the City Code is hereby added, to read as 32 follows: 33 Sec. 2-15 Mayoral, City Council and School Board Elections 34 ~ City Council and School Board elections shall take place 35 during the general election in November 2008, and during the 36 November general election in even years thereafter, for 37 councilmembers and school board members whose terms expire at the 38 end of December of that year. The term of office for each 39 councilmember and school board member shall commence on January 1 40 next following the date of the November election and shall continue 41 until his-or her successor has been duly elected and qualified. 42 (b) The mayor shall be elected at the general election in 43 November 2008, and each fourth year thereafter. The mayor's term 44 of office shall commence on January 1 next following the date of 45 the November election and shall continue until his or her successor 46 has been duly elected and qualified. 47 lEi Councilmembers, the mayor, and school board members whose 48 terms expire as of June 30, 2008 shall continue in office until 49 their successors have been elected at the November 2008 election 50 and take office on January I, 2009. 51 ill Except for the changes to the date of elections and 52 corresponding changes in the terms of office established in this 53 section, all other provisions of the City Charter relating to the 54 election of councilmembers, the mayor, and school board members 55 shall remain in effect. 56 COMMENT 57 Virginia Code ~ 24.2-222.1 authorizes localities to change the date of elections for 58 councilmembers, the mayor, and school board members from May to November. The 59 provisions of that statute override any contrary provisions of law, including the City Charter. 60 61 The proposed ordinance would change the election date for the mayor, councilmembers, 62 and school board members from May to November, beginning in 2008. Elections to be held 63 under current law in May 2008 would instead be held in November 2008. As a transition 64 measure, state law provides that incumbents whose tenns would otherwise expire as of June 65 30, 2008 would remain in office until their successors elected in November 2008 take office on 66 January 1, 2009. 67 68 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 69 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. Approved As To Legal Sufficiency: ::e~~ City Attorney's Office CA9774 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Council Election ORD R-5 June 6, 2006 .r~~ lll'!%i:f.....'.'.:..; A......\~ pi <:"\ ... ".""i~} l'\~.'" ..j ,.':,-. Itl) -"~.'-.;.""!llIiIIF~. p ~~...~-~..~ ~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Section 10-1 of the City Code by Adding One Precinct, Changing the Boundary Lines of Two Precincts, and Moving Three Polling Locations MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: The Virginia Beach Electoral Board voted on February 3, 2006 and May 9, 2006 to create one new precinct and make other boundary line and polling location changes. Growth and development in the City, along with DMV voter registration opportunities, have increased the size of the Davis Corner Precinct. The Davis Corner Precinct is near the precinct size limit set by law, and it needs to be split. As a result, the Haygood Precinct will be created. The Board also made boundary line changes to reduce the Great Neck precinct and equalize the Great Neck and Colony Precincts. The polling locations forthe Kingston and Red Wing precincts will be permanently changed, and the polling location for the Brookwood precinct will be temporarily changed. These changes are reflected in the attached maps, larger versions of which may be inspected at the Voter Registrar's Office. . Considerations: All of the locations in this list meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. These changes will become effective upon approval by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended beginning with the November 7, 2006 General Election. . Public Information: As required by Section 24.2-306 of the Code of Virginia notice of this proposed change was published in the newspaper once a week for two consecutive weeks. All voters in the precinct will receive new voter cards with the name and address of the new polling location. An advertisement will be placed in the newspaper prior to the General Election to be held November 7,2006. . Attachments: Ordinance Summary of changes Maps A-E Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Voter Reg istra r.J:/flif City Manage~ t, ~~ SUMMARY OF CHANGES Map A - Davis Corner Precinct The Davis Corner Precinct must be divided due to increased number of registered voters. An additional polling location at Haygood United Methodist Church located at 4713 Haygood Road has been secured for the new Haygood Precinct and precinct lines will be adjusted accordingly. Map B - Great Neck Precinct The Great Neck Precinct polling location will be split by placing the entire Bay Island into the Colony Precinct at Lynnhaven Colony Congregational Church located at 2217 W. Great Neck Road. Map C - Kinaston Precinct The Kingston Precinct polling location currently located at Kingston Elementary School will be moved to King's Grant Presbyterian Church located at 745 Little Neck Road. This will provide larger parking facilities and more voting room. Map D - Red Wino Precinct The Red Wing Precinct polling location currently located at Birdneck Elementary School will be moved to the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #8, located at 961 S. Birdneck Road. This will provide larger parking facilities and more voting room. Map E - Brookwood Precinct The Brookwood Precinct polling location currently located at Brookwood Elementary School will temporarily be moved to Bow Creek Recreation Center located at 3427 Clubhouse Road. This move is due to construction of the new Brookwood Elementary School. 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY 2 CODE BY ADDING ONE PRECINCT, CHANGING THE 3 BOUNDARY LINES OF TWO PRECINCTS, AND MOVING 4 THREE POLLING LOCATIONS 5 6 SECTION AMENDED: ~ 10-1 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 9 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 11 That Section 10-1 of the City Code is hereby amended and 12 reordained, to read as follows: 13 Sec. 10-1. Establishment of precincts and pollinq places. 14 There are hereby established in the city the following 15 precincts and their respective polling places, as set forth below: 16 Precinct Polling Place 17 Alanton Alanton Elementary School 18 Aragona Kemps Landing Magnet School 19 Arrowhead Arrowhead Elementary School 20 Avalon Avalon Church of Christ 21 Baker Ebenezer Baptist Church 22 Bayside Bayside Elementary School 23 Bellamy Salem Middle School 24 Blackwater Blackwater Fire Station 25 Bonney Center for Effective Learning 26 Brandon Brandon Middle School 27 Brookwood Broo]C1.iOod Elcfficnt.J.ry Sohool 28 Bow Creek Recreation Center 29 Buckner Holy Spirit Catholic Church 1 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Cape Henry Research and Enlightenment Building (Edgar Cayce Library) Capps Shop Back Bay Christian Assembly Centerville Centerville Elementary School Chesapeake Beach Bayside Baptist Church College Park College Park Elementary School Colonial Colonial Baptist Church Colony Lynnhaven Church Colony Congregational Corporate Landing Corporate Landing Middle School Courthouse Courthouse Fire Station Creeds Creeds Fire Station Cromwell Salem United Methodist Church Culver Ocean Lakes High School Dahlia Green Run High School Davis Corner Bettie F. Williams Elementary School Eastern Shore Eastern Shore Chapel Edinburgh St. Aidan's Episcopal Church Edwin Kempsville Recreation Center Fairfield Kempsville Presbyterian Church Foxfire Princess Anne Middle School Glenwood Glenwood Elementary School Great Neck All Saints Episcopal Church Green Run Green Run Elementary School Haygood Haygood United Methodist Church 2 55 Holland 56 Homestead 57 Hunt 58 Indian Lakes 59 Kings Grant 60 Kingston 61 62 Lake Smith 63 Landstown 64 Larkspur 65 Linkhorn 66 London Bridge 67 Lynnhaven 68 Magic Hollow 69 Malibu 70 Manor 71 Mt. Trashmore 72 North Beach 73 Ocean Lakes 74 Ocean Park 75 Oceana 76 77 Old Donation 78 Pembroke 79 Plaza Holland Elementary School Providence Presbyterian Church Princess Anne Recreation Center Indian Lakes Elementary School St. Nicholas Catholic Church Kingoton Elcmcnt~ry School King's Grant Presbyterian Church Bayside Church of Christ Landstown Community Church St. Andrews United Methodist Church Virginia Beach Community Chapel London Bridge Baptist Church Grace Bible Church Roma Lodge No. 254 Malibu Elementary School Providence Elementary School Windsor Woods Elementary School Galilee Episcopal Church Ocean Lakes Elementary School Bayside Community Recreation Center Scott Memorial United Methodist Church Old Donation Center for Gifted Pembroke Elementary School Lynnhaven Elementary School 3 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Pleasant Hall Kempsville Baptist Church Pleasant Hall Annex Point O'View Kempsville Church of Christ Red Wing Birdncclc Elcfficnt.J.ry School Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #8 Reon Woodstock Elementary School Rock Lake Salem Elementary School Rosemont Forest Rosemont Forest Elementary School Roundhill Salem High School Rudee Virginia Beach Volunteer Rescue Squad Building Seatack Seatack Community Recreation Center Shannon Church of the Ascension Shelburne Christopher Farms Elementary School Shell Unity Church of Tidewater Shelton Park Shelton Park Elementary Sherry Park St. Matthews Catholic Church Sigma Red Mill Elementary School South Beach Contemporary Art Center of Virginia Stratford Chase Community United Methodist Church Strawbridge Strawbridge Elementary School Tallwood Tallwood Elementary School Thalia Thalia Elementary School Thoroughgood Independence Middle School Timberlake White Oaks Elementary School 4 105 Trantwood Virginia Beach Christian Church 106 Upton Three Oaks Elementary School 107 Village Thalia Lynn Baptist Church 108 Windsor Oaks Windsor Oaks Elementary School 109 Witchduck Bayside Presbyterian Church 110 Wolfsnare Virginia Beach Christian Life Center 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Central Absentee Voter Precinct Agriculture/Voter Registrar Building BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the boundaries of the Davis Corner and Haygood Precincts 118 shall be as set forth in the attached map labeled, "Map A; Davis 119 Corner Precinct Split: New Precinct Name - Haygood; Haygood United 120 Methodist Church," and the boundaries of the Great Neck and Colony 121 Precincts shall be as set forth in the attached map labeled, "Map 122 B; Great Neck & Colony Precincts Boundary Change." Both maps have 123 been exhibited to City Council and are on file in the Voter 124 Registrar's Office. 125 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 126 Virginia, on this day of , 2006. !J Voter Registrar APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: c~~kice 5 CAI0054 PA/GG/ORDRES/Proposed/lO-l Polling Locations ORD R-2 June 6, 2006 6 .,.,,~' ~-- 9~-"-'~' "~~. .'.i' ... ~ . -. - /' ::...~~..')i, . h"~j;g!f-~~~~, ,l~~(. /i';;'/;." .'-"c,.i ~t)- __,/" r;~""" .1 MAPA. r.'; ,: , .~ ~; ':,',-:,. .< \~ '>:1. .cJSE;,. '\ ;/ ./ " "-: ~~'~tr..L~_ ~ r'-t " (?:'. $)';.'/ ~...__.. /7 oi~/ 't.. "~t~~J"/ /,i!~, \ _,._.,;,:; ~<~\~1 " i'~"'" If. 'b~~( '. "'*tJ~, Jston~'i~#: . .~~ ~ \"'_>;~ t,~re ~ .07 \~.. r" ~ h , ,~\~. i.:~::t~.~ i/ .1 .../ ~/ .. Q\}"~.d~~.;:"'ln. 4'~! ., ~. cr- /' ll)!~ ,. MAPB GREAT NECK & COLONY PRECINCTS BOUNDARY CHANGE ,,\ :.:~J \\ / \..,- ~.~~.:~~;:-~..~ ,.. j,.~' l :.. j..;;,.~"'-;- i ~ -- '._"..._~,,_....~t'''D>....... ..;("-\ .. ~/ .~ .:,,"";"A,.,~.-rc'1j,...~:"'- 'f '" .. --....'.........~. ...-..._,---,----._._"'~..-..-~~~,......-.-.._-_.--,. ..........\ /.... 1-' ~.,,- ::i '.--,' :-' '~:.'.? . t4_.~! ~),. .~ 'if .~, ~J! ~~ .i^d:.;~""~:=" ~~\\~W.. ,.1 toli. "'~"".'i! , . c:-t....--... . - ~ ,l---.-.~~- ib 1I:~~~.~.~a.:::::~~~ / ~e:.:i1..f>..,.,... ~"I....." .'4-. MAPC $'/ .~. '.'1>..' ....~.1'.4.J-~" ~ Jfo....~..... .~.. '. '.." r 4" "q> .,.... ~'d.' ...... ",f' . ' .~~~ ,. ~ c- . ~.~ . .Jbi" .....~ . '<,~,,_'l" ~~ KINGSTON PRECINCT: ~ POLLING LOCATION CHANGE ~ KING'S GRANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH o '." '~ ~.. ~ '\... s ...!, ~~'" ~~~~,~~ ~t ~. ~, + ~ ~ .".~ ~1/ "".., ~;:' 11 ~'."""',..t . . ' ,.~,,,s.~~ l;0031f ." ::'~..,. ,/ ..l,9lo.", ii' "".;9c ,:", .e~ . ~(.. /"~\ ~'~'~.'~"<:~~~ ~, ~', ~/~ " o.\~ ..'"' i~ "',~~,G~J'" cd: "\. ," ,'-C' : , ifllW~ QOOS '~,~ ' ~'1-"'D""'t<."" l:lt~....;, "'!'''1:'i~.L " ; ~~ II .~8.", '~PJ;~~~. " .$)~!j./ "ot " 'J \~ g'fr".' .iw~~,l ,,~ .. \'. ,~...~ i ~"11' o t~~ '" tP.~ ~~~,' .l ..~ ~~ ~~ ~~-' . \" ';~, , G '\"" . ' \,q"'. ~ ,a~ ~\ ',\ rtaa'i.~ "a~~ """f~ ,,; O'i~ tat.ll\iJrl:CI' ,~ ).lI<<JlalIl:RY~ ~~'.6. ",...,' cr -.'!:t CH(~Jl fUliST ~ { 4--: cr~1 f:lllo~~~-t. ~ . \U'Il~~,," , ""lM" \f.' .~ \f> i:)Iij.'tiitil>- \1.\ MAPD RED WING PRECINCT: \---...,;,;........ !._~":,, "~'~cr "- ".~"t. ..~..L "~~.o;:f'-.- .....:i. ';Vi f \ , " Corpor te Landing;;! 070 .. ~':i ~.j3 ~ a /:;.~,~ ;,f \ ,.'\.. j'~'" .<~// ~v/., ,.._'~ :':1~/.;..' \,...';...tl! /.....~ of'lll) ~ H~':l,!,~~t !~c=. MAPE fJo L"O"'f'! !~~\ e"8'~ ~ o I~.!~i\ , , ~ l ::!e :t. t"."t:;~~;\:::',;d' ~~'~'i~, '"~ a~~ 9- i ~ '1' -,~~~c ".,~-'~.='~~ . '~.fo , ",-~~.., 1" ~~-i London\"t "lBdd ,lb .'-' \0008 "O>"";C"-~l '-l~rf"""""" ~-p,\',} e 1lI'1" t .~ o~ ,.... , it!.,.,.-"~..c,,,.. {,,_f'!!,<<;Il.lIQ:lQIL5 \\ \.~"~--~ , -, '-~ \!'J,~ ~~ ~~ '.:Jt. , l'f~: ..,'v..~"'-"-~-;"_':,;.,. I; Jt /}' ;c-,,' c?;' ," ~.;"""'~ ~,,~;., C1<,,"''l?,, ~~..- 5;' Ul~;/;>/-' " ~! ~.; $; Green.';~f ,.~ ;'~:~ /\ (~~'-'\~'\ '. " ,~"'" ,~*' ':;,~- - '\.~ '-~ :'.._~ tit Q(;r ~i ~} 5{ s ~ fi "" I:, :!It" .~ .t" 3 ~.....:"\ "'O\"'t".Be~-:"\ '.~~~.'~;"~.~21 ,.0:;-....-. ..,.,1' ".-%', (;:5 -;2'., ~;,t-.. - ," )JJ t.t.~"'1.""...y..,..o:.." .:;;; .......~v~~..:;_..I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Dissolve and Reconstitute the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: By ordinance adopted May 7, 1979, City Council ratified and confirmed the creation of the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission. City Council amended and reordained the ordinance on August 12, 1997. A majority of the commission's eleven members are serving their final terms and will not be eligible for reappointment under the current ordinance. The loss of so many members could create continuity problems and could hinder the commission's ability to advise City Council. . Considerations: The attached ordinance will amend the ordinance that created the commission by dissolving and then reconstituting the commission. Members will serve four-year terms (instead of the current two-year terms), with several of the initial appointments to be for lesser terms so as to stagger the expirations of terms. Notwithstanding the provisions of City Code S 2-3, which imposes term limits on appointees to boards and commissions, City Council will have the discretion to appoint a member to more than two consecutive terms if Council determines that the reappointments serve the best interests of the commission by promoting continuity. . Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process. . Attachments: Ordinance. Requested by Vice-Mayor Jones City Manager: 1 2 3 AN ORDINANCE THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION TO DISSOLVE BEACH ARTS AND RECONSTITUTE AND HUMANITIES 4 WHEREAS, by ordinance adopt ed May 7, 1979, City Council 5 ratified and confirmed the creation of the Virginia Beach Arts 6 and Humanities Commission (the "Commission"); 7 WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted August 12, 1997, City Council 8 amended and reordained that ordinance; and 9 WHEREAS, a maj ori ty of the members of the commission are 10 serving their final terms and will not be eligible for 11 reappointment under the current ordinance. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 13 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 14 1. That the current Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities 15 Commission is hereby dissolved and reconstituted, in accordance 16 wit the provisions set forth below. Upon adoption of this 17 ordinance, the terms of the current members of the commission 18 shall expire, but those members shall be eligible for 19 reappointment to the newly reconstituted commission. 20 2. That "An Ordinance Ratifying and Confirming the 21 Creation of the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission 22 and Providing for its Composition, Terms of Members, Conducting 23 of Business, Etc.," as adopted by City Council on May 7, 1979, 24 and as amended and reordained by City Council on August 12, 25 1997, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: 26 Section 1. Creation 27 There is hereby created an advisory commission to be known 28 as the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission (the 29 "Commission"). 3 0 Section 2. Composi tion 31 32 The Commission shall consist of eleven (11) commissioners appointed by City Council. To be eligible for appointment, each 33 commissioner shall maintain a primary residence in the City of 34 Virginia Beach. A commissioner may concurrently hold membership 35 on the corporate board of an arts group in the Commonwealth of 36 Virginia; provided, however, that the commissioner shall be 37 required to abstain from participating in the Commission's 38 discussion or vote on any matter involving the arts group on 39 whose corporate board the commissioner serves. 40 Section 3. Ter.ms of Commissioners 41 42 The term of each commissioner shall begin on July 1 of the year In which the commissioner is appointed. The terms of 43 commissioners shall be for t..:o (2) four (4) years; provided, 44 however, that for the initial appointments to the newly 45 reconstituted commission, the terms shall be staggered, as 46 follows: two (2) members shall be appointed for one-year terms, 47 three (3) members shall be appointed for two-year t~rms, three 2 48 (3) members shall be appointed for three-year terms, and three 49 (3) members shall be appointed for four-year terms. Prior to 50 Junc 1 of c.J.ch year, tho City Council ',Jill .J.ppoint oilr (6) 51 cornrniooioncro in cT:cn numbcrcd YC.:lr.:J .:md fi 7C (5) cOFffiRio.:Jioncr.:J 52 in odd numbcrcd YC.J.r.:J. They shall hold office during their 53 respective terms at the pleasure of the City Councilor until 54 their successors have been appointed and have taken office. 55 Notwithstanding the provisions of City Code ~ 2-3, City Council 56 shall have the discretion to appoint a member to more than two 57 (2) consecutive terms if Council concludes that reappointment 58 would serve the best interests of the commission by promoting 59 continuity. 60 COMMENT 61 This amendment changes the terms of members from two years to four years. The initial 62 appointments, however, will be staggered as follows: two members will be appointed for one-year 63 terms; three members will be appointed for two-year terms; three members will be appointed for 64 three-year terms; and three members will be appointed for four-year terms. Each of these 65 members will be eligible for a full four-year appointment following the expiration of their initial 66 terms. 67 City Code ~ 2-3 imposes a term limit of two four-year terms on Council appointees. This 68 amendment, however, provides that Council nevertheless may appoint a member to more than two 69 consecutive terms if Council concludes that reappointment would serVe the best interests of the 70 commission by promoting continuity. 71 72 Section 4. Vacancies 73 All vacancies on the Commission occurring by reason of 74 resignation, removal, or otherwise shall be filled by 75 appointment by the City Council for the remainder of the 76 unexpired term. 3 77 Section 5. Election of Officers; Term 78 At the Annual Meeting in July of each year, the members of 79 the Commission shall elect from among the commissioners the 80 following officers who shall, collectively, constitute the 81 Executive Committee: A Chair, a Vice-Chair, a Secretary and a 82 Treasurer. All officers shall serve for terms of one (1) year 83 or until their successor is elected: provided, however, that no 84 officer shall serve more than two (2) consecutive one-year terms 85 in the same office. 86 Sccond, .:l pro~..ioion io .:lddod '.:hioh limi to officcro to 87 :Jcn..ing to.IO (2) conoocuti ~:o onc yc.], r torffiO in tho O.:lffiO officc. 88 COMMENT 8 9 This is a housekeeping amendment that deletes redundant language from the previous 90 sentence. 91 92 Section 6. Meetings 93 Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission of the Executive 94 Commi ttee, regular meetings shall be held in May and July and 95 not less than six (6) times annually. A regular meeting in July 96 shall be known as the Annual Meeting and shall be for the 97 purpose of electing officers, receiving written reports of 98 officers and committees, and conducting any other business that 99 may arise. 4 100 Section 7. Quorum. 101 A maj ori ty of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum 102 for the transaction of business. 103 Section 8. Powers of Executive Committee 104 105 106 107 108 The powers of the Commission shall be exercised by the Executive Committee after approval by the Commission. Section 9. Conduct of Business The Commission may adopt bylaws, for the conduct of its business; provided such bylaws are consistent with this with 109 this ordinance and Robert's rules of Order. 110 Section 10. Purpose of Commission III The purpose of the Commission is to serve in an advisory 112 capacity to the Virginia Beach City Council; to encourage the 113 development of programs in the arts and humanities in the city 114 of Virginia Beach; to bring into closer cooperation all local 115 and regional arts organizations for the benefit of all citid:ens 116 of Virginia Beach; to provide information and assistance to such 117 organizations when feasible; to serve as the coordinating group 118 through which shall be channeled all City funds appropriated to 119 organizations promoting the arts and humanities; and to 120 coordinate efforts to secure federal and state funding for 121 programs in the arts and humanities. 122 The scope of this Commission is limited to groups which 123 quality as a registered non-profit tax exempt group and which 5 124 have, as a stated purpose, the furtherance of the arts and 125 humanities through the provision of programming and/or services 126 designed to benefit the citizens of Virginia Beach. 127 Section 11. Reports 128 The Commission shall make the following reports to the City 129 Council and shall provide recommendations to City Council from 130 time to time as may be required: 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 1) Budget recommendations for each ensuing fiscal year by December 31 of each calendar year; Such financial reports as may be directed or requested by the Director of Finance; Reports of the attendance record of each commissioner, in accord with the requirements of Section 2-3.1 of the City Code; and An annual report of the Commission's activities by May 15th of each year. 2) 3) 4 ) 140 Section 12. Conflict 141 This Ordinance, amended, supercedes "An Ordinance as 142 Ratifying and Confirming the Creation of the Virginia Beach Arts 143 and Humanities Commission and Providing for its Composition, 144 Terms of Members, Conducting of Business, etc.," adopted by City 145 Council on May 7, 1979 and readopted by City Council on August 146 12, 1997, and also supercedes the provisions of any other 6 147 ordinance or resolution, or the provisions of any bylaws, which 148 may be in conflict with this ordinance. 149 150 151 Adopted by Virginia on the the Council day of APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: :;e~ City Attorney,l";;;ice CAI0060 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\AHC ORD R-2 June 7, 2006 of the City of Virginia , 2006. 7 Beach, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: ORDINANCE APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE PHASE III PROJECT DOCUMENTS FOR THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT MEETING DATE: June 13,2006 o Background: The Town Center Project (the "Project") has been a long-term priority for the City. The City Council first recognized the importance of the Project in the Central Business District of the City when it adopted the Comprehensive Plan on November 4, 1997. On November 23, 1999, the City Council adopted the Central Business District - South Tax Increment Financing District with the intent of entering into an agreement with a developer and using the funds to help pay for the City's participation in the Project. At its February 8, 2000 meeting, the City Council approved a Development Agreement for Phase I of the Project containing the rights and obligations of the Virginia Beach Devel~pment Authority (the "Authority") and Town Center Associates, L.L.C. (the "Developer"). Phase I of the Project, comprised of a 272,000 square foot office tower, 109,000 square feet of commercial space, a 176-room hotel, an 18,000 square foot bank headquarters building, a 1 ,284-car public parking garage, and public streets, sidewalks and utilities, has been completed. o On June 3,2003, the City Council approved the Phase II Development Agreement containing the rights and obligations of the Authority and the Developer with respect to Phase II of the Project. One of the blocks associated with the second phase of the Project, the Dick's Sporting Goods Store, opened in April of 2004 with an adjoining 574-space public parking facility, and 18,000 square feet of retail space. Other development includes a 1 O-story 341-unit luxurY apartment complex with an 851-space public parking facility, a public plaza and 194,000 square feet of office/retail/entertainment space. Phase II of the Project is complete. o On October 12, 2004, the City Council approved acquisition of a Portion of Block 6 of Town Center for the Sandler Center for the Performing Arts, and authorized award of the Design & Construction contract under the PPEA for the Theater to Clancy & Theys. o On September 13, 2005, the City Council approved Phase III of the Town Center. o Phase III of Town Center will be a multi-block, multi-facility mixed-use development consisting of the following elements: Block 6 will have approximately 14,000 square feet of retail and 56 loft condominiums adjacent to the Sandler Center for the Performing Arts. Block 7 will comprise an approximately 37 -story high-rise, including approximately 36,500 square feet of retail space and lobby for the Hotel, 25,000 square feet of meeting and pre-function space, 236-room full service Westin Hotel, 119 luxury residential condominiums, and 947-space parking garage, with 735 public spaces. Block 9 will contain an approximate 75,000 to 100,000 square foot building of multi-use space. o Considerations: To facilitate the construction of the Phase III improvements, certain modifications to the Phase III Development Agreement are outlined on the attached summary. o Public Information: Public Information for this item will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. o Alternatives: The Phase III Documents reflect the City's on-going commitment to the long-term priority of developing a Town Center for the City. There are certainly other alternatives to development of the Central Business District. However, few if any alternatives accomplish Council's stated goals for the area or provide the level of quality proposed. o Recommendations: Approve the modifications to the Documents relating to Phase III of the Town Center (Central Business District) and request approval and execution by the Virginia Beach Development Authority. o Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of attached Ordinance1 Submitting Department/Agency: Economic Developme l! ft-u.L" Jrr NlMfL ~ City Manager: ~ k-. O(JcJIt. () Exhibit A SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS TO PHASE III PROJECT DOCUMENTS 1. Block 7 _ Parking Garage guaranteed maximum price increased to $17,173,588 Authority to pay actual interest portion of Parking Garage and Conference Unit acquisition cost, regardless of guaranteed maximum price, if interest portion exceeds Developer's estimates solely due to rate increase (above 5% per annum) Authority obligated to purchase Block 7 West Retail upon substantial completion of shell space and rest of Block 7 . Purchase price based on actual construction costs with a guaranteed maximum price of $2.8M (cold dark shell) . Developer obligated to re-purchase after 3 years for Authority's cost plus cost-of-carry . If Authority exchanges Block 7 West Retail for Block 2, Developer obligated to purchase Block 2 after 3 years for Authority's all-in cost to obtain Block 2, plus cost-of-carry 2. Block 6E _ _ Developer to acquire Block 6E by December 31, 2006 for $523,000 purchase pnce _ If Authority does not deliver Block 6E land by December 31, 2006, Developer can defer $200,000 of purchase price . Developer to pay the $200,000 deferral to Authority upon McCormick & Schmick rent commencement date unless Authority's late delivery caused Developer to miss shell delivery deadline to McCormick & Schmick . If shell delivery deadline missed, then Developer keeps portion of $200,000 attributable to lost rent incurred because of missed deadline Developer to pay parking fee of $8,942 per residential condominium unit located on Block 6E ConstructionlReimbursement Alternative (RA) payment increased to $226,000 per year 3. Block 9 _ Acquisition date extended to September 1,2010 _ Construction commencement date extended to December 31, 2012 _ Construction completion date extended to September 1,2014 _ Construction/Reimbursement Alternative (RA) payments due beginning December, 2010 (unless additional assessments in Phase III sufficient to credit) 4. Option Agreement - Extend Option Period to September 1, 2010 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO PHASE III PROJECT DOCUMENTS FOR THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") 7 and the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the 8 "Authori ty"), the City Manager and City staff have engaged in 9 extensive negotiations with representatives of Armada/Hoffler 10 Development, Company L.L.C., and its affiliates~ regarding the 11 development of a Central Business District Proj ect known as "The 12 Town Center of Virginia Beach" (the "Project"); 13 WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2896F adopted September 13 2005, 14 after finding that Phase III of the Project will stimulate the 15 City's economy, increase public revenues, enhance public amenities, 16 further the City's development objectives for the Central Business 17 District and provide necessary components to further the goals 18 contained in the City's "Guidelines for Evaluation of Investment 19 Partnership for Economic Development," the City Council (a) 20 approved development documents for Phase III of the Project (the 21 "Phase III Project Documents"), (b) requested that the Authority 22 approve and execute the Phase III Project Documents, and (c) 23 authorized the City Manager to execute a Support Agreement between 24 the City and the Authority supporting the Authority's obligations 25 contained in the Phase III Project Documents; 26 WHEREAS, Phase III of the Project includes Block 7, a 27 structure comprised of a 947-space parking garage, with 735 public 28 spaces(the "Block 7 Parking Garage"), 25,000 square feet of ground 29 floor commercial space on the west side of the building (the ~Block 30 7 West Retail"), 11,500 square feet of additional ground floor 31 commercial space on the east side of the building, a 236-room full 32 service Westin hotel, a 25,000 square foot conference facility (the 33 "Conference Unit") and 119 luxury condominiums; 34 WHEREAS, Phase III of the Project also includes Block 6E, a 35 structure comprised of 14,000 square feet of ground floor 36 commercial space and 56 residential condominiums; 37 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Phase III Project Documents, Town 38 Center Associates, L.L.C. (~Developer") is obligated to construct 39 the Block 7 improvements and the Authority is obligated to purchase 40 the Block 7 Parking Garage and the Conference Unit from the 41 Developer upon their completion and upon completion of other Phase 42 III construction obligations; 43 WHEREAS, pursuant to an Option Agreement dated as of June 5, 44 2000, as amended, the Developer has an option to purchase certain 45 land from the Authority on the terms and conditions set forth 46 therein; 47 48 WHEREAS, the Developer construction for the Block 7 incurred additional costs of unforeseen improvements due to 49 circumstances; 50 WHEREAS, to facilitate the Developer's construction of Phase 51 III of the Project, the Developer has requested that the Authority 52 modify the Phase III Project Documents (a) pertaining to the 53 determination of the Acquisition Cost as to the Block 7 Parking 54 Garage and the Conference Unit, (b) to provide that the guaranteed 55 maximum price for the Block 7 Parking Garage be increased to 56 $17,173,588, and (c) to provide for the acquisition by the 57 Authority of the Block 7 West Retail for an actual cost not to 58 exceed $2,857,705; 59 WHEREAS, the Developer and the Authority also wish to modify 60 the Phase III Project Documents pertaining to (a) Block 6E, (b) the 61 Option Agreement, c) certain of the milestone dates and related 62 rights pertaining to the development of Phase III, and (d) other 63 matters, all as set forth in the First Modification to Phase III 64 Development Agreement (the "Phase III Modification"), a summary of 65 which is ?ttached hereto as Exhibit A; 66 WHEREAS, the obligations of the Authority contained in the 67 Phase III Modification are supported by the City pursuant to a 68 Phase III Support Agreement, (a) with the traditional public 69 infrastructure costs of the Project to be funded, in part, through 70 the City's CIP and, in part, through the Authority's Economic 71 Development Investment Program monies and (b) with the other 72 obligations of the Authority structured to be paid, subj ect to 73 annual appropriation, by the available revenue from the TIF Fund, 74 from the revenue generated by the special tax district and by an 75 additional mechanism for the Developer to pay proj ected TIF 76 shortfalls; 77 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Phase III 78 Modification is desirable as it allows the Developer to enhance 79 Phase III of the Project; and 80 WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the Phase III 81 Modification and desires that the Authority pursue the preparation 82 of supplemental Phase III Project Documents to evidence the Phase 83 III Modification. 84 NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 85 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 86 1. In connection with the Virginia Beach Development 87 Authority's (the "Authority's") purchase of the 735-space public 88 parking g~rage (the "Block 7 Parking Garage") and the 25,000 square 89 foot conference facility (the "Conference Unit") to be constructed 90 on Block 7 of the Town Center Project pursuant to the development 91 documents for Phase III of the Town Center Project (the "Phase III 92 Project Documents"), the City Council approves the modification of 93 the Phase III Project Documents (a) to provide that the guaranteed 94 maximum price of the Block 7 Parking Garage be increased to 95 $17,173,588, and (b) pertaining to the interest portion of the 96 Acquisition Cost of the Block 7 Parking Garage and the Conference 97 Unit, as described in the First Modification to Phase III 98 Development Agreement (the "Phase III Modification"), a summary of 99 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 100 2. The City Council approves the modification of the Phase 101 III Proj ect Documents to provide for the acquisition by the 102 Authority of the 25,000 square feet of ground floor commercial 103 space on the west side of the Block 7 building (the "Block 7 West 104 Retail") for an actual cost not to exceed $2,857,705, on the terms 105 described in the Phase III Modification. 106 3. The City Council approves the additional modifications to 107 the Phase III Project Documents pertaining to (a) Block 6E, (b) the 108 Option Agreement, (c) certain of the milestone dates and related 109 rights pertaining to the development of Phase III, and (d) other 110 matters, all as set forth in the Phase III Modification. 111 4. On behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, the City Manager 112 and the City Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to proceed 113 wi th the _ preparation of any additional documents necessary and 114 appropriate to implement the Phase III Modification (the "Phase III 115 Modification Documents"). 116 5. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to 117 execute and deliver any Phase III Modification Documents to which 118 the City is a necessary party so long as such Phase III 119 Modification Documents are consistent with the provisions herein 120 and are acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. 121 6. The City Council requests and recommends that the 122 Authority adopt a Resolution consistent with this Ordinance 123 approving and authorizing the execution of the Phase III 124 Modification and any Phase III Modification Documents. 125 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 126 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. CA9995 X:IOJD\REAL ESTATEICommercial ProjectslTown CenterlPhase III\ORD apprvng mod to Phase III Documents.doc R-l PREPARED: 06/02/06 \O(lLJUV TO LEGAL APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS Q,tM-')O..{~J ~tP Finance Department Exhibit A SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS TO PHASE III PROJECT DOCUMENTS l. Block 7 - Parking Garage guaranteed maximum price increased to $17,173,588 Authority to pay actual interest portion of Parking Garage and Conference Unit acquisition cost, regardless of guaranteed maximum price, if interest portion exceeds Developer's estimates solely due to rate increase (above 5% per annum) Authority obligated to purchase Block 7 West Retail upon substantial completion of shell space and rest of Block 7 · Purchase price based on actual construction costs with a guaranteed maximum price of$2.8M (cold dark shell) · Developer obligated to re-purchase after 3 years for Authority's cost plus cost-of-carry · If Authority exchanges Block 7 West Retail for Block 2, Developer obligated to purchase Block 2 after 3 years for Authority's all-in cost to obtain Block 2, plus cost-of-carry 2. Block 6E - Developer to acquire Block 6E by December 31,2006 for $523,000 purchase pnce If Authority does not deliver Block 6E land by December 31, 2006, Developer can defer $200,000 of purchase price · Developer to pay the $200,000 deferral to Authority upon McCormick & Schmick rent commencement date unless Authority's late delivery caused Developer to miss shell delivery deadline to McCormick & Schmick · If shell delivery deadline missed, then Developer keeps portion of $200,000 attributable to lost rent incurred because of missed deadline . Developer to pay parking fee of $8,942 per residential condominium unit located on Block 6E ConstructionlReimbursement Alternative (RA) payment increased to $226,000 per year 3. Block 9 - Acquisition date extended to September 1, 2010 - Construction commencement date extended to December 31, 2012 Construction completion date extended to September 1,2014 - ConstructionlReimbursement Alternative (RA) payments due beginning December, 2010 (unless additional assessments in Phase III sufficient to credit) 4. Option Agreement - Extend Option Period to September 1,2010 1 ,.-~~ ,r:r~~~~~ ~Cj"l'.' . -.'~' (~f ~. '~.-\~) <0" :::;, \~~~~-~ 0' ~fiJ "(~+~~~~~~"~J ~~:./ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM A Resolution Designating the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin as the Official Marine Mammal of the City of Virginia Beach ITEM: MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: A Dolphin's Promise is a non-profit organization working in partnership with the City to bring hundreds of life-size dolphin sculptures to Virginia Beach in an effort to raise $1,000,0000 for cancer research. Ninety percent of the money raised will go to the Lance Armstrong Foundation. The remaining ten percent will be donated to the Virginia Aquarium Stranding Response Program. . Considerations: Representatives of A Dolphin's Promise have approached City officials and requested that the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin be designated as the official marine mammal of the City. This resolution designates the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin as such. . Public Il1formation: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal process involving the advertisement of the City Council agenda. . Recommendation: Adoption . Attachments: Resolution Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Recommended Action: Appr~~al City Manage~ ll.... ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN AS THE MAMMAL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA THE ATLANTIC OFFICIAL MARINE VIRGINIA BEACH, WHEREAS, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are indigenous to the 9 shores of Virginia Beach; 10 WHEREAS, the arrival of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in 11 Virginia Beach is symbolic of the onset of the summer season; 12 WHEREAS, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins live in groups called 13 pods and form coherent, long-term social units similar to 14 families; 15 WHEREAS, the family-oriented nature of the Atlantic 16 bottlenose dolphins, and their ability to coexist with many 17 other species of marine life in the ocean, mirror the qualities 18 of the citizens and the community of the City of Virginia Beach; 19 WHEREAS, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins beautify the Virginia 20 Beach oceanfront and serve as ambassadors of friendship; and 21 WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, Ci ty Council adopted a 22 resolution to endorse A Dolphin's Promise, Inc., a nonprofit 23 citizen organization dedicated to bringing hundreds of life-size 24 dolphin sculptures to Virginia Beach in an effort to raise one 25 million dollars ($1,000,000) for cancer research (with a small 26 portion being donated to the Virginia Aquarium's St~anding 27 Response Program), by assisting with publicity for the dolphin 28 sculpture project. The sculptures are replicas of the Atlantic 29 bottlenose dolphin. 30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 31 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 32 That the official marine mammal of the City of Virginia 33 Beach, Virginia is hereby designated as the Atlantic bottlenose 34 dolphin, known scientifically as the Tursiops truncatus. 35 Adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia 36 this _ day of , 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: )[.4 City Attorney's Office CA10038 GG\Ord&Res\Proposed\Dolphin resolution R-3 June 2, 2006 2 ~ r:~~I~;~~' ~ J'>.."'- -" ..'1, (...z . ."', (ui_ . :>=.. c.' . .... t~ .-- ....J> ;:':-" . .,~ j.. ...... ..~.~-..j' ~oy CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Annual Permit Renewal for Area Private and Non-Profit EMS Organizations MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: Section 10.5-2 of the City code requires renewal of all existing emergency medical services agency permits that are issued throughout the year to the area's private and non-profit organizations operating emergency medical services agencies or vehicles within the city limits. Annual renewal begins July 1 of each year and expires June 30 of the following year. Six emergency medical services agencies are requesting renewal to continue their operations within the City of Virginia Beach providing those levels of care currently authorized. . Considerations: The following applications have been received and processed by the Department of Emergency Medical Services for the operation of basic and advanced life support agencies: Eastern Shore Ambulance Service, Lifeline Ambulance Service, Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Network Medical Systems, Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance Service and Medical Transport. During the previous twelve months, the private emergency medical services agencies performed non-emergency and inter-facility transports to include both basic and advanced life support calls. . Public Information: The public will be notified of the pending action via the Council Agenda as printed in the Beacon. . Alternatives: This is an annual administrative action. Failure to renew permits would halt all non-emergency medical transport services within the City. Dozens of patients daily would be without transportation. This is not a function provided by the City's volunteer rescue squads. . Recommendations: The Department of Emergency Medical Services recommends approval of all permit applications. . Attachments: Permit Applications Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: ~) Z-d1~ ~ Deparbnent of EMS - Bruce W. Edwards EMS Chief City Manager: ~ · ~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Medical Transport VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 308 EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Ground Transport (N on-emergency- Unrestricted) and Emergency-Restricted) ADDRESS: 5792 Arrowhead Drive, Suite 200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 PHONE: 671-9302 PRESIDENT: Donald Jellig MANAGER: Russell Blow NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: s~ as LJ G.tOu.(...() Co.) ,"-' . TS ~ ~ $ ?A~ fc.4-c..:. €f; COMMENTS: q .1.\) i c.. vPr..... S ~I';) ) l( A-"i.)()L. 4M~ LA-ued ~''''-.Ie. U€'-D IN ~.c~en..ve ~1\J6 c4tz.S Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vil1!inia Emel1!encv Medical Services Re~ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended? ~YES 0 NO ~~ ~-170<-< ame itle JYI <='1'2. ~ /VI1f/<( 0 Gt, Date sent By: LIFELINE; 5403817445; Apr-25.0617:41; Page 2/2 . ~ ClTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ~J DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL' ~ERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMJi'RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc, VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSMCA TION: ALS Ground Transport (Non-Emergency-Unrestricted anctl!mqency-Restricted) .' .:-.:-"......: .,','.. .-..'-. ADDRESS: 310 Bell Road Chrlstiansburg, VA 24013 PBONE: - S40.382-1044 PRESIDENT: James C. Jones) Jr. VlCEPRESIDENT: KI~.g. "be<.,.kete,:m:- Cek~lJ) NUMBER OF PERMI'ITED VEHICLES BY TYPE: J 0 h/'ll ~ kill..f2<) COMMENTS: :1:'7:"::''-';::'' :. .:_..... ." -, ..".~,,::..,," ..:',', ... ._..~:.:...::::.~:..;.... .'J~:'::":::-,:",.a:;:~::f;:; bus your ageacy comply with the minimum requiremeata as set rotthin.ilieVi~i8:' .'. .... ". ...-....:..:'.. EmeNenar Medical ~iees Ren.atioAl. 12 V AC 5-31.2003. 81 amended? ~YES 0 NO ~ 0h~-(?,~:! Namel1'itle ~q/D {o Date ~~';~?1;~~~Jr~)ffi;;1~t?~f(f!(;tWli{j CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 509 EXPIRES: 6/"60/06 VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: Air Ambulance (Emergency-Restricted) ADDRESS: 600 Gresham Drive Norfolk, VA 23507 PHONE: - 66B-~jOO' 3~- 2SOO PRESIDENT: David Bernd KlkLny Colm.tuvuO" c..~\~;r4:PtiEfZ- ~NNeN MANAGER: NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEmCLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vindnia Emen~encv Medical Services Re2ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended? )(YES 0 NO ~~(./ 8,~ ~ NANN8-- N amelTitle IV S~Ob Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 315 EXPIRES: J ~ Zro~ VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICA nON: ALS Ground Transport (Inter-facility Emergency and ~on-emergency) ADDRESS: 601 Children's Lane Norfolk, VA 23507 PHONE: 668-7453 ~~~oCer Vaugllon ~~ e.. Hijr NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: "3 COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vir2inia Emel1!encv Medical Services Re2ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003~ as amended? tlYES oNO ~s;,~;~ ~ Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Eastern Shore Ambulance VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Ground Transport (N on- Emergency-Unrestricted and Emergency-Restricted) ADDRESS: P.O. Box 6 8426 Sugarhill Lane Sanford, VA 23426 PHONE: 787-824-5858 PRESIDENT: DClh~ T~Jlol (Y\ " C T-to.._e. \ en. ~ ro..~ \(. CS VICE PRESIDENT: l\" he., mQ...("-\.\n ~fM'gMet f~. T~ylQr - ~\.d" \ '5~ o~ NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: '-.0 r,r()U.nd A ro~\o..f\c...e.. COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vindnia Emel1!encv Medical Services Re2ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended? rJ! YES 0 NO ~~n ~n~~n.~h.l L\\h'[\~ \-\.~. NamelTitle \ l..\ .1.5. Dls> Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Network Medical VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Non-transport ADDRESS: 1533 Technology Drive Chesapeake, Va 23320 PHONE: 757-285-3236 PRESIDENT: Norman Pool" VICE PRESIDENT: Susan Pool. NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEmCLES BY TYPE: J A L S /+rr7 -5li I WtCQ. ~ e.-. m&"c.J2 5WiJr COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Virsdnia Emel"2encv Medical Services Reeulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended? riis 0 NO iJ'iiP~ Date I \1~ SCALE: 1" = 200' PREPARED BY PAN ENG. DRAFT. 02-FEB-2006 r1.).l~"'~ ,0~~"'.~.~~~-Y.~ .~~rtJ.;Ti. '-<:,n~.{~) }5t~: . :-;~--~~~ %~:.-, '~-~~{Jj ~t~~_.;.f CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment request into City property known as Lake Wesley located at the rear of 528 Kerry Lane by the adjacent property owners, Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger have requested permission to construct, and maintain a proposed 8' x 16' pier extension with a 16' x 16' deck with 18' x 18' roof (Gazebo) and maintain two (2) existingfloating piers, one (1) fixed pier, one (1) boat lift, seven (7) mooring pilings and rip rap in City property known as Lake Wesley located at the rear of their property at 528 Kerry Lane, Virginia Beach, Virginia. . Considerations: Staff has determined that the existing encroachments do not meet the Public Works Specification and Standards, Section 12.11 Waterfront Construction of Piers and Docks - which specify that a twenty-five foot (25') set back from the channel is required. The encroachments that exceed the specifications referenced above are existing floating encroachments and not fixed encroachments. One of the conditions in the agreement address the removal of the encroachments upon notice by the City to the owner and that the owner will bear all cost and expense. Upon investigation, there are similar encroachments in said lake. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda . Alternatives: Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments or add conditions as desired by Council. . Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the existing encroachments and denial of the proposed 8' x 16' pier and deck with gazebo. . Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Plat, Location Map and Pictures. Recommended Action: Denial Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate 9Ci( tj ~ City Manager:~ v... ~~ 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO 5 CITY PROPERTY KNOWN AS LAKE 6 WESLEY LOCATED AT THE REAR OF 7 528 KERRY LANE BY CARL A. 8 EASON AND KATHERINE F. 9 RIPBERGER, THEIR HEIRS, 10 ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN 11 TITLE 12 13 WHEREAS, Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger desire to 14 construct and maintain a proposed 8'x 16' pier extension with a 15 16' x 16' deck with 18' x 18' roof (Gazebo) and maintain two (2) 16 existing floating piers, one (1) fixed pier, one (1) boat lift, 17 seven (7) mooring pilings and rip rap in City property known as 18 Lake Wesley at the rear of their property located at 528 Kerry 19 Lane, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 20 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to ~~ 15.2- 21 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to 22 authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's property 23 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 24 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 25 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 26 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof 27 contained in ~~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, 28 as amended, Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger, their 29 heirs, assigns and successors In title are authorized to 30 construct and maintain temporary encroachments for a proposed 31 8'x16' pier extension with a 16'x16' deck with 18'x18'roof 32 (Gazebo) and maintain two (2) existing floating piers, one (1) 33 fixed pier, one (1) boat lift, seven (7) mooring pilings and rip 34 rap in a portion of City property known as Lake Wesley as shown 35 on the map entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT SHORELINE 36 IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARL A. EASON AND KATHERINE F. RIPBERGER, LOT 37 15, SCHOONER QUAY AT CROATAN BEACH DISTRICT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 38 (M.B. 160 PG. 18) DATE: MARCH 22, 2005," a copy of which is on 39 file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is 40 made for a more particular description; and 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments 42 are expressly subj ect to those terms , conditions and criteria 43 contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach 44 and Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger (the "Agreement"), 45 which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 46 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his 47 authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the 48 Agreement; and 49 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in 50 effect until such time as Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. 51 Ripberger and the City Manager or his authorized designee 52 execute the Agreement. 2 53 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 54 Virginia, on the day of 2006. CA - 9858 PREPARED: 2/23/06 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS QoNY\[S C. ~USfn ~ ~TURE f/J) /fad .F4f1j DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM bq.lJJW~ CITY ATTORNEY X: I OlD I REAL ESTATEIEncroachmentslpw OrdinanceslCA9858 Eason_Ripberger.doc 3 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(e) (4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 13th day of January, 2006, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and CARL A. EASON and KATHERINE F. RIPBERGER.. THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WIT N E SSE T H: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Lot 15" Schooner Quay at Croatan" and being further designated and described as 528 Kerry Lane, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a proposed 8'xI6' pier extension with a 16'xI6' deck with 18'xI8'roof (Gazebo) and maintain two (2) existing floating piers, one (1) fixed pier, one (1) boat lift, seven (7) mooring pilings and rip rap, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into City property known as Lake Wesley, "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in GPIN 2426-29-3244-0000 hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the.City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: , A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARL A. EASON AND KATHERINE F. RIPBERGER LOT 15, SCHOONER QUAY AT CROATAN BEACH DISTRICT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (M.B. 160 PG.18) DATE: MARCH 22, 2005"," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. 2 It is further expressly underst()od and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CARL A. EASON and KATHERINE F. RIPBERGER, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by hislher/their signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk 4 .-".-- \ .J 'iff!w~.f. 4~ K enne F. Ripberger STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. , CITY MANAGER! AUTHORIZED Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF \///'.5'/;7/ Cv 5 CITY/COUNTY OF~, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I ~ day of Cjt1{\\..>l1f~, 200le, by Carl A. Eason. \~.D~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: J. 31 . CJ6 STATEOF VIRGINIA ~ CITY/CO' 'N 1 Y oF\:;::;\- u...... ,to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \ ~~ay of <:::5 ttf\\.ACVl \.. ,200Ja.., by Katherine F. Ripberger. \~'D~k Notary Public My Commission Expires: ). 3} . ~<J APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM ?fnne C. ~/)t lib SIGNATURE PliJ R If..f EtJt;tp DEPARTMENT G:\USERS\SHARED\WP80\RE\Real Estate Forms\WORD DOCS\ENCROACHMENTS\ENCROACHMENT.AGREEMENT.doc 6 --EB82 F100D- EXHIBIT "A" Oft ZEJ?O PROPOSED 16' x 16' DECK WITH 18' x 18' ROOF - - -- -- CITY CHANNEL AS -7 RECORDED PER CITY MAPPING AND SURVEYS I -_ I --- 17'2' ...-:, --, --- - --- - ::.:t=7 : '",,.' . '-..JQtP EMP EMP: /' I '. Pi? OPd>rb . ',..... 73,2' 8' X 16' PIER EXT.'.' . 18.0' ROOF 16.0' DECK _____ ~I E -- 0' .". EMP j?,mf/"J - EO.<rT /-ir-r EMP: EXIST. MOORING PilE CORNER ~lE ~ OF PATEL PIER f1.LLLL1J PLAN VIEW SCALE 1" = 40' o. 0.., ~~ -~ - l&J io !O ~ p .0 ClO VI N=3469319.75 E=12222277.07 DH(F) REV: 06/20/05 WA TERFRONT CONSUL TING, INC 1112 JENSEN DRIVE, STE. 206 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 PHONE: (757) 425-8244 FAX: (757) 313-9788 (M.B. ~~ ..~ ..u.. -"'~ .... ~1..'''..1 \ ...~. ~ .~ .. \ ....... ..a'l.. ~ . .""", ..- A- \ "uL ..)II.. .JI&. ...... .... ...... U -.J -.J ~ 1i1 a : 1.U ;;; I a: C'l :~'? I <(g: : Z I I G~ a:~ S;C'l .., " It) (iJ E't,$/lnttf- /21/ ;z.'#/ :z co N cl ~ ui en - : ~ to :e.:= UI. - UI ~ o o. (") AJ o )> ~ Z :::0 o )> o .... ., ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ... .. ". ~ . - --- N=3469'27I,!tt.... I E=122f'25;"lr71...- .... ...... .IlL 1 ... ...... ..... . ~. :z EX. RESIDENCE 2-S-FRM (FOOTPRINT NOT SHOWN TO SCALE) I 528 GPIN 2426-29-3244 LOT 15 DH(F) N 9.55'05" E 100.00' KERRY LANE (30') .....-.... (Xl o ......:; N=3469221.24 E=12222259.85 PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARL A. EASON and KA THERINE F. RIPBERGER LOT 15, SCHOONER QUAY AT CROATAN BEACH DISTRCT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 160 PG. 18) DA TE: MARCH 22, 2005 1 OF 2 lB' SHINGLES OVER HEAVY FEL T PAPER OVER 112" MARINE PL YWOOD OVER 2xB RAFTERS AT 16ft OIC SHINGLES TO MA TCH EXISTING HOUSE -Ii Co L:Jco 12 (2) 2x8 BAND THRU BOL TED TO PILES WI 5IB"~ HARDWARE NOTE: HURRICANE CLIP RAFTERS TO BAND Co Co HALF WALLS - MA TERIAL A OWNERS DISCRETION ML W 0.0 { BOT~-U Ii' III' 'II III fl'l II I ~I III II , II , , I 'II '" I I , ' I' "I III III, II I ~I 1,1 II I I, , , I III III , I I II II' " "I, II I ~I ',1 '" I II I I I I" III I , II I: ,I , II 'I 11'1 II I ~1 I " III' " , I , 'II III I II " ~ 'I III 11 III, 01 : ~: ~ 01 III I 110 I "I 1'1 I I, '0 I I' " , 'I "'1 01 ~ d: ". I 111 I '. III , II II , ,,, " II I II 1 101 01 '111 III I I II I 'I III I II " II I 'I ; I III II', 01 ~, ~ 'II '" " I I' I : I III I II II IIII I I III II" 01 II, ~ III I JI I 'I , " III I 'I I II II I . ,'I I, . d I " I ~I ! IIJ III I II 11) , III 1 " , COMPOSJTE DECKING EL: 6.0' -,..---------- I j---------- , , . DBL. 2x8 PILE' cAPS EA. BENT THRU-BOL T WITH 3/4" HARDWARE MHW 3.0 10" BUTT x 30' PILES PILES DRIVEN TO 14' PENETRATION AlA 1E'RIAl SPECS: PILING: CCA 2.5 pcr FRAMING: CCA 0.8 PCF AlL nMSER ABOVE OE:CK LEva ceA 0.4 PCF All HAROWARE Ii.D. GALVANIZED @ 2004 WATERFRONT CONSULTING, INC, All RIGHTS RESERVED. 8' WA TERFRONT CONSUL TlNG, INC 1112 JENSEN DRIVE. STE. 206 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 PHONE: (757) 425-8244 FAX: (757) 313-9788 PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARL A. EASON and KATHERINE F. R/PBERGER LOT 15, SCHOONER QUAY AT CROA TAN BEACH DISTRCT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (M.s. 160 PG. 18) DATE: JULY 12, 2004 2 OF 2 J:: ~ \. ~ ~ ~ !;J \ ~ '\: ~ " '" \, ~ ;:s .\1) , I r> ~ r..... 1... '<l , ~ " \.... ~i, ~ \) '-.:. " ~ v 1---- \. ~ } \..... ~ LOCATION MAP ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR ROBERT J. QUINN JR., AND CAROL R. QUINN 2404 ENTRADA DRIVE ^' GPIN 2424-12-0454 / o 100 200 400 I ,Feet Prepared by P.W./Eng./Eng. Support Services Bureau 3/7/06 X:\Projects\ARC Files\Agenda Maps\Entrada Dr\Entrada Dr.mxd r:~~*:~~" ,{~~Jo~re;, ;:f~~~1;::'~:: ::<:",,-,~.':.r~'f ~'E! ..., ,,~~} ~~~~L .ll} '1::"'/.10. , ....~J .~~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Request for Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City property which is a man-made canal located at the rear of 2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar, from the property owners, Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn. MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: Robert J. Quinn Jr. and Carol R. Quinn have requested permission to maintain an existing dock and to construct and maintain a proposed bulkhead and proposed boat lift into a portion of City Property which is a man-made canal located at the rear of 2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar. . Considerations: City staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the Agreement. There are similar encroachments in the canal at Lagomar, which is where Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn have requested to encroach. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda . Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. . Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. . Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Plat, Location Map and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. ~. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/~ EstateW)7" I City Manager: t, Ol) oOl . I\\] 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORI ZE 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO 5 A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY 6 (MAN-MADE CANAL) LOCATED AT 7 THE REAR OF 2404 ENTRADA 8 DRIVE IN LAGOMAR BY ROBERT 9 J.QUINN, Jr. AND CAROL R. 10 QUINN, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS 11 AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE 12 13 WHEREAS, Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R.Quinn desire to 14 maintain an existing dock and to construct and maintain a 15 proposed bulkhead and proposed boat lift wi thin a portion of 16 the City property which is a man-made canal located at the rear 17 of 2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar. 18 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to S?S? 15.2- 19 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to 20 authorize temporary encroachments upon the City'S property 21 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 22 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof 25 contained in ~~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, 26 as amended, Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn, their 27 heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to 28 maintain a temporary encroachment for an existing dock and to 29 construct and maintain a proposed bulkhead and proposed boat 30 lift in the City property which is a man-made canal located at 31 the rear of 2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar as shown on the map 32 marked Exhibit A and entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS FOR 33 BULKHEAD, DOCK & BOAT LIFT FOR ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. & Carol R. 34 QUINN", a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public 35 Works and to which reference lS made for a more particular 36 description; and 37 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments 38 are expressly subj ect to those terms, conditions and criteria 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee Agreement; and is hereby authorized to execute the BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be In effect until such time as Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 2006. CA-9868 PREPARED: 4/3/06 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS A\"-" ~1Jn:.> C. Ofr;wsDh. <tb S NATURE Pit) RFaI [Ji!CJi DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL D FORM X: I OlD I REAL ESTATEIEncroaChrnentslpw OrdinanceslCA9868 Quinn.doc PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDA TION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-81 I(C) (4) . rt, A L THIS AGREEMENT, made this ;;Lf day of 'fr I , 2006, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. and CAROL R. QUINN, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WIT N E SSE T H: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "299", as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SUBDIVISION OF LAGOMAR - SECTION TWO - AND PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH -- VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Map Book 77, at page 14, and being further designated and described as 2404 Entrada Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456-4222; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to maintain an existing dock and to construct and maintain a proposed bulkhead and proposed boat lift, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of City Property, which is a man-made canal located at the rear of2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN 2424-12-0454 GPIN 2424-02-4573 (City Owned Canal) NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED - ENCROACHMENTS FOR BULKHEAD, DOCK & BOAT LIFT FOR ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. & CAROL R. QUINN", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, :from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of 2 any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by tp.e City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so 3 ,:'"'1 'r occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Robert J. Quinn, Jr., and Carol R. Quinn, the said Grantee, has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk ~ {/off 4 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of . 2006, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINl1J" . .' CITY/~I lUl)l 1 Y OF V~..l'\OO..- , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ (;l:.J*ctay of ,2006, by Robert J. Quinn, Jr. peA ~~~~ Notary Pu .. 1 My Commission EXPires~' . 4 ("\ \ , '. 3\ \ 2Al0~ , [ 5 STATE OF VIRGINI~ I' . . CITY/CQlfNl:Y OF V~LlL , to-wit: . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this dll~ay of ~~ , 2006, by Carol R. Quinn ~0-~ Notary u lic My Commission Expires: ~3\,dtD~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFF IENCY AND fORM / ~(; C. ~t()SIM.. ~ SIGNATURE Pit) REd ElSktt DEPARTMENT <';:Il.SJ::RS\SHAR~D\ WP8U\RE\Real Estate Formsl WORD DOCS\ENCROACHMENTSIENCROACHMENT.AGREEMENT.doc 6 r---- L I EXISTING '4i! WOOD DOCK l I ~ : ~I -FENCE II I - Ii I ~r.11 ~~I '-ILrx-x ~I I 81 I ~I I ~I I (/) I I I I I I I I 'LOT , I I \ 299..1 127.98' TO W~-------=-___~ AlWOODTOWN RD S68.20'OO.E 125.00' \ \ / / I ) ....-- --- --------..1 L MAN MADE CANAL 7 ENCROACHMENT: PROPOSED BULKHEAD ENCROACHMENT 1S 4', ARCA=446 S.F. ENCROACHMENT LINE (ALIGNMENT: N6727'51"W) ENCROACHMENT: EXISTING DOCK ENCROACHMENT IS 17.5' 'LOT \ \ 298..1 - 1) JOHN NINAS 2400 ENTRADA DRIVE VA BEACH, VA 23456 GPIN: 2424 12 1379 ~1 INTICATES PHOTO ~ NO. & DIRECTION f.: PROPERlY LINE .. REVISED: 12/23/05 Exhibit A I ( \ \ "-- - - '--- ------------ 3) KAREN DRAGON 800 COSTA GRANDE DR. (LOT\ VA BEACH. VA 23456 -.JJ ./ GPIN: 2424 02 8246 CANAL OWNED BY CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ENCROACHMENT: PROPOSED BOAT LIFT ENCROACHMENT 1 S 20' ENCROACHMENT LINE PROPOSED 123.5' BULKHEAD MHW ON lLio MLW BANK --- -EBB--") L-FLOOD- (/) (/) o ~ U <(:..J ::E ~@ ADJACENT BULKHEAD 'LOT \ \ 300..1 - 2) JOHN SMITH 2408 ENTRADA DRIVE VA BEACH, VA 23456 GPIN: 2424 02 9459 - ENTRADA DRIVE (60' R/W)- GRAPHIC SCALE 20' 0 20' 40' SITE PLAN ~I-II-I~ I I SCALE: 1"=40' 1 " = 40' PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS FOR BULKHEAD, DOCK & BOAT LIFT FOR ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. & CAROL R. QUINN MLW=O.O' PROJECT LOCATION: 2404 ENTRADA DRIVE VA BEACH, VA 23456 DATE: 11/28//05 SHEET 1 OF 2 ~ ~ ~ - ~:- l.T -~- :\ .- f..- ) , <;) <;t . 1 ~ ? ~ Q -0 ~ ~ ~ '" VI:) v -~ , 4 .... ~ 4J () .-C. !", .Z}i 4 .-.( Q \:J? J- j- d i)J ~ <;y --0 ::r 'U 0 ~ ..J 2. ~ ~ -:, c., L, rb L-+- 2 I l Q ~ ~ ~ v + r' -J.- 'T -u ll.! -+ + +- x I X {... ~ ~ ~ X t ;). 0 ~ ~ ~ <. r +- 0 c.+ ~ '1> (". 'J <... Y- o "- ~ --=- 0 -0 J J J' ~ ~ )' E QJ f ., ." \) .L -< -' " v Q.. Cb q.. ~ "3 c..r 0 ....0 0 M --.....: rb '? ~ 'i o \.J ~ ...., ::J- M ro '-0{ -.) .;:; ~ ~ :::> - L a. \) -0 1 ~ ::::r ~ ::r- --6 ~ '0 ............. ~ -- {'Y') 1 '2. j o r> '- ~ J ~ '~ :r f"l ~ 'i ~ "Y <::::) \S' $. (' ::::, " <.... <;2 :y- o T o ~ ~ \l ~ 1 0 ~ 'Q -rJ '- '-7 ~ \) III V .L .l. V + ~ ~ q- y.. () 4- \) ~ ~ IV ~ :J 1 J Q., 1.. ~ J ;;). .., - i'\ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ - :) <.. e..; l() \) 'V ....( r .:::r- \~ ...3 ..,~~:> .J.L IJ ~ 1 ~ ~ '/. - - rJ,. j :r- "'l e ~ >( '1:! " 'lI v') ~ ~ -< ........... ! """0 t. 2 ':L J:, ~ ~ ... ~ \1 ) .~ 4 .-e::. -- ~ \J ~ -6 ?i ~ Q " J 3 0 0 QI j "d 3 J:l ...j..... f- :) \3' ~ ~ ~ M r\ q" ~ ~ .['- \) ..., L ~ ~ ..3 ~~ (0 M -J + co.q: ~ J ~ <:::2 \! :> ~ - V' L --.. :J ..... L Q I.S -0 i lLJ. CB :f- j "-.l ~ ~ < V) ,,) v '"a .~--c i ~ v ~ \i L ~-< ~;C5 ~~ '0 ~_ , '::::..:) ~1 ~ . VI q I 1.1 V '\).'\- o \J ~ rl 5 x ,~ 1\ '1 :S :::J- 00 Q Ii::) i)()\>o ~ ~ d ~ - ~ -0 If) ~ ~ (!,I f -+- -+ .;:; ~ \t VJ o .J::: @) ~ ~ L ~ - -- ~ tr ,:} J ) 1 G .t t ~ " l. -d \) <:.} -- <;) -. ~ \) t " +- '" --d i - G . , ,\) ~ E 1. V ~ +- -~ ~ ';) x t- <.. - ~ ~ c..\- l\J ~ :l\ 4- --e) -0 ~ <. ~ ~ ,.,', . ~ <. ~ ~ ~---o ~ ~ i ~J V) !::.. ~ '>') ~ I.')'"" -::d.. \jCS 3 "? :;r-- ~ ~) s :? - ~ M -J... ~ j j. :) l.rl ..y ~ ~ J V) ~ .L :) 1. ~ VI V1 ~ L \.b - \) ~ ;J \) '0 ~ ~ G -0 J ..c J 'J ~ V - L ~{ J V ~ ~ t ~ :i if Q Do +- ;y I.. .... X. .~ - a '0 <. .C: r:,; V\ :J ~ Do 1.>0 Xl v lL < J ~ 'V "- - -0' c-i \l () - - L - ....... - ~ "- L a ~ 1 '2 ~ "r () :3'"' rb @ @ j \j ~ ~ ~g '" t~ ~+:- '-0 ~ ~ ~ <.. '-0 'i) ~ _.~ (}. ~ (IJ ..:!. J ... ::L ~ V 9- ">- ........... '~ ~ ~ -- ..)' ~ N :s ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~l~ .--. " ~ '" ~ ~ ~ -1 { ( - ~ ..... c... Q. ~ ~ ft )- ;;) J ~ -- C8 i2\ \d \' -~ I~ l"- ~ ~; l' c;-~ t ~ ~ ~ '''-; .~ ~ ~ -0 'II? \\) ~V-: '-CJ "I ~ - \i ~ ~ L ~ 1 ~ '\; ~ 2l() ~ - <:l ~~ ~ '. ~ :s- \... 1.1) I -+ --" ~ ~ ..J-- ,~ \. v t ~ ')."".E ~ \:;) , L s:2 ~ { ~ -0 '\, '-d J ~ -c::.. ::L. \;; l +- C 4 ~~~ .-Q I \l 1.1 '~ ') ~ ~ <.... \S " v? ~ ::- ~ ~ i\ t, ~ -j ..}- 1:- ~ I V VI C ~ cJ I", ~ ,:; ~ Q \) ~ e) "' -{- c 111 ,- 'oJ llo v, () ;:J L -r ~ t\ v-, ~ ~ ~ <.. ti ~ 0:, -() '... L G' ~ 'l, ( ~ ,..... ~ ...", <- \3\5 ,S) '- -0 + '" -+ Q \J v'\ :') l -i 4.1 .-' ~ \J " ..L :> v ~ '"1 u.- <0) v (?) -J - \.., VI ';) 3 ~ --e) '0 .:[ - ~ () " \ rd -;).1 V 'J ~ ~ '--v .-I ~ V)\..j'0 - vi'" .....1\-0 3 '~ ~ J 0 t ~ d ) ~ ~c::. ~ '" Q; J ~ - .J ~ .c "o;;~~ - ~ N ~ 'Ii -- :) f v u ~ y .), - - v u +-- --- ~ c...r ...:::) - ./) < ~ j '\) ,)0 q- -() ~ 2 ,.P ..D \) ~ v , <- ~ - - .::) '- )) , " ,t~:~1t; i:s-~.~~,...,,~<>.,.h~ ~~4f;:::I:::'j:::B;;\~~. ,~~' '-' ',' ...... ..............~' ~?Jlt~~q!/ .......~..,,I \.. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ~ ITEM: An Ordinance to Revise Categorical Appropriations for the School Operating Fund and Amend the City's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget and FY 2006-07 Capital Improvement Budget as Requested by the School Board MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: The FY 2006-07 Operating Budget adopted by City Council on May 9, 2006 required Schools to reduce the School Board's previously":approved budget by $7,116,408. ,'In order to make this reduction, the School Board has requested adjustments to Council's categorical appropriations for Schools, as well as adjustments of funds between the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program, and a reduction in estimated revenues of special revenue funds. . Considerations: The School Board requests City Council approval of the following changes: Appropriation School Budget School Budget Difference Category Adopted May 9, Recommended May 2006 by City 23, 2006 by School Council Board Instruction $538,700,909 $530,110,311 -$8,590,598 Administration, 22,984,779 22,688,423 -296,356 Attendance and Health Pupil Transportation 33,553,556 32,574,425 - 979,131 Operations and 89,415,253 87,503,830 -1,911,423 Maintenance TOTAL -11,777,508 REDUCTION: In addition to reducing the School budget by $7,116,408, the School Board has requested Council approval of an additional reduction of $4,661,100 in the Schools Operating Budget, for a total reduction of $11,777,508, and a corresponding increase of $4,661,100 to the Schools Capital Improvement Program for acquisition of new equipment, maintenance and repair of existing equipment, replacement equipment, and general maintenance and repair as shown below: . $1,736,046 to Capital Project #1-195, Student Data Management System . $2,925,054 to Capital Project #1-211 , School Operating Budget Support On May 23, 2006 and June 6, 2006, the School Board adopted budget resolutions revising the categorical expenditure appropriations to reflect these requests. The School Board also revised its estimated revenues in several School special revenue funds. The revised estimates result in a total decreased appropriation of $643,642 to the School special revenue funds. · Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. · Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council amend the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2006-07 Capital Improvement Budget to reflect the requested modifications. · Attachments: School Board Budget Resolution dated May 23, 2006 SGhool Board CIP Resolution dated May 23, 2006 School Board Budget Resolution dated June 6, 2006 Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: School Board Resolutions CltyManage~s K . ~~ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE CATEGORICAL 2 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL OPERATING 3 FUND AND AMEND THE CITY'S FY 2006-07 4 OPERATING BUDGET AND FY 2006-07 CAPITAL 5 IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AS REQUESTED BY THE 6 SCHOOL BOARD 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the City's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget adopted by 10 City council on May 9, 2006, required the Schools to reduce the 11 Schools Operating Budget by $7,116,408; and 12 WHEREAS, the School Board desires to decrease the School 13 Operating Budget by an additional $4,661,100 and increase the 14 School Capital Improvement Program by $4,661,100 for student 15 data management and the maintenance, replacement, and 16 acquisition of equipment; and 17 WHEREAS, the School Board adjusted downward by $643,642 18 its estimated revenue for Schools' special Revenue funds; and 19 WHEREAS, the School Board approved resolutions on May 23, 20 2006 and June 6, 2006 to revise the categorical appropriations 21 in the School Operating Budget, transfer operating funds to the 22 Capital Improvement Program, and to reduce the estimated 23 revenues in the Schools' special revenue funds; 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 26 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 27 28 29 1. That the FY 2006-07 School Operating Budget is hereby 30 amended as follows: 31 (a) appropriations to the Instruction category are 32 decreased by $8,590,598, resulting in a total appropriation of 33 $530,110,311; 34 (b) appropriations to the Administration, Attendance 35 and Health category are decreased by $296,356, resulting in a 36 total appropriation of $22,688,423; 37 (c) appropriations to the Pupil Transportation 38 category are decreased by $979,131, resulting in a total 39 appropriation of $32,574,425; and 40 (d) appropriations to the Operations and Maintenance 41 category are decreased by $1,911,423, resulting in a total 42 appropriation of $87,503,830. 43 2. That appropriations to Capital Project #1-195, Student 44 Data Management, are increased by $1,736,046, and revenue from 45 the General Fund is increased accordingly. 46 4. That appropriations to Capital Project #1-211, School 47 Operating Budget Support, are increased by $2,925,054, and 48 revenue from the General Fund is increased accordingly. 49 5. That appropriations to certain School Special Revenue 50 Funds are hereby amended in the FY 2006-07 School Budget as 51 follows, with local revenue decreased accordingly: 52 (a) appropriations to the School Communication Tower 53 Fund are increased by $60,000, resulting in a total 54 appropriation of $460,000; 55 (b) appropriations to the School Athletic Fund are 56 increased by $179,500, resulting in a total appropriation of 57 $4,678,989; and 58 (c) appropriations to the School Cafeteria Fund are 59 reduced by $883,142, resulting ~n a total appropriation of 60 $24,528,369. 61 Adopted by the Council of the city of Virginia Beach, 62 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. 63 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of 64 city Council. Approved As to Content: Approved As To Legal Sufficiency: \ hJJ)f i E ~. o~~ City Attorney's 0 ice CA10049 X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\School Board Resolutions ORD R-4 June 8, 2006 SCHOOL BOARD Daniel D. Edwards Chairman District 1 . Centervllle 1513 Beachview Drive VA Beach, VA 23464 495.3551 (h). 717.0259 (cell) Sandra Smith-Jones Vice Chairman District 2 - Kempsville 705 Rock Creek Court VA Beach, VA 23462 490-8167 (h) Rita Sweet Bellitto At. Large p 0 80x 6448 VA Beach. VA 23456 418-0960 (h) Jane S. 8rooks District 6 . Beach 721 Hilltop Road VA Beach, VA 23454 425- 1597 (h) Emma L. "Em" Davis District 5 - Lynnhaven 1 125 Michaelwood Drive VA Beach. VA 23452 34Cl-8911 (h) Edward F. Fissinger, Sr. At- Large 412 Becton Place VA Beach, VA 23452 486-4567 (h) Dan R. Lowe District 4 - Bayside 4617 Red Coat Road VA Beach, VA 23455 490-3681 (h) Michael W. Stewart District 3 - Rose Hall 105 Brentwood Court VA Beach, VA 23452 498-4303 (h) . 445-4637 (w) Arthur T, Tate At-Large 1709 Ladysmith Mews VA Beach. VA 23455 46Cl-5451 (h) Carolyn D, Weems At-Large 1420 Claudia Drive VA Beach. VA 23455 464-6674 (h) Lois S. Williams, Ph.D. District 7 - Princess Anne 2532 Las Corrales Court VA Beach. VA 23456 816-6107 (cell). 961.3734 (w) SUPERINTENDENT Sheila S. Magula, Ed,D. 2512 George Mason Drive VA Beach. VA 23456 263-1007 ~IRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AHEAD OF THE CURVE BUDGET RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the mission of the Virginia Beach City Public Schools. in partnership with our entire community, is to ensure that each student is empowered with the kno\\'ledge and skills necessary to meet the challenges of the future; and WHEREAS, the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach has adopted a comprehensive strategic plan and school improvement priorities to guide budgetary decisions; and WHEREAS, the School Board has studied the recommended FY 2006/07 - 2007/08 Biennial School Operating Budget in view of state and federal requirements, additional demands for space and operations, the strategic plan, priorities, expectations, competitive compensation for employees and the best educational interests of its students; and WHEREAS, the total funds available for FY 2006/07 from the City of Virginia Beach to Virginia Beach City Public Schools under the Revenue Sharing Policy is 5365.105,021; and WHEREAS, the debt service payment is estimated to be $40,282,967 leaving a balance of $324,822,054 to allocate between the Operating Budget and the Capital Improvement Program. ..Now, therefore, be it RESOL YED: That the 5324,822,054 be allocated as follows: $307.224,646 to the Operating Budget, and 517,597,408 to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): and be it further RESOL YED: that the Virginia Beach City School Board requests a categorical appropriation of S672,876,989 for FY 2006/07 from the City Council of Virginia Beach for the FY 2006/07 _ 2007/08 Biennial School Operating Budget, as outlined by category: Instruction Administration, Attendance and Health Pupil Transportation Operations and Maintenance and be it further RESOL YED: That the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach requests an appropriation of $101,067,314 for special grants, and other special revenue funds, for the 2006-2007 fiscal year; and be it further $530,110,311 22,688,423 32,574,425 87,503,830 RESOL YED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board, and the Clerk of the Board is directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the Mayor, each member of City Council, the City Manager, and the City Clerk. Adopted by the School Bard this 6th day of June, 2006 SEAL Attest: \ ~,f aJ.vJ~ Dianne P. Alexander, Clerkiofthe Board School Administration Building . 2512 George Mason Drive . P.O. Box 6038 . Virginia Beach, VA 23456-0038 www.vbschools.com .. IRGINIA 8EACH" CITY puauc SCHOOLS AHEAD OF THE CURVE .. .. -. ,.. .. _ Aibt,M,C~<' . y': <'1tl:t'~~~':~'::':~~b~;.t'::":'.:.:,,:( Clem, SChool Board. Of:.ffii..:.,....... .." 6ltv.: of'. :... . '. ...., .:< ::'. "',.:~~~~::?::'.>:i.};:.:.:...:~: ",.":,,,:,.:., SdlQQl Adtni;\istritiM8ilildir,g .i15il Ge<irge"MasooOfMl.P.Q. SO)( 603S' VlI'gii\iaBe-aci:l.YA234:S64)O~a .. . .'~ s.c. H.'QOLBOARO . ..." ... ,. 1);ut!e111.EdQds Cllairm/lll ... . . Oisll!:ll, Cen~~ 1Stl~Cr~ VABeacIl; 'vA ~ 49>$5';ll!.;. 71 i.o,.':s!ll;;dl) SaiI!f"silal!l-Joita 'llceCiilli'mIIl 'l:lislriQ'~ :._~~ 'ro5'~_.OJI:rt y;,,~'ljA.~' ~15rlhl " .. . .atta.S'wIIl: ~. Ai-lil'gt . . .?Q.:So;i644$ . .V"'~;V.A.~~... 41~(li1. .lilllt). 8mGliS' QI;;lrict:\i; ~~ 1t. BlIllOp~" . VA.~; v~. ~3&'l G1~{ll1 1mma t. ~Da<Rs . iiisiiltln:yMt.;mtl 112S,~.~ V^~\'Pi~:1 . ~91Ijl:l} .". ~~,~~,Sr:. A}~. . .4-12 ~./>iace: \'J.. Bai:l', vA 234$<i' ~(b}.. tl&nll,.l._ llistfJd ~.~ aay.s~. ' , Mil7R8c1 Clla!~1ld vAlleaCt. VII 234S5:. ~l!fl) .MlcbeeiYi.~ D6l:'ci3~ ~.~.a!I. iG5Bret:lY.'lial Ctll!t. .v~ SG:li.VA. '234$t . ~{i<}:.~63r{W! .. ." -. . . . ~1lI''f.;;. #'~ ... l:ros:.,aCy$!1l.i!h~ VA 8e$tl.'VA~55 ~M$l{l1i CarolPO. Wftirls At.~. ... ;4t.)qllIlidia[.,"~ VA.&W'; vAiJi,.;.s. 4suisr4(l\j, ~;$;.~.J>b;n.. l)i5lful.l.-.P:~ MIl!: ~J2L.aa,Q:.~ ~: vt. ~~VAt,,4~ 6j6Jj'Ol~}.. ge~'Sl~!w\ SUPERlNiENSEtIT SlleIIl $..~>Ils..Ed,1>. :l5~t ~~Ori;,~ W..BeaCICV,U3456 m~OO1 611DGET Rti;SOLUTION 1 ~ ~ l ~ WlIEREAS~ thc.mis$i~n of the YirginiaJ3eacll City p~blic Schools,inpartncrshipwithQurentire ccm'imuuity;ist6 (..~s:urethat. eaCh st'.:identisenip.o~'ered. \\.'1th. Llteknowledge 3:wI ski HS1'lecessary to mc# the <:MHengesof the. future; and. WlreRE'AS~ the Sch<lQl Board 9ft4~ City of Virginia 13eachhasadoptcda coniprehcosive strategic pl~nandsc.hQol improvelllenlPI"iQritles to guide budgetW'Ydeci$iol1s; c.nd W:a:ERJ;AS~*.eSqh()o1 J3.~U'dhasstu(l~.therec()nun~mdedFY 2oo6/07....20fi1!081liernliui School. Opt.~tmgBudget in: vieW'Qf $ta~.~ fe~imilrequirem~~~additional :4ennmd;;:fQr :;pace mid operanons, thestraitegic.plan..priooties. :c.xpcctatiQI:JS, cqropeti~iv:e. compensatlontbr. cmploY<<$ and the :pest cduCati01mllnt~ests()fits:studellt5; and . "'HEREAS,-thetotaJfund~ avaitabiefor FY20061(J1.ft.Q2:!1:the City of Virginia Beach to Virginia new;ll Citylmb1ic.~clioolsUIiderfutRev-enoeSh~ringPolicyis$3(j5.105.021;a'nd. WfJEREAS,th~ .deQtservic.~.p<1-Y!mi'tit.iseStimated' woo s40,282.9671eavingabalattceof $314~842,O~4 to. a.llocate. betw~n the(.>pe11l.tingE1l9get?ri4tneC'..apltillfInpmvemthtPrograIIl. N~w~ thc~fote.. beh: RESQINED: Thntthe. $324;.822.054 be aHocatedasfull()ws: .$3o.7~224.646to the ()petating Budget, and $ 17,59704(18 to tb~ CiipitS;l. Improvement Program (CIf');. ano'beitfUrther . RESQLVED~ that ti"ic Virginia Beacb CiwSchoolBQard.r~ucstsa categorical appropriation of '$672.fn~,989 .1~'FY '2QO.6/u1fwm theCitYCouncil.(}fVirgin.ir. .aeach for the FY.2006lO7...., . 2007f08.Biennial Sc.hoolOpenatin~B:l.ldg~~. ~sowlipedby category: $$:30.p9,783 '22" 6gg ~~".. .", to.::: .~~:;t.,? :32,S04i9S~ 87,503.830 lnStroctioll .A...dm1fiistraoon. Attendance and'HeiiHl. Pupil Transportation. ()perati,on~andMaitite03rtce .mdbe it further lU~SOl;VED: That the School.13QaHj. Qfthe,City:ofVirgjriia' BC'd.chrequestsan .appropriatkm 9f: SlOl,06 7,314 for special grantS, . and ofherspeCiulteveI;ue fundSjfj)rthe. 2(1){).:2M7' fisc,d y(,.-a~ allteadacro$$th<:: oftidal minutesC?fthis J~ourq~ tuld the Clerk,Qf :tbeBolU'<i .l~. d,irected to deliver a 'Copy of thi s res61uli6h. to the Mayor. each . ID<'1tiber ofCityCounciLtb<:Oiy ~tan~g:er:.AAd tb~(lityCltr:1<,; . SIiA t Attest: ~;.t:w~ D-hmntP;. Alexander, Clerkoft.'I1c Board CERTtFIEOTOBEA TRUE; ANOCORRECTOOPV. SCHQOLBOARD 0IDl4l! 11:edwa1c/s ~_h ~ici1;~ie~~~ ::Stj~~ 'I" ~ vA ~31Si! . 495'35S1{!l}_ W-ll259l~~1 Sanlti'il $n1ltll~~. V~tltli. ~~. VA.~:\lA 23462- .4Si"A161Jltl ~$Wtet. $+1lilIl ,~ 1".0; SllX:64'!8' .',{A~.VA l:l4Sli .~;~~(k;' . Jaa.S.i!tooks ~5.&iich nHtillCp ~ VA 5cacIt.. VA 2J4&l . ~1im(3) ElMiIl: "Szi"llalds' ~5.l~ ~lQ.~~~. ll<\~v" 2J.45~ ~11{rl' ~Ai'd:F.I'i_.g!ll';'St, AI'~ M:e Sectoi!.eIac>; YA ~YA~52 '~;ll} D1R'~ l.pm ~4,~li)~. M!1.Reil COal Road VA BeaCII. VA a45~. ~f{~} __W.StMjt. ~:F~!ia;; :~~l *4~t~}.4...~ Iv.; ~l':.T#iI AI~. tt:lS~II1J..~ \/ASeacIi: i{A. 2"~<5. ,w~;(h) ~~.WUm$ ~.l.. .. . 'i4~ C!;lud;ailii\!e l1A~,W,.~5 <IM'66?4!tt 1:DisS<V(itlallls, Pllil>c O!$iric! t .; Pr.~ Aml; :!532l.ZCCl!aes 0:lu.1 VASe:icli, 'If< .23451). 81$;61!l1(eflifl.~~,!:~(w~ SUPERINTENDENT SMcl4iS:....W.. :<512 ~.~. Oti'te 'iA 5eacll. VA::7J.il56 ~l:O:J7 .. +UtG'~NtA BI:ACH CITYPUSU5= SCHOOLS A H E A D OF THEe U R V E CI?RESOLUTION. Wf;E~e:A$,..the mSSlon of the Virginia Beach CltYPl1biiCS<:hOOiS. in partnership WlthO,l. entire comrn<mity, is tp . ~nsure.lha~ e<:l~ studentjsell'lpowe~d wifrtthe kriOwlE'..dge and skills nei::essaiy 10 meet the cllaHenges of the future; and . \'VHER=A$.theSehOOl a~ hasadoplerl acomp.ehensivi~ strategic. plan and' school irnprovernent ptioriII$$lO . sujpe'budget?..rydeqs~?n$: and · WHERCAS,the.Stl1l:iOl B<<lfd. fla$Sludi<<ilhe~$(lf tneOper;lti!lg BUdget and the CapJtaII!r\j:lfoVSlfieht .Prog1"~m in Ifgtrtof theavailabie (Undit~;atld. WHEREAS, the. totaf fuoc!$avaifab!e tot FY :200&'0:7 .from.lt~ Cnyof Vjrg~~ia SeacntoVJtGiniaBeach City Public SchoolS lilOder.theR~~i1t.ie Sharing Po(it.Yas aeop;~ on May '1.1. .2~by. t~ CiWCoUi1QHs :$365.105.021:ano . WHEREAS; the May. .11;. 2q06.t:;ityb.udQelprovidati :a.d~i{iile_fiot~ fmm. tlleSaodbrldg~ TiF AmdoCl!anceof $~ .'I'ilikm. QfwhiChS4,66.MoO:~. alio:cated to 1tie:ScflOOi'~rifby: appliCailQh of,the:R(!VW.u~fShl3ring Form!J/a; anb WHlm~;theS~'Board hasdiscretiClr.ov:et'the allor~ti~clfheRlWe~l~ $haririgF'QnJjuiafunds'l'leioHhe . debt $:ervi~.m.d discretion over t~. useoft'1e.$4;~' Mtrom lr.t! fOndba~flce; .and WHEREAS~the $4,651 ~100. is avail9bletb fuMitEirnsrem<l'V'OO from the Marc!l7; 20000pe.>atingB\Joget to balance fume (lVailable lPl'1ding;:ar.cl WHEREAs. the SchooIB~d; recognites the age t:md: cot.dlti<<; I.)f itsnjgt;. s~haols as a Slg:lilicat:t futiditi;Jeh.alleng~; - . ~ thesafuEltilhemorribetS a~ack~g~th#t jnordeflo tlle~tt!'le CIPapj:)t(;lPf!;ated 1:>YG# O(l~i~tithc pi:Ol~i ... .d~!g!:13l.e(! i3S~et~flf: High Si::hpOi,m~tbe:deferred; HoWever. lt1&SchQi:)lBoard also realizes tneJmpo~nce .~r;thispfQJect"to!he Mure.O( Ihediyaootherefofe,femairiS eommiltedto.rea6i,!ce5s!lig:lhiS'i$suei;ithe ri$~ict CIP' buOg~14~iopmentcycla, . Iilow. therefore .be. it RESOl.Vf3):. Th~ttf.e$ ~Gs,105;021.m. FV .Q6Io7 Rellentle Sharins. Ftlil(js.bea1/ocated aslollo11.'cS: D~bt5eiv!ce$4C.282:,967 PAYCOCIP$ 17,597.40$ OperalingauogetS307224~646 and bfilit f.Jrther. .RSSOI.Vep:. Tllatffle$ 4;6fH,tc-O.8pprOpriated tolheSchOOlsori May11~ .2006 bei.'seo torthefbnOWlr.g pur~; .. $.1;736.046 to ClP1:'195$t~nl Dat.'l Managell'i&l'it ~Ystem .. $1,014,715toClP'1:;211 ttl1v11drePi3(:eI'!iOOiofCCWiers · $. 900,OOQto trPH11 ,to' fuOde.~pmerit repiacement;matntenancean<lrepai( fQt fOOdSeti/ices eqlJip,'Il~n! . .. .$ 5~Q;33~ 19QiP 1~2J1tqr General~intl;r.,ancea'1d'Repajr · $ 300;0()'.rtOCI~1;.21 tie fu~reptaooment of RlsagfflPhs .. ...... . ... '. . . .. $ ~ 20;000 toe!? '.21'1 to furydpl,'rchase and replacemenl of custodl~l eo,ufpmen~ ar:d' be if further RSSOl. VEi:):.T!lahl cOPY. pflhis res6MiOllbe sPrea<l. across t!1e offjt;f<lll'llj1)IJtesi)f W,>l:3oard; tal)d Ule CI$i1\, of the Boa~ tsdireeteo lbdeliver :acop)'of~isresoMion to th~ M~Y9r.. e~ch memt>er;>f CitYOcl.incitth~Cjty M"~rnlgef, and !l1e City Clerk . Adopted. bY th SE,AL Att~!: ... '. .. ~p~ . . '. ':" "... ".". " . ,". .' .... "." . '. :~,"::.:',.: .,.:".:.:: :"', '.' .........~..: .r', DiaoneP.Aiexaoder.CJp,1t cfnlC~ro .. ... ATRUE. -: ., .:", '",' :," ",".".. ..... ANDCORRECTCOPY. Chit... Sch<x>i Admil1notr'3.tiim B'lJildi~'Z -25 11 G~ MasoFlQrive - P.O, 66x6038 - Virginia ~>YA 234S~03a "" 6- 8-06; 1 1 : 43AM; Rea I Estate Law Annex ;4274456 # 1/ 1 / } I ~ J/::L'r7-I,WI77/J:;?----r:? r--- ~ II ~1W::J:n :- ~IYi unWA ~ hr~~ ~ I 1i/j "f ~ / ~ /if{fflIJJrl~ ~ V ~:rtt r 1: --., ~ ~U-- D--i - ~~-~-= I~ ~ ~~~ fI I ~~~~ V ~ ~ u: ~:;~~/ ~ II~ \' ~~ ~ ~ '/~~~'qji""~ ~ =::1('~ ~ 'I,~J.- ~ ~~r--=: . "<:: ~ # ;f, . :I~~i}:;: . :::::::::: I ( ~ i r! ., :> -; 52 ~ ~ "" "0 I I VIRGINIA BEACH Bt VO, ~ ..... ..... ) \Cl:::D e--=' I I -f-- - ~I. ~f-- ~ r---l.. ~//~~wffim 1 ~~ /' ~ [J' r----t==i H ' LOCATION MAP ~ ~ ~ ~THALlA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH d;; f-- GPIN 1477-96-3587 SOU7HfRNBLVQ, f- ~ll ~ OPEN SPACE PROGRAM SITE \ I 1,- e---- e--- ACQUISITION ~ I f-t-__tr IIII~ 'III'~ SCALE: 1" = 400' I'IH III - E ~ ,_IIR 11~11f- I 111\ IIlr Illr 1:=:: ~ I- ~ ~ ~ ~R r---:: "~ ~ I-- IIrr THBtlN CNllIJRCH.DGN M.J,S. -----~._.._..~ -.---------- PREPARED BY PIN ENG. CADD DEPT. MiIIM:f-t 9~!l.DOO05 ._-_._--_._--_....__....._._-_._._-~- ,.,. .--..-.----.--....--. . 4~~ k~~il~. ";~i' 1ft. ,'- \'i.) <u:: : .....$) \~,~~ "_ij} ~.~...o"':. ~y CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An ordinance to authorize the acquisition of real property located behind 420 Thalia Road, from Constance Kistler Bradford, Cheryle Lyne Mack and Vicki Cunningham Rader, Trustees of Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church. MEETING DATE: . Background: In 1968 Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church leased the rear/east portion of the church's property to the Department of Parks and Recreation of the City of Virginia Beach to serve as a neighborhood park. The City has developed and maintained park improvements at the property since that time. Parks and Recreation estimates the value of the playground equipment and infrastructure at the site to be approximately $48,000. Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church has expressed an interest in selling 3.08382 acres of the rear portion of their property to the City of Virginia Beach in order to preserve the site as a public park for the Thalia neighborhood. The City has pursued the acquisition of the fee interest in the property for Open Space, and has reached an agreement with the owners to buy the property for $985,000. The public will access the property from a 24-foot wide ingress/egress easement from Thalia Road. City vehicles can also access the park by this easement, but the public easement is intended to be for pedestrian access only by the public. . Considerations: Purchase the property to preserve the current use of the property as a neighborhood park. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda . Alternatives: Do not adopt the Ordinance and do not acquire the property. . Recommendations: Purchase the above property for $985,000 through Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project 4-004 Open Space Program Site Acquisition. . Attachments: Ordinance and Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works City Manager:~ t,~~ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORI ZE THE 2 ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY 3 COMPRISING APPRIXIMATELY 3.08 ACRES 4 LOCATED BEHIND 420 THALIA ROAD, 5 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR 6 $985,000 FROM CONSTANCE KISTLER 7 BRADFORD, CHERYLE LYNE MACK AND 8 VICKI CUNNINGHAM RADER, TRUSTEES OF 9 THALIA TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 10 11 12 13 WHEREAS, CONSTANCE KISTLER BRADFORD, CHERYLE LYNE MACK AND 14 VICKI CUNNINGHAM RADER, TRUSTEES OF THALIA TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN 15 CHURCH ("Thalia Trinity") own a parcel of real estate comprising 16 approximately 3.08 acres located behind 420 Thalia Road, in the 17 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "Property"); 18 WHEREAS, Thalia Trinity desires to sell the Property to the 19 City of 'Zirginia Beach (the "City"); 20 WHEREAS, the City has leased the Property from Thalia Trinity, 21 free of charge, since 1968 for the purposes of a neighborhood park; 22 WHEREAS, the City has developed and maintained park playground 23 equipment on the Property, and this site has been used as a public 24 park serving the surrounding Thalia neighborhoOd; 25 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 26 Virginia (the "City Council") is of the opinion that the 27 acquisition of the Property would further the City's open space 28 initiative and ensure continued use of this site as a public park; 29 WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available in the Open 30 Space Acquisition CIP account (CIP 4-004) . 31 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 32 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 33 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition of the 34 Property by purchase pursuant to ~ 15.2-1800 of the Code of 35 Virginia (1950), as amended, which Property is shown on Exhibit A 36 attached hereto. 37 2 . That the City Manager or his designee is further 38 authorized to execute all documents that may be necessary or 39 appropriate in connection with the purchase of the Property, so 40 long as such documents are substantially in accordance with the 41 Summary of Terms attached hereto as Exhibit B and acceptable to the 42 City Manager and the City Attorney. 43 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 44 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. CA9998 X:IOIDIREAL ESTATElAcquisitiouslWORKING - DEEDSIOpcn Space ProjCClIRPS830 Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Churcblord.doc R-1 June 7, 2006 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~~ Public Works/Real Estate APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: luJl1A ~ City Attorney's Office z nn~ N_; ~g~ ~ . ~ ~~~ ~~~ "'toQ fi~~ ~~i "''''~ "1"18 ....z -Ni ~g:~ ~foC!~ VI m m VI ::I: m m --l .... I S? Sl ~ I !? i z o ~~~;! i.~! ;; p 2 !I ~ j:lw~2 apa Pl~~3 ~h~ 91' l:l ~ ~=~~ ~iifi::: Cliil"'c Uo~ ~2='" g ~~ ~8j~ ;'z '" ln~ J ~fJd ~~2 ~ "';! ,:a.... ;' ~~ ~~'" is~ ~S~ ~ a o -n N -n o ;::J z Q m VI ~ o (j m ~ :;; ?i ~ 5 z VI !il Sl ~ 6 Ii 0 ~ i" ~ .s ~ ~ $ Ii ~. z $ ~ i S I ~ 0 :S i g~ II !!!' ;;l I g .'" ~ ~ g ~ ~~ ~~i $ ! C/O s .~ - ~ ~I'! zl::< z......,. '0:1 (I) ~;H ~ ~ Q ~ ; ~SJ51,;~~ ~ ~ ~ i~~ ~ S3 z C'l "' Q!! CD > i ~!1i 50 - z !f (') ~ ~ E [5 ~ ?l 8 ~ :r " ~ , -. -:-. -t.- _. ~!o~O' IF) j S 112.4?,j;'-ir- ~ Cl ~ ~ I :!l ." ~ :r n ~ en ~ 2 :I: '" !;; 2 ij ~ !il .. :i! > -~ ~ 0 "'ill - '" .. .... ~ ~ :.'" t!~ ,. i r--- EXHIBIT A ~srATE PlANE COOIlOI SOlmlZONE NATE ~ *'9a3/9J(1WtNJ h7- THAl.1A R(W) 170' IlIW) MB 41 pc; 56 N 00.28'20. 'II' 104.98' EF) ~ t"'_ 0'" :1 N 00.26'02" 'II' 398.23' ",!!il : 4.08'~ II ~! ; t i- S! ;!1 m' :. io . ,~ I · , : i :. , ____.._ j" ..' f · ~, .:.' · !l __ , . ,,:~fl ~ e"; " :rn,_: ~~ ~ ' 0. f ;;I CD ,CI:_' ":ol 6' .i . ~ ~ ^ i :3:: '! :~ _~,'~ : .. !.,.~ ~~: :2j; E _ :,.., ~~ .J::~: ; -.,: I': :ll '" ~ ~ ::E c n I I"," _I> . , , · Z ~ "0 " · I "c./1 ---""to i ,,! ll' ;:"" · I:: : n ;; .! I ~!I! ~ ~ '" :!l ~ $ i:' ,~'l::! .i ' < I, ~ ~ '" f :; I!r;-:.: t"f--.i ~~ ~!~' , ~ ~ il :;: H Ii i l 0" ,,,. , , '1:"" z 'i:l' ; Sf i' .~ . ! . 0 '" _ L vi I IT' h 0 ,Ii< : . : ~ -.~.._..-.._.4-- I : ... ~ -'" : Is: ! ! ,_~ ....._._ :0 :!:. '1 ~~;:3! -"s-"-"-" 281.a., :;: Ii : i:i: ",:::, ., ., h',,.,,. -.-"'- · " : ,-: · ' . 0: > -.;<.-.. ~ : ! : 0 · .. a :ll, ~ 39-'.-" I ~,':ll /' _.. :. .:. .....""" ._...., : ,: / , _;._.._..~" g ", ":-H''/ · , .i' · ", "'. : :..: ,I " ... ' ',' ....' -. " ;;. " ~+-:., I ! .. ' "i ' '~-f.~ .. , _,. _". ,co ..o..".._~ _"_. " <Ih ~ 1:; Q ::,. ___~:::~--.:=_---!-!7.J.... 51) '_"_.. ..-l . -'" .. ::.1.: _...;;.;;""" , I .~ g ~ ~ : :",,: ~.. ...- z . ~ Cl '" ;: ~ > : :dJ.: Q .. _ I . , "," 0" " '<1" , , , ...' , ~ 0'" ,.....: " ". _; o~ " Z ~ "0 ,00' ......-' ..' :.. . . ~.p "" ~ ~" Ii!: . ! ,.', ":' ~ ;'l Pi ~,,~: : i i ! " ! . " '" S~.; i m: ~~......- . 'i · b ~ .' '" ". , ~ e '" ~"~, : i: ". I · ~ .;: ~ : "",., " d . "0 '" · ....: '" 0 tl .~: :~:g. ,. c; ~ . ..' ..," 'l ..- J I : :ii!., ~! ~ ' ." 'f ~, &'0' PlJ8lJC op.....~ I ", - .. '- -- ::j. , _ _ . .... ROroTHf EA5fMENrHEREey I I t.-':" . 'ill:~----- """'__ i it:.. 5.~".--.Ji_P2----;----- ' ,...,' " . 130..~"3~!t ____ __ 1 : I?; ~ _ . __3O'UlWty,,~ lFl . _.,. .----____ I i ,lrl l\l 5i --;'.;/"____~.:!_!'_._I'C. ~- "-_._..~:..------.---: ,!..::;; "';j I , , _ _~' -.--il.~u;r ('---.. "',. 0:: 'I,' 189.51'" _fl__ .', s ,- ~ " " z ~- 0'" ...:: w, ~ ~ 2~ ..~ ~ -l ::r i",~ ~a> :~i o ;;0 ~ : Ii! ;126 ,>I: ~o !;l ~.. ~QS .:,w- '1',,;> ~ ~ g. ~, ~ --...- ......... j ~a5 , ;: "I:) i ~ r- ~ ;,; ~~ i ~ I:l - . ~ ~ l" -l ~ 0 ~ ~ Zl z '" ::r s 0 == Ol ~ s; - ;E ~ ~~ ?J ~ ..!'l v, CD ~ is - 0 : z C - ~ i ::; ~ ~:;: 0 0 s ~ z Z 0 a "Tl == m '" ,"~P'" ~!,..tIt fj ~ g$aii~ ~~~~2~ 11I~!~i! ~ "' I ? f t t 98S"8,"~ :!;~:Z~Z ;I ;t ~ a !:: 0 ~~~~~ a ~ EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF TERMS Purchase SELLER: Constance Kistler Bradford, Cheryle Lyne Mack and Vickie Cunningham Rader, Trustees of Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church PURCHASER: City of Virginia Beach PROPERTY: Approximately 6.11 acres located at 420 Thalia Road and identified as GPIN 1477-96-3587 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED: "PARCEL B, 134,331 SQ. FT., 3.08382 AC., GPIN 1477-96-5596" as shown on that plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING SUBDMSION OF THALIA TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (MB 138, PG 18), VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" dated February 24, 2006 SALES PRICE: $985,000 CONDITIONS OF SALE: . The Property shall be subdivided at the City's expense in order to create a new lot for the public park site. . The City will acquire the parcel described as 3.08382 acres, to be known as Parcel B, and the church will retain the remaining 3.00000 acres, to be known as Parcel A. . The City will be responsible for the cost of the title report and owner's policy. . The City shall submit a subdivision plan for review and approval by the Planning Department prior closing. . A 15' public drainage easement will be dedicated to the City by subdivision plat. . The City shall prepare the agreement and closing documents. . The City's property (Parcel B) will be used for a public park site. The public park hours will be from dawn to dusk. . The City will be responsible, once the property is subdivided, for removing any park equipment, grills and tables, etc. from the church property (Parcel A). · The church will reserve a 20' utility easement for the benefit of Parcel A for an existing sanitary sewer line. · The church will dedicate a 24' public ingress/egress easement across Parcel A to be used for pedestrian access and city maintenance vehicles to Parcel B. This easement will be located within the drive aisle of the current parking lot and any future redesign of the parking lot. Any redesign will be subject to review and approval by the City of Virginia Beach, Department of Parks and Recreation, to ensure similar reasonable access to the public park. · The City will share equally in the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the 24' public ingress/egress easement crossing Parcel A once the church has completed the redesign of its parking lot, subject to evaluation and sound engineering judgment, subject to funding availability and subject to appropriation. The City will also share equally the cost to cover the 24' public ingress/egress easement in sealant every ten (10) years, subject to evaluation and sound engineering judgment, subject to funding availability and subject to appropriation. X:\OIDIREAL ESTATE\Acquisitions\WORKING - DEEDS\Opcn Space Projec:tIRPS830 Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church\summaryoftcnns.doc r ~ ./; ~ o o ~ ~ ~~ /) / '~ () OWN R 0 A D DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILLIAMS FARM . 15 NOV 2(IG5 DEPARMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION NIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBUC SCHOOLS WPL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND SURVEYORS CIVI.L ENGINEERERS a 1lIl'_ ,..,.. IDO' I ~" R~~"t. .-a:'3!'.' ".'t' 0.:.:.'$'. ......_10....' .'=: '.' .:. i;t., <u~, . ,..S.. {~\~ i;] "c- ."-j -:....... .' .'J ~.~ ~...~..4".J '''::;~..! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Sale of Property - Williams Farm Parcel to School Board MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: The Williams Farm property is located at 1068 Newtown Road, in the Bayside Planning Area of Virginia Beach. The fifty-seven and six tenths (57.6) acres site was acquired from the Williams family in January 2004 at a cost of five (5) million dollars through CIP 4-004 Open Space Program Site Acquisition. During the planning phase of acquiring the site, and ever since, there has been a commitment to sell a portion of this property to the City of Virginia Beach School Board ("School Board") for elementary school improvement projects. The sale of land totals approximately 17.771 acres to the School Board for $1,264,972. Also, the School Board proposes to dedicate 2.760 acres of land to the City as part of a new right-of-way that will serve both the schools and public park. Attached are exhibits showing the property proposed for sale. . Considerations: The Schools/City Site Selection Committee approved the location and use of the property for an elementary school on July 20, 2005. In addition, the School Board approved the purchase of the site on June 6, 2006. The projects identified for the site are two new elementary schools; a 37.5-acre public multi-use park including open space, and trails; a new public road; regional stormwater management improvements and landscaping for the areas. The entire area includes approximately 90 acres of City and School property, representing a $40,000,000 investment for new community educational and recreational projects. The funding from the sale of the property is requested to fund the Williams Farm Park CIP 4-046. The park site is planned to provide informal athletic facilities as well as multi-use areas for the community; In addition, the park has been planned to accommodate the development of a recreation center facility, if the site is chosen as the most appropriate location. The Newtown Road Elementary School renovation project, New Elementary School 2008, and the Williams Farm Park projects will be contracted for construction together to achieve a more comprehensive and seamless approach to implement the projects. . Public Information: Various public information meetings have been held to explain both the School's acquisition and the development of the Williams Farm Park projects. Most recently, briefings have been provided to the Northwest Beach Partnership, Lake Smith Terrace Civic League, and the Council-appointed Open Space Subcommittee. All three groups were supportive of the projects. In addition, there is a public hearing as part of the approval process for this item, . Alternatives: An alternative would be to not sell the 17.771 acres to the School Board; however, this would significantly delay the two school projects and leave few if any viable alternative locations. · Recommendations: Approval · Attachments: Ordinance; Master Plan for Williams Farm Recommended Action: Approval Submitting DepamnentlAgency: Parks and Recreatioif City Manager: k-,~~ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY 2 MANAGER TO SELL 17.771 ACRES OF REAL 3 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1068 NEWT OWN 4 ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR 5 $1,264,972 TO THE VIRGINIA BEACH 6 SCHOOL BOARD. 7 8 9 10 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the ~City") owns 57.6 11 acres of real property located at 1068 Newtown Road, in the City of 12 Virginia Beach, Virginia (the ~williams Farm property"); 13 WHEREAS, the City desires to sell two parcels totaling 17.771 14 acres of the Williams Farm Property (collectively the ~property") 15 to the City of Virginia Beach School Board (the ~School Board"); 16 WHEREAS, the School Board has a need for the Property as a 17 location for a new elementary school and a portion of the planned 18 Newtown Road Elementary School renovation site; 19 WHEREAS, the revenue from the sale of the Property will fund 20 the construction of park and recreation improvements in conjunction 21 with the planned educational facility improvements on the williams 22 Farm Property; 23 WHEREAS, as a part of the sale of the Property, the School 24 Board has agreed to dedicate to the City a right-of-way consisting 25 of 2.760 acres (the "Right-of-way"); 26 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 27 Virginia (the ~City Council") is of the opinion that the sale of 28 the Property and the planned improvements to the property will 29 provide valuable public resources to the community; 30 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the 31 acceptance of the dedication of the Right-of-Way will promote 32 better use of City-owned property and the overall improvements on 33 the Williams Farm Property. 34 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 35 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 36 1. That the City Council authorizes the sale of the Property 37 pursuant to ~ 15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, 38 which Property is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. 39 2. That the City Council authorizes the acceptance of the 40 dedication of the Right-of-Way pursuant to ~15.2-1800 of the Code 41 of Virginia (1950) as amended, which Right-of-Way is also shown on 42 Exhibi t A_. 43 3. That the City Manager or his designee is further 44 authorized to execute all documents that may be necessary or 45 appropriate in connection with the sale of the Property, so long as 46 such documents are in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached 47 hereto as Exhibit B and acceptable to the City Manager and the City 48 Attorney. 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 50 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. CA9997 X:\OID\REAL EST A TElAssoned Projecls\Williams Fann- Three School Road\ WilliamsFannSaleOrdinanceJune132006.doc R-l June I, 2006 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: - LEGAL ~~~ /Public Works Real Estate APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department EXHIBIT A NOW OR FORMERLY GPIN 1468-82-2230 CIIY OF VIRGINlA BEACH INST. NO. 2004012900 1 5999 EXISTING RIGHT-OF -WAY PROPOSED NOW OR FORMERlY~\ PARCa1A GPlN 1468-82-2230 "- CITY Of' VIRGINIA BEACH \ INST. NO. 200401290015999 \...........-4 ~ ~ ~o \ ~~ ~ r/:,O ~ PROPOSED .. \.' T. HREE SC~OOL RD. .,""1 RIGHT-Or-WAY j........~..........K AREA-133.667' S.F. . . . " OR 3.069 AC. ....,' , \ :/", PROPOSED : r.N:~) PROPERlY LINE \ ..;.. ,. .~ PROPOSED \ _'__" PARCEL 1 0 \ ---. " . .~ \.. ./ "v' \. PROPOSED\ THREE SCHOOL RD. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AREA- 120.230 S.F. OR 2.760 AC. I NEWTOWN ROAD as.tENrAR'f i SCHooL 1m: PROPERlY LINE TO BE EXTINGUISHED i-.-.__._ ~ . -..._-..----~.... ; NOW OR FORMERLY GPIN 1468-82-22.30 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I NST. NO. 200401290015999 CD at - PROPERlY TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CIIY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-W..W DEDICATION BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH EXHIBIT DEPICTING PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FROM THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DATE: APRIL 6. 2006 SCALE: '"=500' ~ ClW'HIC SAl.E REVISED: APRIL 28. 2006 LANDMARK 5544 Greenwich Road - Suite 200 Virginia Sellch. VA 23462 Tel. (757) 473-2000 Fax (757) 497-7933 Emoil: Imd90londmorkdg.com 4029 Ironbound Road - Suite 100 Williamsburg. VA 23188 Tel. (757) 253-2975 Fox (757) 229-0049 Emoil: ImdgOlondmorkdg.com DESIGN GROUP FngIneers . PIanneIs . ~ Larxlsape Ardmas . EnvIrorwnentaI ConsuItlnts DRAWN BY: TH CHECKED BY: ESP DRAWING NO: 3178';/ PROJECT: 2004013-004,08 EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF TERMS AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY 17.7710 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1068 NEWTOWN ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA OWNER: City of Virginia Beach BUYER: School Board ofthe City of Virginia Beach SALE PRICE: $1,264,972.00 payable at Settlement by check. SETTLEMENT DATE: June 15, 2006. Due Diligence is 90 days after contract fully executed. Settlement to occur within 15 days of that date. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: . Dedication ofthe Right-of-Way occurs on or before Settlement. o o ~ -l ~ N R 0 A D ~~~~~ ~ .~'-\~. !e' S-L.. .~..' :s, <.,........ j'~ l~" "'~. ~J.# ~~~~<;-.: ~~~ DEVELOPMENT PLAN m WILLIAMS FARM ~ ~ ISNOV~ ~ DEPARMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION NIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - WPL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECI'S LAND SURVEYORS CIVIL ENGINEERERS . f1 rxr 'JIt1 11I11 ~ I ~~w8E1" .....~,Io'.<....,. .c.:/"- ~~....<.'~",~,,,;~<~~,:%~~ \.,) ........,...,../ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Establish Capital Project #4-046, 'Williams Park Improvements," and Appropriate $1,264,972 from the Sale of property for the purpose of Park Infrastructure Development MEETING DATE: June 13,2006 . Background: The Williams Farm property is located in the 1000 block of Newtown Road in the Bayside Voting District and the Bayside Planning Area. The City acquired the 57.6-acre site from the Williams Family in January 2004 for $5 million through CIP Project #4-004, "Open Space Program Site Acquisition." At the onset of the site acquisition, the City made a commitment to sell a portion of this property to the Virginia Beach School Board for a new elementary school, funded by CIP Project #1-075, "Elementary School 2007 -08." The sale of land to the School Board includes approximately 17.771 acres for a purchase price of $1,264,972. . Considerations: CIP project #4-046, 'Williams Park Improvements," will be established, and the $1,264,972 from the sale of property to the School Board will be appropriated to fund the park infrastructure development for the Williams Park project. The new park site is planned as a 37.5-acre public site to provide flexible-use areas, open space, and trails for the community. The shared access road to the park and school sites is funded as a separate CIP project, #2-053, "Access Road for Elementary School 2008," at a total cost of $1 million. . Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda process. Various public information meetings have been held to explain both the School's acquisition and the development of Williams Park projects. Most recently, briefings have been provided to the Northwest Beach Partnership, Lake Smith Terrace Civic League, and the Council-appointed Open Space Subcommittee. All three groups were supportive of the projects. . Alternatives: The City could decline to sell the property to Schools, which would eliminate the funding source for park development. . Recommendations: Approval . Attachments: Ordinance and Map of Development Plan for Williams Farm Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Parks and Recreatio~ City Manager: ~ t . ~~ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CAPITAL PROJECT #4- 2 046, "WILLIAMS PARK IMPROVEMENTS, " AND 3 APPROPRIATE $1,264,972 FROM THE SALE OF 4 PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARK 5 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 6 WHEREAS, the City acquired the Williams Farm parcel in January 7 2004; and 8 WHEREAS, at the time of the purchase the City committed to 9 selling a portion of the Williams Farm parcel to the School Board 10 for an elementary school. 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 13 1. That Capital Project #4-046, "Williams Park 14 Improvements," is hereby established. 15 2. That $1,264,972 from the sale of property to the School 16 Board is hereby appropriated to the FY 2005-06 Capital Improvement 17 Budget, Project #4-046, "Williams Park Improvements," for park 18 infrastructure development, with revenue from local sources 19 increased accordingly. 20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 21 Virginia,. on the day of , 2006. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~. k. City Attorney's CA10048 X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Wil1iarns Park ORD R-2 June 1, 2006 ~"- ~~~:+~, /9<</1: . '\1:], !gi ~~~ <.!- . :-> 't\~, . l!l l:".",/..-~~~",~J ~.,,,,~,,,,,..~,J~ -.~.... CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $43,560 from Cost Recovery Revenue and $4,944 from the Fire Department Gift Fund to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget MEETING DATE: June 13,2006 . Background: The Virginia Beach Fire Department receives income throughout the fiscal year for cost recovery of expenses mitigating hazardous materials incidents, use of training facilities and instructors, and court-ordered restitution for department expenses related to false calls and intentionally set fires. The Fire Department also receives gifts to the organization. Each of these specific types of unanticipated revenues is placed in an itemized revenue account to facilitate correct appropriation into operating budgets and historical evaluation of cost-recovery efforts. . Considerations: The requested appropriation of cost recovery funds totaling $43,560 will- be apportioned back into the Fire Department's operating budgets for payroll, equipment/supplies and apparatus maintenance/fuel based on the average distribution of expenses for all affected events and incidents during the fiscal year. The gift fund balance of $4,944 will be used to purchase items specifically designated by the donors for livability items for specific stations, Operation Smoke Detector, and special projects of the Life Safety Education program. Without appropriation of cost recovery funding, operating budgets cannot support specific activities such as public private partnerships in training or would be forced to estimate revenues during the annual budget process. Cost recovery is not a steady revenue stream and does not lend itself to incorporation into the budget in that manner. Appropriation of donated funds in this manner maintains accountability as well as improves assurance that funds are used in a timely and appropriate manner. . Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. . Recommendations: Approval. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department City Manager: ~ lL ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $43,560 FROM COST RECOVERY REVENUE AND $4,944 FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GIFT FUND TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 8 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 9 1) That $43,560 in cost recovery revenue is hereby accepted 10 and appropriated to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating 11 Budget for reimbursement of various costs, with miscellaneous 12 revenue increased accordingly. 13 2) That $4,944 in additional gift fund revenue is hereby 14 accepted and appropriated to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 15 Operating - Budget to support several fire programs, with gift 16 fund revenue increased accordingly. 17 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 18 Virginia on the day of , 2006. Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: ~~~ Managem t S rvices ' CA10047 X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Fire Dept Gift Fund ORD R-3 June 2, 2006 ~ai;:::~ ~~.... ~.~2... -a:"'l" ~} f.~ l"~ -- ..~~, t.l:: ~~) (':i- 'E~) (',... ~:,; ".' -~./'",; ~:~..~.!~ ~..,..., CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $350,000 in Federal and State Revenue to Provide Child- Care Subsidies to Eligible Low-Income Parents MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: The Fee System Child Care program is managed and operated by the Virginia Beach Department of Human Services. It provides child-care subsidies to eligible low- income parents who are employed and requires parental co-payments on a sliding-fee scale. The program supports family goals of economic self-sufficiency and child development by providing substitute parental care, protection, guidance, and early childhood education. Payments are made directly to approved child-care providers on behalf of eligible children. Virginia Beach currently serves 1 ,936 children per month from birth to 13 years of age at an average cost to the department of $382 per child per month. State policy requires localities to maintain waiting lists for child care when funds are not available. As of the end of May, Virginia Beach has a waiting list of 559 families with 868 children. The State Department of Social Services provides allocations to localities from the Federal Child Care Development Fund and State General Fund. The State Department of Social Services monitors statewide expenditures and redistributes surplus funds from localities that are not using their allocations. Virginia Beach has received a supplemental allocation of $350,000 for FY2005-06 from these surplus state funds. . Considerations: No additional City funds are required. Without child care, the parents currently receiving subsidies could possibly lose their jobs or be at risk for child neglect. . Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. . Recommendations: Approval. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Human Services ~ ~ City Manager:~'L ,~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $350,000 IN FEDERAL AND STATE REVENUE TO PROVIDE CHILD- CARE SUBSIDIES TO ELIGIBLE LOW-INCOME PARENTS WHEREAS, additional surplus federal and state funds are 7 available to the Department of Human Services to provide child-care 8 subsidies to eligible low-income parents currently on a waiting 9 list for these services. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 1. That $129,850 in additional state revenue is hereby 13 appropriated to the FY 2005-06 Department of Human Services budget 14 to provide child-care subsidies to eligible low-income parents, 15 with state revenue increased accordingly. 16 2. That $220,150 in additional federal revenue is hereby 17 appropriated to the FY 2005-06 Department of Human Services Budget 18 to provide child-care subsidies to eligible low-income parents, 19 with federal revenue increased accordingly. 20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 21 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City Council. Approved As to Content: Approved As To Legal Sufficiency: ~~ CA10051 X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Child Care Surplus ORD R-3 June 2, 2006 ~~ #~;:~.;.f""&) ('ff"~"';;:;'f1,;' fcf : ~.~~- ~~, ~~\~. . r !~~ '-,\~":- , ~.l /J "l:.-t/...~~ ~:r .....~.:.~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $45,703 in Department of Criminal Justice Services Federal Grant Funding to Provide Services to Young Adolescents and Their Families MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Department of Human Services $45,703 for the Department of Criminal Justice Services Multi-Systemic Therapy Grant. Multi-Systemic Therapy is a closely structured and monitored form of in-home therapy for adolescents and families, with the primary focus upon the parents. The Virginia Beach Juvenile Court Service Unit refers families to the program. After five months of Multi- Systemic Therapy, parents should be able to manage their children without further professional intervention. . Considerations: No additional City funds are required. . Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda proc~ss. . Recommendations: Approval. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Human Services City Manager: ~ t, ~~ ~~ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRITATE 2 $45,703 IN DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 3 SERVICES FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING TO PROVIDE 4 SERVICES TO YOUNG ADOLESCENTS AND THEIR 5 FAMILIES 6 WHEREAS, the Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded 7 the Department of Human Services $45,703 in federal grant funding 8 to provide MUlti-Systemic Therapy Services to young adolescents and 9 their families. 10 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 That $45,703 in federal grant funds is hereby accepted from 13 the Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriated to the 14 FY 2005-06 Human Services Operating Budget to provide services to 15 young adolescents who are referred from the Virginia Beach Juvenile 16 Court Service Unit and their families, with federal revenue 17 increased accordingly. 18 19 Adopted by the Virginia, on the Council day of of the City of Virginia Beach, , 2006. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority qf the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: {pIJlVlLU ~ L ctty Attorney' Office CA10050 X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\DCJS Grant ORD R-3 June 2, 2006 ,:~:~t:.~ ~~:~-::; ;.~~ ,..0....... ....""9.,) ~~)' ....,.\::....~~~...-., CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the General Fund and $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund to the FY 2006-07 Operating Budget of the Sheriff's Department to Support the Increased Costs of the Central Booking Program MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . ,Background: The Central Booking Program is responsible for processing arrestees for all law enforcement agencies utilizing the Virginia Beach Correctional Center. This involves fingerprinting and photographing of each arrestee. Currently, the staffing at Central Booking only allows the Sheriff's Department to accept a limited number of prisoners arrested on outstanding warrants from Virginia Beach Police Officers, which requires the officers to appear before a magistrate. With the additional personnel, Central Booking will begin accepting all prisoners brought to the Correctional Center by Virginia Beach Police Officers with outstanding warrant, thus allowing the officers to return more quickly to their regularly-assigned duties. In the approved FY 1991-92 Operating Budget, the City agreed to fund the centralization of Central Booking in the Sheriff's Department. The number of inmates processed in 1995 was 983, while in 2005 the number of inmates processed was 2193, a 123.1% increase. Currently, within the City's budget for Central Booking, there are twenty-nine full-time positions. . Considerations: In order to maintain current services within Central Booking, the Sheriff's Department is requesting four full-time Deputies as well as four full-time Records Technicians. Six positions require funding in FY 2006-07 (four Deputies and two Records Technicians) with the remaining two positions (two Records Technicians) needed in FY 2007- 08. During FY 2005-06, the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department DARE program both experienced vacancies that will generate at least $125,104 in each of their respective funds. This funding will lapse into fund balance of these funds at the close of FY 2005-06 and is available for ,appropriation to fund these positions for one year. In addition to the six positions in FY 2006-07, two additional positions will be included in the Sheriff Department's FY 2007-08 budget, with 50% of the costs provided by the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund and the other 50% provided by City General Fund appropriations. This reallocation will provide permanent funding for all eight positions. . Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. . Alternatives: Without additional funding, Central Booking will transition to the Police Department. . Recommendations: Appropriate $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the General Fund and $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund to the Sheriff's Department FY 2006-07 Operating Budget to provide one-time funding for six positions for Central Booking in the Sheriff's Department. On-going funding for eight positions will be provided through permanent reallocations with the FY 2007-08 budgets of the Sheriff's Department and the City. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department! Agency: Department of Sheriff and Corrections City Manager:~ j.(, ~ b(l"2, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $125,104 FROM THE FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND AND $125,104 FROM THE FUND BALANCE OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND TO THE FY 2006-07 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO SUPPORT THE INCREASED COSTS OF THE CENTRAL BOOKING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the police Department and Sheriff's Department 11 have vacancies in FY 2005-06 that will result in funding lapsing 12 into the Fund Balances of the General Fund and Sheriff's Special 13 Revenue Fund; and 14 WHEREAS, six additional positions are required in FY 2006- 15 07 and two additional positions are required in FY 2007-08 to 16 maintain current services within the Central Booking Program. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 18 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 19 1. That $250,208 is hereby appropriated to the Sheriff's 20 Department FY 2006-07 Operating Budget to support costs of 21 Central Booking in the amounts and sources set forth below: 22 a. $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the General Fund. 23 b. $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the Sheriff's 24 Department Special Revenue Fund. 25 2. That revenue from local sources is hereby increased 26 accordingly. 27 3. That six full-time positions are hereby established in 28 the FY 2006-07 Operating Budget. 29 4. That in addition to the six positions established in FY 30 2006-07, two full-time positions will be added in the Sheriff's 31 Department FY 2007-08 Operating Budget with 50% of the costs for 32 all eight positions to be provided by permanent reallocations 33 within the Sheriff's Department and 50% of the costs provided by 34 the City. 35 5. That this ordinance is effective July 1, 2006. 36 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 37 Virginia on the day of , 2006. Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: .............-.... '-.k (1. f.~~ City Attorney's Office CAI0045 X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Sheriff Central Booking ORD R-3 June 2, 2006 K. PLANNING 1. Application of DANNY K. MARTIN for a Chani!e ofZonini! District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District at 5840 Burton Station Road to develop an office-warehouse facility. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE DEFERRED STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS May 9 and 23, 2006 DENIAL APPROVAL 2. Application of BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, L.C. for a ChanJle of ZoninJl District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-1S Apartment District at 4416 Princess Anne Road to develop multi-family dwellings. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE DEFERRED INDEFINITELY RECOMMENDATION February 28,2006 APPROVAL 3. Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a ChanJle ofZoninJl District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on the north side of the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE STAFF RECOMMENDS March 23, 2004 March 28, 2006 APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE 4 APPROVAL INDEFINITELY DEFERRED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS 4. Application ofLBH, LLC for a ChanJle ofZoninJl District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and B-1A Limited Business District on the west side of Princess Anne Road, southwest of Sand bridge Road, to develop a residential neighborhood of mixed units and a restaurant. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS DENIAL APPROVAL 5. Applications of OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209, 2213, 2217, 2216, 2208 North Oliver Road: DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE a. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford b. Chanfle ofZoninfl District Classification from R-IO (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District c. Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. The fol. lowing applications will be heard: DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Bellamy Associates, L.C. Application: Chan!!e of Zon- in!! District Classification from R-7.5 Residential to Conditional A-18 Apartment at 4416 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 1476609340), The Comprehensive Plan desig. nates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop mult~family dwellings. (This application was indefinitely deferred by City Council on February 28, 2006.) DISTRICT 7 . PRINCESS ANNE AlCAR, L.L.C. Application: Chanee of Zonine District Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural to Condi- tional R.7.5 Residential on the north side of the Nimmo Parkway Right-of-Way (unimproved and Rockingchair lane (GPINS 2404337163; 2404573796; 2404564943). This application was indefinitely deferred by the City Council on March 23, 2004 and March 28, 2006.. lBH, llC Application: ChanE!e of ZoninE! District Clas- sification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural to Condi. tional R-l0 Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and B.lA limited Busi- ness on Princess Anne Road, southwest of Sandbridge Road (GPINs 2404809627; 2403698016; 2403886753; 2403890088; 2403798068; 2403793035; 2414014092). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as part of the Princess Anne Transi. tion Area, suitable for residential uses developed in acCordance with the Comprehensive Plan policies for this area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop a residential neighborhood of mixed unit types and a res. taurant DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Ocean Properties, l.L.C. Application: Chan!!e of Zon- inE! District Classification from R-l0 (SO) Residential to Conditional B-4 (SO) Mixed Use District on property located at 4856. 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209, 2213, 2217, 2216, 2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 1479374693: 1479377611; 1479375680; 1479377588; 1479375753; 1479375863; 1479376912; 1479377850; 1479377750). The Com- prehensive Plan designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area - Shore Drive Corridor. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi-family dwell- ings. Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Application: Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings at 4856. 4840. 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209, 2213. 2217. 2216. 2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 14793746930000; 1479377611; 1479375680; 1479377588: 1479375753: 1479375863; 1479376912; 1479377850; 1479377750). Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive. beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its tenninus at lake Bradford. All citizens are invited to attend. a.~4. /d- Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Copies of the proposed ordinances. resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning or online at httD:/ /www.vbl!:Ov.com/deDt/Dlanninl!:/boards/DC L. For in(onnation call 385-4621. , If you are physically disabled or visually impaired I and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303. Hearing impaired, call: TDD only at 427-4305. (TOO. Tele- phonic Device for the Deaf). Beacon May 28 & June 4, 2006 15176846 - 55 - Item v..K 7. PLANNING ITEM # 55201 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of May 23, 2006, an Ordinance upon application of DANNY .K MARTIN for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF DANNY K. MARTIN FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-5D TO CONDITIONAL 1-1 Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Chanfle or Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road (GPIN 1458894322). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter w: Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None AArn' 0 .,flfI^ - 48- Item V.M.7. PLANNING ITEM # 55152 Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant. Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Diezel, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of June 13, 2006, Ordinance upon application of DANNY K. MARTIN for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF DANNY K. MARTIN FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-5D TO CONDITIONAL I-I Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Chanfle of Zoninfl District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road (GPIN 1458894322). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE This Deferral will enable the applicant to encompass within the proffer that water and sewer be drawn to the property. This is important with an industrial use. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Richard A. Maddox and James 1. Wood May 23, 2006 R-5D o f'ROI'EfaY, CITY OF NORFOLK IAKL W/UCIIT C.oLI' COU/lSL CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Danny K. Martin - Change of Zoning District Classification, 5840 Burton Station Road (DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE) MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road (GPIN 1458894322). DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE This item was deferred by the City Council on May 9 and May 23. After the May 23 meeting, the applicant submitted this additional proffer: 'When the Property is developed, if required by the Grantee, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities to service the Property, or, at the option of the Grantee, participate on a prorate basis in providing public utilities to the service area, which includes the Property." . Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing property, zoned R-5D Residential District, to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District in order to develop a 16,200 square foot office-warehouse facility. According to the application, the primary tenant of the proposed building will be a corporation owned by the applicant. Several setback variances will be sought from the Board of Zoning Appeals as the surrounding properties are all zoned R-5D and thus setbacks beyond those normally required are necessary. A study has been undertaken jointly by the City of Virginia Beach, the City of Norfolk, and the Norfolk Airport Authority to assess the potential for comprehensive development of the area in which this rezoning request is located. The study area is bound by Lake Wright on the west, Northampton Boulevard on the south, Baker Road on the east, and Norfolk International Airport on the north, and comprises approximately 400 acres. The study, known as the Northampton Boulevard Corridor Master Plan Study, is currently in draft form and has not yet been approved by the City Council. The draft study recommends changing the zoning of much of the existing residential property located within the study area to zoning districts that would permit commercial uses. However, prior to such rezoning, the study also recommends assemblage Danny Martin Page 2 of 2 of land for high density development, specifically multi-story class A & B office campus park with mixed uses to include flex/office, research and development and light industrial and retail. While the proposed use can be viewed as consistent with the draft study's basic recommendations to move this area from residential to commercial and industrial uses, the current proposal falls short in that it does not reflect a consolidation of parcels to form a parcel that can support the type of development envisioned . Approval of industrial zoning on this one parcel is equivalent to opening this area to industrial rezoning on a case-by-case basis on small parcels with no assurance of public water or sewer service (water and sewer are not available in this area). If approved, the public's opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, high-quality redevelopment of this area could be compromised. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 7-1 to approve this request, as proffered. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ~ ~ .1f& I'?L. ~~ ~ DANNY MARTIN Agenda Item # 19 April 12, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Chanae of Zonina District Classification from R-5D Residential District to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District. R-SD o f'ROf'urrr. OTY Of NORf(JUr; IMt WR1CHT GOlr COURSC ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 5840 Burton Station Road. GPIN: 14588943220000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 - BAYSIDE SITE SIZE: 1 acre APPLICATION HISTORY: This item was deferred at the January 11, 2006 public hearing. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-5D residentially zoned property to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District in order to develop a 16,200 square foot office warehouse facility. According to the application, the primary tenant of the proposed building will be a corporation owned by the applicant. Several setback variances will be sought from the Board of Zoning Appeals as the surrounding properties are all residentially zoned and thus setbacks beyond those normally required are necessary. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: There is an existing single-family dwelling on the property. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: . Vacant I R-5D Residential District . Single-family dwellings I R-5D Residential District . Vacant I R-5D Residential District . Single-family dwellings I R-5D Residential District D~NYMARrrIN Ag~hpa .ltem;';~Ft9 ~@9!1 NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, however, there are no apparent environmental features on this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Burton Station Road in the vicinity of this request is a two (2) lane collector road, Burton Station Road is not designated on the MTP and improvements are not anticipated in the near future for this right-of-way. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Burton Station 4,200 ADT I 6,200 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use 0< - 20 Road Service "C") - 9,900 ADT 1 ADT (Level of Service "0") Proposed Land Use 3 - 71 ADT , Average Dally Tnps 2 as defined by existing duplex zoning 3 as defined by proposed office/warehouse WATER & SEWER: There is no City water or sewer available to this site. Health Department approval will be required for private wells and septic systems. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this property as party of Strategic Growth Area (SGA) 1 - Northampton Boulevard Corridor Area. The Plan's policies for Strategic Growth Area 1 recognize that this area has evolved into a major employment center in South Hampton Roads with an exceptional transportation access that serves its corporate and industrial clientele. This area should build on its strength as a major corporate, employment and industrial base. A master plan study of this SGA is currently underway through the City's Economic Development Department. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff recommends denial of this request. A study has been EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION D~NNYMAF:I!rIN AgEinda...ltem?~19 ... .....Pag.....e2 , .N,_,_,.:' .....-:... 'C-'':;,,'. ....-;',.,'~',',.._:' undertaken jointly by the City of Virginia Beach, the City of Norfolk, and the Norfolk Airport Authority to assess the potential for comprehensive development of the area in which this rezoning request is located. The study area is bound by Lake Wright on the west, Northampton Boulevard on the south, Baker Road on the east, and Norfolk International Airport on the north, and comprises approximately 400 acres. The study, known as The Northampton Boulevard Corridor Master Plan Study, is currently in draft form and has not yet been approved by the City Council. In sum, the study recommends changing the zoning of much of the existing residential property located within the study area to zoning districts that would permit commercial uses. The study also recommends assemblage of land for high density development, specifically multi-story class A & B office campus park with mixed uses to include flex/office, research and development and light industrial and retail. While the proposed use can be viewed as consistent with the draft study's basic recommendations to move this area from residential to commercial and industrial uses, the current proposal falls short for several reasons. 1. This parcel is one of twenty residential lots along Burton Station Road that the City has identified for acquisition. The land assemblage acquisition strategy for the Northampton Boulevard Corridor Master Plan is scheduled on the City Council pending items list for -a Council briefing in May 2006. 2. This area has a tremendous opportunity to expand and improve the City's economic base. The draft study envisions the redevelopment of underdeveloped properties with uses compatible and complementary to the Norfolk International Airport, and with uses that will take advantage of the area's transportation advantages. This part of the City has exceptional transportation access as the area is served by the Norfolk International Airport, railroad lines linked to both port terminals and land transport, as well as quick access to Interstate 64 and State Route 13. 3. This proposal does not represent an efficient use of the land as the use recommended within the study for this site is class A and B office space. Approval of this proposal would set the stage for the type and quality of future development along Burton Station Road and perhaps, more importantly, limit the opportunity for consolidated and coordinated redevelopment of properties in the vicinity. 4. Staff feels that a piecemeal approach, such as that proposed, falls short of the City's ultimate goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for the Strategic Growth Area #1. Staff has consistently advised those considering development and redevelopment proposals along Burton Station Road to assemble several parcels. The Comprehensive Plan states "Any development proposal should be accomplished through conditional rezoning employing substantial parcel consolidation" (page 63). Staff has consistently recommended against a piecemeal approach for transitioning this residential area to the City's desired goal of creating a major corporate, employment and industrial area. 5. This site and the surrounding area are not currently served by City water and sewer. Approval of industrial development dependent on wells and septic systems is not advised. As mentioned above, approval of this proposal would likely begin a domino effect of piecemeal development reliant on wells and septic systems, contrary to the City's vision of class A and B office space, and other requests similar to this one are sure to follow. In sum, approval of industrial zoning on this one parcel is equivalent to opening this area to industrial rezoning on a case-by-case basis with no assurance of public water or sewer service. If approved, the public's opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, high-quality redevelopment of this area could pass by. I?~NYMA~~IN Ag~n~altem;t!,19 ....~g~t~ PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (S107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is developed, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access, parking and building orientation, the conceptual site plan entitled "PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN OF PART OF BLOCK 17, ON THE PLAN OF CORNICK FARM FOR DANNY MARTIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated September 13,2005, prepared by John E. Sirine & Associates, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be adhered to. PROFFER 2: When the Property is developed, the building referenced on the Concept Plan shall have the architectural appearance, design features and exterior building materials depicted on the eight (8) photographs identified as "Cornick Farm Office Warehouse for Danny Martin," dated September 13,2005, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations") . STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above fail to offset the problems identified with this rezoning, The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated September 29, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Departmf!'nt for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. O:~NY MA~ThfIN Ag~nc:ta Jtem:~i.19 .ie~$i!~ AERIAL OF SUBJECT SITE "~.,'~ . .^F~:,.'<':;' DANNY MARTIN Agenda Item;#: 19 e~ge 5 "'" ;;:' """>,-':':.\>:0'""" .'<\" . CPiIlI~as.-esoa ~....., , S iiS'-48'E CARL .:. il, llllOJii 1lllJSr AI GP....~.5IJ70 121' ~ ... r-~~ ~'SF.1rI.f'~~ 'A - -~b -., :;j CMRAGE DOOR (T'lPIC.\L) I g JLJ I ! 60. \ , \ ~:'t b :;j b g ~ a 0 $I ~! p~~ ., ~ '0 iii ~. t:; I ,.. ~ o <= :{ 1.000 ACRE WA~ilDlHO , 1"-7llO SQ, IT,b 1- lil. Ill.2OO Sl:l.FT. rorAL. IS f/l 1 ~ -~ ; ~ ~ ; ~ I I ~ ,:. a i ? :1'ii of i1", ~ie ~; ~$l ~,. ~ 1- ... !I ti III :so i"i ~ ., i.~! IUl~ ~jl! 5 l! ~~~ f '" lS S '" ~ DOOR (t'iPlCAL; VAIWlCE REWiREll TO WAM: AIlD! !l!:llfJCE . Zl' . (lP.1E!:OIlY. LANDSCAP! At;O. lI.lII.lllHG st1DACK PROPOSED SITE PLAN . .... . - -'. ........'. .-.. '.".-.-- -. -,-..... c.."..'.. .:..: ... DANNYMABTIN Agen~a ..ltemFI19 ~~$JE~t~ PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR ~~NYMA~rrIN Ag~nda .ltemj~:19 ~i.lg~7 PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR DANNY MARTIN Agenda ltelll1l19 P,~ge, 8 PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR ,,,,"". '0- ._"""'_. """""..:" DANNY MARTIN Agenda Item;##: 19 . ....Pag~9 PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR R-5D o PROPER1Y, 01Y Of NORfOLK LAKE WRIGHT GOLf COURSE 00: Conditional Zoning Change from R5D to Condo 1-1 I 1 1 0/08/79 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2 to 0-2) Granted 06/14/82 CHANGE OF ZONING (0-2 to 1-1 Denied Industrial) 01/25/05 Granted 2 02/13/01 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2, 0-2 & 1-1 Granted to Conditional 1-1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (hotel) Granted 3 OS/24/05 CHANGE OF ZONING (Conditional 1-1 Granted to Conditional B-2) 4 01/25/82 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2 to R-8) Granted 5 12/17/84 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (fuel Granted sales) ZONING HISTORY.. Dt~NNY MARTIN Agenda Item4#: 19 .Pag~.11 . Jj DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. list the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Danny K. Martin 2. list all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entitf relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) X Check here if the applicant is NOTa corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. list the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach Jist if necessary) Travis Lee Baker 2, list all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entitr relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) X Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership. firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. 1 & 2 See next page for footnotes Condnional Rezoning Application Page 11 0112 Revised 91112004 z o ....... ~ U ~~ ~ <;.::) Z ....... Z o .N ga ~ o ....... F-c ....... ~ Z o u DISCLOSURE STATEMENT qANNY MA~~IN Ag~"da...ltem~(1.9 . ...~~~~l2 z o ........ ~ u ........ bJ ~ t..::) z ........ z o N ga ~ o ........ f-4 ........ ~ Z o u DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use. including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) John E, Sirine & Associates, Ltd. William E. Wood & Associates Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C. 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Govemment Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship' means "a relationship. other than parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Govemment Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101, CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that. upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for Obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according t . e instructions in package. h ~ Danny K. Martin Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Travis Lee Baker Print Name Cond~ional Rezoning Applica1ion Page 12 of 12 Revised 9/112004 DISCLOSURE STA TEM:ElNT "---..,- '" ... ... :",: ...,.....:., DANNY MARTIN Agenda Item #.19 . . Page} 3 = Item #19 Danny K. Martin Change of Zoning District Classification 5840 Burton Station Road District 4 Bayside April 12, 2006 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #19 Danny K. Martin. An Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R- 5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road, District 4, Bayside. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and I am representing the applicant in this matter, which is Danny Martin. Let me begin by requesting that let me incorporate all my remarks and those of Mr. Travis Baker and Ms. Phyllis Willoughby on this item at your public hearing both on January 11,2006 and February 8,2006 in to the record of this hearing. I'd also respectfully request that a copy of the material that I provided to the Commission that is highlighted portions of our three Comprehensive land use plans relate to Burton Station also be included in the Planning Commission's record of this hearing, which will be forwarded to City CounciL I would like Council to get all of those hearing records and verbatims. Obviously, you have all heard this matter twice, and again, I don't believe there to be any public opposition to this request. The request is in my estimation one that is completely consistent with the land uses recommended for this area in our Comprehensive Plan, and have been so recommended for more than two decades. We have a one-acre site on the north side of Burton Station Road, which is approximately 2oo-feet west of an 0-2 zoned property and an I-I zoned property, which was rezoned from 0-2 hotel development just last year in 2005. There is already a hotel built on the other side of that property and a commercial property being constructed today on the comer of Burton Station and Northampton Boulevard. I don't think Burton Station Road is going to get moved anytime soon. We asked this property be rezoned to I-I Light Industrial for an office warehouse use, which is similar to dozens of other facilities in this very area in an around the airport industrial park. In fact, and almost identical application, in terms of the proposed land use and the size of the property and facility was approved this Planning Commission in January 2006 and City Council of February 2006 for Tank Lines, Inc., and it was on the consent agenda in both cases. I had the privilege of representing them and that property was on Diamond Springs Road near the corner of Northampton Boulevard. This office warehouse is primarily for Mr. Martin's existing successful business. Mr. Marin is a life long resident of Virginia Beach. He has a quick sub lock and interior trim item business that he sells those items that he stocks and creates to builders for new construction and renovation projects. This property like many, many others in Burton Station is and has been zoned R-5 Residential for 5,000 square foot = Item #19 Danny K. Martin Page 2 single-family development for decades, yet there is no water nor sewer has ever been provided. It is because the City, and understandably in my estimation doesn't want to see more residential developments here. That is not a secret. But what is less obvious and still pretty clear to me is the Development Authority of our city has no money, nor any inclination to pay these long suffering property owners the fair market price for their land based upon a land use, which is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. The Baker Family, Mr. Baker is again here today. He's owned this property for more than 43 years. Mr. Martin has offered the Baker Family a fair price. He's proffered the city a very attractive plan for a land use, which is appropriate for this area. He has no problem putting in a generator and a water tank to provide a sprinkler system for the building. That has been done in other areas of the City. The City does not have any money to buy the land. They have been offered the opportunity on numerous occasions including by Martin to pick up his contract. They don't want to pay fair market value for the land. In my estimation as an office warehouse because they don't have any money. Yet, at the same time they're depriving the family owners any ability to develop their property in a manner consistent with the Plan by opposing this type of development. And that is what is recommended to you today that you continue down the road or their stuck in purgatory with nothing they can do with their property. I believe that to be a totally inequitable situation, .which has exhausted the patience of the Baker Family, as I have said who has owned this property for over 43 yeas. Mr. Martin is a well respected established businessman in the city who is willing to come in and build a building that will suit his business needs so he can expand his business in our city, and I don't know how it can get a better utilization of the property given all the circumstances that exist as a "pie in the sky" idea that this property is going to b e accumulated, and we're going to have big office buildings there. We heard a little bit about it, I guess in February by one of the members of Development Authority team members of coming to speaking to you. As much as I think a lot of might like to see it, it is not reality. These people need to be able to utilize their property in a manner that is fair and equitable and consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. I believe this application is purely and clearly that, and I read in the paper not to many weeks ago. I believe Vice Mayor Jones said there is no money and doesn'tthink there is going to be any money to do anything out here because all of our assets are being bundled into buying land in APZs and Interfacility Traffic Areas, and other parts of the City. This isn't going to blow the plan for Burton Station is my point. It is the type of use that will go in Burton Station and should go in Burton Station. But these folks just can be continued to be put down and not have the opportunity to develop their property. Thank you. I hope you all will see fit to recommend approval of the application as proffered, and pass this on to City Council. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bourdon, when you said that the City had no money, I understand what you said, and understand the reason with the BRAC concerns and stuff, does the Development Authority have no money either? Item #19 Danny K. Martin Page 3 Eddie Bourdon: As I understand it Mr. Knight, and you heard from the realtor two months ago. There is no money available that can earmarked to buy property there. Mr. Martin met with the Real Estate Department City of Virginia Beach when this came up in January and they were asked how much is your contract for, gave them the answer. We can't buy it. We don't have any money. I don't know what else I can tell you. All they told us was there was no money. I want the application approved. Don't get me wrong but a bigger point, and I think that is one that the City can't continue to ignore is we got to do something to allow these people out here who don't have title problems, who don't have title issues and want to see some use of their property, the opportunity to do something if there is a plan that is proposed, as I believe this one is and that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines with regard to an industrial use, an office warehouse for that area. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. Are there any other speakers Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: There are no other speakers. Barry Knight: I'll open it up for discussion. Mr. Bernas. = Jay Bernas: I don't know if anyone on staff can help me with some clarification as far as what is going up to Council in May? I understand that when we were briefed by the Development Authority in February that it was suppose to be heard on February 28, 2006, and it was postponed to May. What exactly is going to City Council in May? Robert Scott: I can tell you generally what is going to City but not exactly. There will be, I suspect a discussion about how to go forward with development in this area. I agree with a lot of what Mr. Bourdon told us just now. I do. I agree with everything that he said. I agree with a lot. I don't agree with a "pie in the sky" plan. It's a tough plan to pull off but we pull of a lot of tough plans. But it is going to involve a more investment - . by the City that what is taken place. Obviously, I don't think the issue is lack of money so much as it was, I understand discussions that took place that the property owner and our City real estate people were not together on price. And maybe we need a long harder look at that in practices of using their advantage that is inappropriate but I think that is what created the problem. I feel like the City Council is going to have to make some decisions about this. This is some of the things that Mr. Bourdon mentioned. I think that some discussions have got to be held and some decisions have got to be made about what we are going to do this area and its development and our approach to people, who own property in that area right now today. So generally speaking, that is the kind of discussion that I think will at least start. Where it goes, I don't know. But I think that is the start of the discussion. Barry Knight: Thank you, Are there any other questions? Discussion? Mr. Ripley. Item #19 Danny K. Martin Page 4 = Ronald Ripley: Yeah. I think the applicant has been very patient and I think back to an application that we had on the hotel, which is just to east of this property and it's at the comer of Northampton and Burton Station. We had the same kind of dilemma. This goes back quite a few years. The hotel application wanted to move forward but we had this potential joint plan with the City of Norfolk and the City of Virginia Beach. That happened to some extent but it just didn't seem to die. Of course, a couple of months ago we addressed this again, and we were told there was going to be some discussion at the City Council level and that didn't take place. I understand that things get put off. We certainly had some urgency with BRAe. No disrespect intended by that statement. But, in all due respect to the applicant, I think the applicant has rights to. I felt all along too that if you don't have any money and if you have a plan in place, which would be very helpful we could develop around a plan but we don't have a plan in place. This seems to fit within and I don't disagree with the applicant's attorney said, its consistent with, in my mind, the Comprehensive Plan of what could go into this area. And it would not be consistent, I don't think for someone to develop this residentially at this time. I think that would be inconsistent with the future of the Burton Station area. I think this would fit in. I think maybe the plan would have to work around this to some extent. But I don't think that it is that hard to work around. It's facing up on the road. It's not like it's in the path of someth!ng new. There might be some new right-of-way that's been planned but it would probably remove the hotel if it were to extend through this property other than the way it is laid out. Ijust can't see why we should not act on this. I'm going to vote in favor of the application. I think we ought to move it off the Planning Commission, move it to City Council, and if City Council, Lord knows what happens when it gets there, but that will be at their desk. For us, to keep here bouncing at Planning with no direction, and I don't mean that derogatory but there is no real direction that we could get our hands around, given the consistency of what I think is proposed for the area, I think that it is appropriate to approve it. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I tend to agree with Mr. Ripley. Just what I don't think we have been given any real concrete reasons why we should not proceed with this application and go forward. What is proposed and what is out there, in the future, I may live long enough to see it. Who knows? But this is here and now. I think the applicant has been put off long enough that he needs to have answer. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Henley Al Henley: I agree with Mr. Ripley and Mr. Crabtree. I think this applicant's family has owned this for 43 years and now he has an application that I feel that is a proper use. He has a business that he will utilize this facility for. I think if the City had a concrete plan, and if this application was in conflict with that, then I think we would have a lot of concerns but right now it is not. I think it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. I would be favor of this application. Item #19 Danny K. Martin Page 5 Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Livas. Henry Livas: Yes. I would support this also. I think it is compatible with the overall plan in that area. I think it is time to move it along. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: Although I agree with the other Commissioners as probably compatible, I think give the same rationale that we deferred this item in February that it was going to be heard by City Council, which was suppose to be February 28, 2006, and we know, hopefully, it will be heard in May. Given that same rationale that hopefully with the plan that theyare presenting to City Council will give us some direction on how this whole entire area will develop and whether or not what is going on with Norfolk International Airport Authority, I think given that same rationale why we deferred it initially, I would recommend deferring it until City Council hears it in May. Barry Knight: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Strange. = Joseph S~ange: Well, I agree with so far with Jay except I think that the applicant has been patient enough. I think when does your patience run out? To me, I think the time is now. I think this person is very financial. I'll be voting to support the application even though I wish we had better information to make a decision. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Strange. Is there any more discussion? Let's entertain a motion. Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: I'd move that we accept the proposal. Barry Knight: We have a motion made. Do I have a second? Al Henley: I'll second it. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. We have a motion on the floor made by Kathy Katsias and a second by Al Henley to approve Danny Martin, agenda Item #19. Is there any other discussion? Call for the question. AYE 7 NAY 1 ABSO ABSENT 3 ANDERSON ABSENT BERNAS NAY CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE Item #19 Danny K. Martin Page 6 LIV AS RIPLEY STRANGE WALLER WOOD AYE AYE AYE ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 7 -1, the Board has approved the application of Danny K. Martin. Eddie Bourdon: Can I briefly thank you all very much. I wanted to apologize to Mr. Scott. I did use the term "pie in the sky" and that was really directed at what was said about moving Burton Station Road at the briefing a couple of months ago. I don't think there are any plans of "pie in the sky." Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any other business to be brought before the Commission today? If not, we will call the meeting adjourned. = Item #16 Danny K. Martin Change of Zoning District Classification 5840 Burton Station Road District 4 Bayside liebruary 8, 200~ REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary, will you call the first item to be heard and ask for his representative? Joseph Strange: The first item to be heard is Item #16 Danny K. Martin. An Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road, District 4, Bayside with two proffers. Barry Knight: Welcome. Eddie BOll!don: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I represent Mr. Martin, who is in the audience this afternoon. The two folks that have just come forward, I'm going to let them speak for a moment. You heard me last month and I'll talk a little bit more about what you already were briefed this morning. This is Mr. Travis Baker. Mr. Baker and his family own this property and have owned this property for approximately 40 years. Ms. Willoughby is a licensed commercial real estate agent and she has had this property and others listed. She has some testimony that she would like to put on the record. After that, I'll talk to the application again. Barry Knight: Thank you. Welcome sir. State your name. Travis Baker: Hello. Travis Baker. Barry Knight: Sir. Travis Baker: This morning, in the informal meeting, I think it was and I listened to the Project Development Management give his presentation. While some of what he said was inaccurate, some of it was true. The City did start acquiring the properties out there in 1992. Three years ago, they did send an appraiser out to us. What they did was they had two appraisers. We had to pick an appraiser from the list. They told us we could have one of our own and they would send one. Well, the one that we would have was the one they had selected. We had a list of appraisers that they gave us that we had to choose from. The appraiser came out and told us that the City was going to allow us to move into another house of the same size house that we already had. That was their plan to acquire our homes. He told us that if we were living in a two-bedroom one-bath house, Item #16 Danny K. Martin Page 2 ~ that is what we would be allowed to move into, irregardless of the number of acres we were sitting on now. None of us thought it was fair. That is not how business is done. So they went ahead and did an appraisal and we all fell that the price was too low. Now, I have a ratified contract on the house now. The selling price is twice the amount that Virginia Beach was willing to pay me for the property. Every one out there wants to sell their property.. Everyone. We're not trying to hold the city up. The Developmental Manager asks for February 28,2006, and he was speaking in theory that Virginia Beach might come up with the money to acquire those properties out there. This has been going for 15 - 20 years now. I have a ratified contract today and I can close on the property if you guys go ahead and let us rezone it. It is going to be rezoned anyv,ray just like the developmental manager said. So, that is about it. I have a lot to say but I can't think of all of it right now. But that is the gist of it. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Baker. Travis Baker: Thank you. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. State your name please. Phyllis Willoughby: Good afternoon. I'm Phyllis Willoughby. I'm an Associate Broker with William E. Wood and Associates. I was originally introduced to the group Burton Station in 1992. I spoke before the Council members years ago. I was brought in again in 2004, and met the homeowners. And yes, they are interested in selling their property. I listed, which I have a list or properties. I don't know if you want to see those. Barry Knight: You can hand them to Mr. Livas. Phyllis Willoughby: So those were all the properties that I have listed. As you can see where the dots are, are where the properties are located. And, I market the properties internationally. I even went to the City and brought them the same information that I had all these properties listed. These homeowners are interested in selling their homes. I gave them all the information and they came back and told me that they weren't interested in purchasing. I mean this is what they just told me in 2005 when I went to the office. And, I spoke to Mr. Lawson personally and he said that they have not been able to get together on the future plans. It could be 20 years, 30 years from now, and that I was really just shooting in the dark. But I had confidence in these homeowners and I felt they had been oppressed for so many years, and I felt that I would give my best energy into marketing. Like I said, I market internationally and so I was able to sell a few. The problem is that it doesn't have city water and sewage there. It's an ideal location. The city has been, you know, one minute they said they do. I got them all listed. They had the opportunity because the people have signed even all the heirs so there were not title issues at that point. And they were willing to sell their properties but they were not willing to purchase them. And now that we have someone interested in paying the price to the buyer now we're going back and forth again and he's being stopped from selling his property. Do you have any questions for me? Item #16 Danny K. Martin Page 3 Barry Knight: Ron. Ronald Ripley: Did you have all these listings at one time? Phyllis Willoughby: Yes, I did sir. Ronald Ripley: And you went to the City and suggested they be interested in purchasing them and they said they were not? Phyllis Willoughby: Yes. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Phyllis Willoughby: I personally went there myself. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you ma'am. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, I lived here all my life and I'm very familiar with this area. I'm not familiar with it as some other people but those residential developments or related businesses, I think recognize that this is very valuable corridor in the Comprehensive Plan as I mentioned last month has recognized it for quite a number of years. I do not know of any area where people have been basically subjected to what this area has been subjected to now, as Mr. Hudome mentioned this morning twenty years. Mr. Baker mentioned to me that as Mr. Hudome mentioned this morning it has been a career for people. They have been working on this area for 20 years. It's more than a career for his family. They've owned the property for 40 years. They got no water. They got no city water, no city services, and no city sewer. The reason they don't, and I would submit, is because the city and the development authority wants to acquire these properties and to put infrastructure in would make them more valuable, and cost the taxpayer more money. One hand I could appreciate that but on the other hand it's long past time for these people to be able to do something with their property. As was stated this morning, they don't want it zoned residential even though it is zoned residential. We have submitted a plan, fair market value purchaser coming to the plate to develop the property, and it's a plan that is consistent with other plans for development that exists in that area, including one that you all recommended for approval at Diamond Springs and Northampton Boulevard just last month and it's a difficult situation for a lot of people. It's past time that something be done about it. I wanted you to hear their testimony. This isn't an appraisal situation. This is a fair market value contract that Mr. Martin has. Mr. Martin is a Virginia Beach businessman, developer. He is ready to go in and do what he has proposed. We didn't know anything about the comments we heard from Mr. Smith this morning. We are absolutely certain we can deal with those issues with regard to fire suppression sprinkler systems. There is a way to do that. There is more than one way to do that. The last thing I would say on the subject is these plans are super secret that no one has seen. I heard Mr. Hudome say that Burton Station Road is going to be moved. This body and City Council rezoned two pieces of property on Burton Station Road. One Item #16 Danny K. Martin Page 4 already has a hotel on it and the one there's a planned hotel for it. We got a commercial structure going in on the corner at Burton Station and Northampton. All of this has been done in the last couple of years. None of us knew it was going to be moved. It wasn't going to be there any more. So, my beef is not with the Planning Department in any way, shape, manner, or form. I'm not here to really have a beef with anybody. Ijust think its past time that these property owners be dealt with appropriately. Let them, if they got an appropriate development that's industrial let them do it. Otherwise, it's long past time the City brought the property at fair market value. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thanks. Barry Knight: Let's open it up for discussion. Ron. Ronald Ripley: I support the application. I think the application is the appropriate type use for the area. The hotel, which was just mentioned, was brought forward because of the frustration of this Master Plan, and the possibilities of it working out in the long term stigma. It's really going to put on the whole area until you actually move forward with a Master Plan. With that said, I also support a Master Plan for the area. I think it's a fantastic area that's within the Comprehensive Plan that suggests that it could be an excellent commerce park for both cities ifthey actually can get together. I just doubt if they're going to do that in the foreseeable future. If they did, it would be great. I think what we heard this morning is that the Council is going to be briefed on the 28th, and I hate, we've done a lot of deferring lately, I hate to do that because I think we need to move items through, and I think we need to move them on but sometimes it's important to just to get all the facts. The same thing we did this morning with the Shore Drive piece. We don't have all the facts. I'm not sure we have all the facts here either. What the intent of the city is as far as actually moving forward with a Master Plan. Realistically approaching funding or how it can acquire property so I've got mixed emotions. I like to see this application go forward. I do support it. The point of actually getting into if this would actually go to a vote today, I would vote for it. But I would like to recommend that we defer this again to allow the City Council to receive the report and react. Perhaps they can discuss acquisitions or whatever with the property owner. I don't know. I don't want to get in the middle of that. I'm really more about land use but I think we need to take it to that step, and then hear it, and vote on it next month. Barry Knight: I think we have a motion to defer by Mr. Ripley. Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: A second by Dot Wood. I'll open it up back for discussion. I'd like to say that it has been a very, very long time that Burton Station is an area that I understand that the City wants to upgrade and has wanted to upgrade for many, many years. I personally know there are some problems with acquiring some of the properties at Burton Station Item #l6 Danny K. Martin Page 5 but I think the City should have moved a little faster on moving forward on it, and I certainly hope that the City Council will read our verbatim and see there are some property owners, Mr. Baker in particularly, think maybe is being held hostage by a plan or lack of a plan, and hopefully they will take that into consideration on their deliberations on February 28th. I know there are people out there that need to do something with their property. Go ahead Jan. Janice Anderson: Thank you. I just want to make one comment. It is my understanding that even if this plan gets approved and goes forward on it, that would still be a voluntary acquisition by the City. So, if the City goes back to these owners and says this is what we'll pay you under this plan that is not acceptable then they still can develop their property l:;>y right and it would be changed to zoning. So, I am a little bit more sympathetic that this has been since 1992 since the plan started. And even though I think it has a little more momentum now, I don't have any good feeling that it would be closed in the near future. So, those are my comments. I don't believe the gentleman should be held up any longer. Barry Knight: Are there any other comments? AI. Al Henley~ I have a question of Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Mr. Henley. Al Henley: Mr. Bourdon, this morning you were in the briefing, and it was indicated by the Fire Department, Mr. Smith that there was some legitimate concerns regarding fire suppression. There weren't any fire hydrants and water lines in that area. And, there was some other issues concerning their turn around movement and so forth, and you had indicated in your statement just a few moments ago that you were willing to get with your client and you thought they were able to resolve those? Can you elaborate on that? Eddie Bourdon: That was the first we heard of any of those questions and issues. I'm very happy and comfortable with Chief Smith, and talked about those issues. As far putting sprinkler systems in the building, we can put in a holding tank on site, generator and a commercial grade system using our own generator, electrical power on site or putting a water line there. We know where it is coming. That's the proper way of doing it. In terms of the layout and turn around, again, didn't know anything about that being an issue or a problem. There are a number of facilities and some, which were approved last month with a similar type of design. If we need to tweak that to make the turn around, we can do that. I understood them to say that as long as you had a sprinkle, the turn around situation was less a problem. We can sprinkle the building. We're more than happy to sit down and work through those issues. We're confident we can do that. But the first we heard of the issue was this morning. I don't expect to deal with it here before you all. I expect it to be done before it comes to you all. That wasn't something that was brought to our attention until this morning. Item #16 Danny K. Martin Page 6 Al Henley: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Barry Knight: Joe. Joseph Strange: I agree with Ron. I think even though this has been dragging on for years, I think at this point people are moving on these issues over there and we just saw a plan this morning. I'm thinking on what it would do to the value of the land if the plan goes through implemented. I mean, I think there are just a lot of questions at this point that a 30-day deferral would help solve. I'll be in support of a deferral.. Barry Knight: Is there any more discussion? There is a motion to defer. The first was made by Ron Ripley and seconded by Dot Wood. I'll call for the question. ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE HENLEY KATSIAS KNIGHT LIV AS RIPLEY STRANGE WALLER WOOD AYE 10 NAY 1 ABSO ABSENT 0 NAY AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-1, the application of Danny K. Martin has been deferred. ."""'"''''''''."."''''''',.'''~.='"'''.'''''~=="="..,,'''''''''._~~.,,',,.,,=''''''"",",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Section Break (Next Page )"""''''''''''''"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"''...'.='''''''''''''''''''''""."',".".",=,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,...=.,,,, Item #16 Danny K. Martin Page 7 Item # 1 Danny K. Martin Change of Zoning District Classification 5840 Burton Station Road District 4 Bayside , January 11, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: We'll now proceed to our regular order and we'll go to agenda Item #1 Danny K. Martin. Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: An Ordinance upon Application for a Change in Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road, District 4, Bayside. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm representing Mr. Martin, and the owners of this piece of property have owned this piece of property and this location for many decades and generations. I'm passing out and Ms. Lasley is kind of enough to pass out to you all just excerpts from first of all the 1991 Virginia Beach Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted March 5, 1991 and the November 4, 1997 Virginia Beach Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted November 4, 1997. I've highlighted references in both ofthese plans to Burton Station. First of all, read the 1991 comment in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It states that "the Burton Station area between Airport Industrial Park, Norfolk International Airport, the City Line and Northampton Boulevard can appropriately be developed under conditional zoning as a low rise medium intensity office park and light industrial area. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan states, "the attractiveness ofthe Northampton Boulevard, Diamond Springs Road area as a light to heavy commercial and industrial center contributes to the City's overall economic health and vitality. It enjoys a unique combination of air, rail, and interstate highway access. It is the policy of the City to support employment based land uses in the Northampton Boulevard area including industrial, commercial and office activity." This property is over an acre in size. And as I said, the owners have owned it for generations. There is no water. There is no sewer. There are no plans to provide water and sewer. We certainly recognize that for close to 20 years, the City has been trying to acquire land in this area for a comprehensive development for industrial and commercial uses. We have a proposal here on this piece of property that is consistent with the one you just approved on the consent agenda at the comer of Northampton Boulevard and Diamond Springs Road. And it is consistent with other development in the Airport Industrial Park area. We do understand that staff has indicated there is opposition to this and your desire to defer it. I want everybody to understand that the people who own this piece of property have been waiting and they've been waiting and they've been waiting. We have someone here who has come to the table offering them good money and wishes to develop the property in accordance with what our Comprehensive Plan have been indicating as what we want to see. Now, again going on 20 years. It is really unfortunate that people who are stuck in that position where they can't develop their property residentially because it is not what people want to see. I guess they're waiting for some government buyer to come along and by all the property. I don't see that is going to happen anytime soon. I think it is time for the private sector and I know the private sector is going to do it and in . this case when we see little bit of it and as you head a little bit south on Burton Station Road towards Northampton Boulevard where we finally seeing some development that . has been approved. We think that it is a very good application. We think it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We have not been advised of any changes suggested that are to be made to the plan to make it better. We've been told basically that the City or the Development Authority wants to assemble a whole piece of property, all of it around it, then do something different pursuant to a plan that you all haven't seen and I haven't seen. So, we believe it is a good application. The owners of the property, who Mr. Martin has purchased it with, are not comfortable with this being shoveled aside. But you all understand and want to see some things and appreciate some ofthe comments that I've heard from you all in the informal. I can't agree to a deferral but if you were to defer it that is your prerogative at this point. But I certainly hope that this process will move forward more swiftly then it has in the last two decades. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Bourdon? _ Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: I don't know if this is Mr. Bourdon for Mr. Scott. The right-of-way that has been dedicated in here, what is the Master Transportation Plan call for this road? Do you know right offhand? Robert Scott: I would have to look at the write up. Ronald Ripley: It says it has got a la-foot right-of-way dedication. I guess that is sufficient. Robert Scott: Mr. Ripley, I don't know. I'm going to have to research it. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thanks. Barry Knight: Any other comments or discussion? Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: I would like to make a motion that we defer this until February so that we have a chance to have the Economic Development Director with us. Also, I believe that City Council is seeing a package in February that will relate to this property. Barry Knight: A motion to deferby Dot Wood. Do I have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree seconds. It is open for discussion. Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: What is the date again that the Council will be briefed? Do you know? Robert Scott: In the next week or two I believe. Ronald Ripley: We will have an opportunity to see the study prior to the next Planning Commission Public Hearing? Robert Scott: I will see to it that you are properly briefed prior to the next time this application is brought before you. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? We have a motion on the floor to defer Item # 1 Danny K. Martin. The motion was made by Dot Wood and seconded by Gene Crabtree.. Let's call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KA TSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE W ALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has deferred the application of Danny K. Martin. Barry Knight: Thank you. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE I n Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6324 DATE: June 2, 2()06 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley \;J B. Kay Wil~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Danny K. Martin The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated September 29, 2005 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 las Enclosure. . cc: Kathleen Hassen ~.;i'~"-':;;". PREPARED BY: I;JIB SYKhS. ROURDON, DI AHrnN & liVY. P.c. DANNY K. MARTIN TRAVIS LEE BAKER TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 29th day of September, 2005, by and between DANNY K. MARTIN, party of the fIrst part, Grantor; TRAVIS LEE BAKER, party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the third part, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of he second part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 1.00 acre of land which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, th~ party of the first part as contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN: 1458-89-4322o 1 PREPARED BY: ISB sms. ROURDON. DI AHrnN & IIVY. P.c. WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the I-I Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the ?eed for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access, parking and building orientation, the conceptual site plan entitled "PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN OF PART OF BLOCK 17, ON THE PLAN OF CORNICK FARM FOR DANNY MARTIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia" dated September 13, 2005, prepared by John E. Sirine & Associates, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City 2 PREPARED BY: ~ SYKfS. ROURDON. mn AIlrnN & [[\TV. P.C Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"), shall be substantially adhered to. 2. When the Property is developed, the building referenced on the Concept Plan shall have the architectural appearance, design features and exterior building materials depicted on the eight (8) photographs identified as "Comick Farm Office Warehouse for Danny Martin", dated September 13, 2005, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on me ~th the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations"). 3. When the Property is developed, if required by the Grantee, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities to service the Property, or, at the option of Grantee, participate on a prorata basis in providing public utilities to service area, which includes the Property. 4. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City ager:'-cies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or 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 goveming 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. 3 PREPARED BY: ~ SYnS, ROURDON. mil AIU:RN & UVY. P.c. Grantors covenant and agree that: ( 1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for pu blic inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of Grantors and the Grantee. 4 PREPARED BY: ~ svns. ROURDON, m AHruN &. lIVY. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: D STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of October, 2005, by Danny K. Martin, Grantor. /('/f.f? K /I ynl&d:./}_ Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 $ 5 PREPARED BY: 13m SYJ(I:S, ROUROON, mDI Am:RN & 1M. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: STATE OF VIRGJ~ oI7JI... ~OUNTY OF (ilk , to-wit: . - J'l,iJ." The foregoing instrument was ac owledged before me this d!!.~ay of f.jfl,{IJUY , 2005, by Travis Lee Bake, Grantor. My Commission Expires: - /fI~'b1 6 PREPARED BY: 5tIB SYI:IS. ROURDON. mil Am;:RN & lIVY. P.C EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT certain lot or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach (formerly Kempsville District, in the County of Princess Anne) State of Virginia, being mown, numbered and designated as Part of Block 17, on Plan of Cornick Farm, Which plan is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne County), Virginia, in Deed book 66, at Page 156, said property being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northeastern side of Burton Road at the southern corner of tract conveyed by J. L. Roberts, et ux, to Menser C. Brown, by Deed dated June 11, 1951, and recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 288, at Page 105, which said point of beginning is 183 feet (as measured along the northeastern side of Burton Road) North of the northern side of Farm Road #4 (as said Farm Road #4 is shown on the Plan of Cornick Farm aforesaid); thence North 270 49' East along the southeastern side of property conveyed to Menser C. Brown as aforesaid 362.3 feet to a pin; thence South 550 48' East 121 feet to a pin; thence South 270 49' West 362.3 feet to a pin in the northeastern side of Burton Road; thence North 550 48' West along the northeastern side of Burton Road 121 feet to the point of beginning. GPIN: 1458-89-4322 ConditionalRezone /Martin /Proffer 7 - 49- Item V-K 7. PLANNING ITEM # 54970 The following registered in OPPOSITION: James Myers, 1105 Larkwood, Phone:467-8588, concerned relative density and traffic Debbie Westbrook, 1232 Heathcliff Drive, Phone: 495-7479, resident of Bellamy Woods, requested INDEFINITE DEFERRAL to study and redesign the proposed entrance of the application Josephine Krantz, 4833 Berrywood Road, Phone: 495-3577, Vice President - Bellamy Woods Civic League, requested INDEFINITE DEFERRAL . Upon motion by Councilman Diezel, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY Ordinance upon application of BELLAMY WOODS, LC. for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPliCATION OF BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, L.c. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R- 7.5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL A-i8 Ordinance upon Application of Bellamy Associates, L. C. for a Chan!!e of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District on property located at 4416 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 14766093400000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi-family dwellings. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Robert M. Dyer February 28, 2006 t~ ~~t CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Bellamy Associates, L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Bellamy Associates, L.C. for a Chanae of Zonina District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District on property located at 4416 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 14766093400000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi- family dwellings. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE This item was indefinitely deferred by City Council on February 28, 2006. . Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-7.5 Residential properties to Conditional A-18 Apartment to develop the site with 120 multiple-family dwellings. The site is somewhat shaped like a triangle, with 91-feet fronting Princess Anne Road and then flaring to 535-feet at the rear of the site. The proffered site plan depicts 30 buildings, parking, cabana and pool, and storm water management facility with a lake fountain. The proposed buildings are arranged along the perimeter of the site with most of the parking inside the site. Category IV screening is depicted along the sides and rear property lines. Additionally, the plan shows for the retention of the existing wooded area along the rear property line. The submitted architectural elevations depict models that the developer has used in other communities throughout the city. The buildings are two stories with four units each. The building materials are standard siding and faux shake siding. Examples of the product can be found at the intersections of Princess Anne Road and Providence Road and Upton Drive and Elson Green Avenue. The applicant desires that this project meet a need for workforce housing in this area of the city. The applicant is working with the City's Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Department for information on low-interest mortgages, and is targeting a sale price of $200,000.00 or less. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed use is considered as infill Bellamy Associates, L.C. Page 2 of 2 development since it occurs on defined parcels or tracts of land that are surrounded by an established arrangement of land uses of similar character. Land uses proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard area and other design considerations should complement and reinforce the predominant physical character of the surrounding area. The proposal for workforce housing is compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods as well as the business areas. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request as proffered. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manager: ~ O'8ll1'i BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, L.C. Agenda Item # 19 January 11, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Chanae of Zonina District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4416 Princess Anne Road GPIN: 14766093400000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 2 - KEMPSVILLE SITE SIZE: 10.063 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-7.5 Residential properties to Conditional A-18 Apartment to develop the site with 120 multiple-family dwellings. The submitted conceptual site plan depicts a site shaped somewhat like a triangle, with 91-feet fronting Princess Anne Road and flaring to 535-feet at the rear of the site. The plan depicts 30 buildings, parking, cabana and pool, and storm water management facility with a lake fountain, The proposed buildings are arranged along the perimeters of the site with most of the parking inside the site. Category IV screening is depicted along the sides and rear property lines. Additionally along the rear property line the plan calls for the retention of the existing wooded area. The submitted architectural elevations depict the standard homes this developer produces. The buildings are two stories with four units each. The building materials are standard siding and faux shake siding. Examples of the product can be found at the intersections of Princess Anne Road and Providence Road and Upton Drive and Elson Green Avenue. The applicant believes this project will meet a need to provide workforce housing in this area of the city. They are in contact with the City's Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Department for information on low-interest mortgages, and are targeting a sale price of $200,000.00 or less. ".,.,';"-:" .'.- (',-~,...:>::, F"-".'::",' :':-"--':,' '::';:__. .'_.' "'_,' BELLAMY AS~oPIATES~:~~C~ A<,~oda lterr:i,:irt9.. '. .' .::ffl'El~~J LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Three vacant single-family dwellings. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: · Timberlake and Brenneman Farm - single-family and multiple- family dwellings / PD-H1 and PD-H2 Planned Unit Development · Princess Anne Road · Military Housing, Gas Station and Strip Retail / R-7.5 Residential and B-2 Business . A church / R-7.5 Residential South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with the site. A1CUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTPl / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIPl: Princess Anne Road is a four lane divided major urban arterial. There is a roadway improvement project for the widening of this section of Princess Anne Road in the current Capital Improvement Plan in the "requested but not funded" section. Based upon the trips to be generated by the proposed 132 multiple-family project a right turn lane is warranted according to the Public Works Standards. The proposed density of the project generates 51 right turns in the peak hours. A right turn lane is warranted at 35 right turns per hour. Due to the limited frontage of the site on Princess Anne Road Traffic Engineering requested that the applicant explore the following issues concerning the access to the site: 1. Work with the neighboring property owner (the gas station) to close their western most entrance and build an exclusive turn lane for the development. 2. . Reduce the number of proposed units to 90. 3. Eliminate the proposed median at the entrance to the site and reduce the entrance to 30-feet in width at the right-of-way line. The applicant performed the following: 1. The applicant contacted the adjacent property owner regarding closure of their western most entrance. They are unwilling to work with the applicant. 2. The applicant reduced the number of proposed units from 132 to 120. The proposed project is for "work force" housing and any further reduction in units will not make the project feasible. The reduction in units reduces the right turns from 51 to 46. The difference is 11 turns in warranting a right-turn lane. 3. The applicant will move the median, or entrance feature, further into the property and reduce the entrance at the right-of-way to 3D-feet. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Princess Anne 37,278 ADT 1 31,700 ADT 1 Existing Land Use ~ - Road 335 ADT Proposed Land Use 3 - 813 ADT Average Dally Tnps 2 as defined by 35 single-family dwellings currently permitted 3 as defined by 132 multiple-family dwellings as requested WATER: There are two 20-inch city water mains fronting the site. This site must connect to City water. SEWER: There is an eight-inch city gravity sanitary sewer and a 16-inch force main fronting the site. This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station #543 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: Schoo1 Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment White Oaks 624 597 10.8 1 Elementary Larkspur Middle 1822 1866 4.7 -1 Green Run High 1712 1866 7.1 0 '" ' . generation represents the number of students that the development Will add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles in the Comprehensive Plan for the Primary Residential Area focuses strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area, In a general sense, the established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION <r>':;--'. .; ,"\,:,.. -', ,....-. -'.w,'--' /-"", ,'. -"~' -A \~ ',,,-; BELLAMY ASSOCIATES ~9~oda Ite ... request with the submitted proffers. The proffers are provided below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed use is considered as infill development since it occurs on defined parcels or tracts of land that are surrounded by an established arrangement of land uses of similar character. Land uses proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard area and other design considerations should complement and reinforce the predominant physical character of the surrounding area. The proposal for workforce housing is compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods as well as the business areas. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers.'in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (~107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: The Property shall be developed substantially as shown on the "The Villas at Bellamy - Conceptual Site Plan," dated July 21st, 2005, prepared for the Dragas Companies, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter, the "Concept Plan") PROFFER 2: When the Property is developed, a swimming pool and cabana to serve the community's residents shall be constructed. PROFFER 3: When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance feature shall be constructed in substantial conformance with a monument style sign externally illuminated from ground level as depicted and described on the "Perspective View at Entrance - The Villas at Bellamy", dated May 4, 2006, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Entrance Plan"), or as required to be located by the City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering. PROFFER 4: There will be no more than thirty (30) residential buildings, each one being two (2) stories in height, and containing four (4) dwelling units per building. The total number of dwelling units permitted to be constructed on the Property shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) and no dwelling unit shall contain more than three (3) bedrooms. PROFFER 5: The architectural design of the residential buildings will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "Architectural Elevations - The Villas at Bellamy", dated July 21st, 2005, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The primary exterior building material shall be synthetic board siding with accents of synthetic cedar shake, and the colors used may vary from those on the exhibits but all will be earth tones. PROFFER 6: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. ,P-'->., ." <'~:,:;,,:., ~ BELLAMY AS~PCIATES ~~6daJte ::. ".j " STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated May 25,2006, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form, NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. 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 (CPT ED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. .' ^. '\;,.;;.~' .:,..;.>....{</ " BELLAMY AS~QqIATES'.'&.C. A~(Jdalteni:l~,t9 . . , '."tl~~~:9 -7' ,,,~',,:::':,""V AERIAL OF SITE LQ.~~~.Qt,f;:" . {-""..~'''<,"':: (','--'.,-,~;-:::~,;;..:::.~:,;:: ':,' -'~" ~. ;":<~""L>,>"":,.;:.,:..:; , . " ' ,',' '",,",; ....,-.... BELLAMY AS~~CIATES<ir~C. ..... Ag~oda.ltel9 \ "''86 I I. I I . [ilia dlat PROPOSED SI1Ec"PLA"N", , ,'" . ~".,.,.." ~' , :.'C."",.,-" BELLAMY AS~QC1ATES,.::~.C. Ag~()da..ltenj,~~1.9....... ,..' >R~~~,Ol , -, ',.?~: :'.:~":~ _1 .;w, :5i Q(Jl .=:! >: , .::--; ~:! e..f\ ::1 :oj '21 ".;o! \0;,.; '-1 >1 I i >.1 81 Cd! ,...... i ....... ! (1.)1 ~i I ~' cdl I 001 cd! ....... i ,...... j .......t l "'-. ! ~! ~....~...'%. , g ~ d ;. 'Ii- S ~r 1J.......................~.........~.... . i.W= 158- l; ",0 ....., PERSPECTIVE DRAWING OF PROPOSED ENTRANee:':;'>. '., ,J" /""^" .' ...~ <S':(':~~" >"J BELLAMY ASSGCIATES ArieOda .Jte FRONT ELEVA110N SIDE ELEVATION PROPOSED BUILDING E~~~~tIOM::" :: -'-C,.:.", - . ~.., ,/',_~_. .._'c BELLAMY ASSQCIATES' Ag~oda .lte ....'.'.....8;. Conditional Zoning Change from R7.5 to A-18 1. 6/25/02 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved 2/1/00 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved 2/24/98 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) Approved 10/28/97 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved 2. 3/12/96 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) Approved 5/26/92 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved 3. 2/23/99 Rezoning (R-7.5 Residential to Conditional B-2) and Conditional Use Approved Permit (Gasoline Sales, Carwash) 4. 2/23/99 Rezoning (R-7.5 Residential to Conditional A-12 Apartment) Approved Rezoning (R-6 Residential to 0-1 Office and B-2 Business) 5/23/88 Denied 5. 5/25/99 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved 3/22/94 Conditional Use Permit (Indoor Recreational Facility - Game Room) Approved Conditional Use Permit (Church) 10/27/92 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved 5/22/89 Approved ZONING HISTORV./'::';', - . ,>,..... ''">'' ,"-','-':.- ,. ,. - .- BELLAMY AS~.QCIATES,'.:i:c. .t\~(lda Jte '.A'19. " ~ DISCL.OSURE STATEMENT . ,~, I APPlICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporatiorl, partnership,firm. business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the foUowing: 1, List the applicant namefoHowed by the names of aU officers, members, tlUsteeS, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Bellamy Associates, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company: Dragas Managlm'lent Corporation, a Virginia corporation. Managing Member: Helen E. Dragas, President/CEO, John C. Buckley III, Senior VICe President, Robert C. Makin, Treasurer. Joyce B. WItt,Secretary. Members: Helen E. Dragas, Anita D. Weaver, Mary D. Shearin. JeMifer Steadfast, Dragas Management Corporation. 2. List aU businesses that have a parent-subsidiaryl Of affiliated business entitf relationship with the applicant (Attach list if necessary) See attached list o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation. partnership. firm. business, Of other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section Qnlyif property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, paltnership,firm, business, Of other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List.the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: . (Attach list if necessary) NlA 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business e~. relationship with the applicant (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. Condaional Rezoning AppliI:alicn P_12of13 z o ~ t3 t.-' ~ ......:1 ~ ea c;..:, z ~ z o ~ ~ ~ o ~ F-<< ~ Q Z o u "-""'. )~"">- <,...,. . .' . > ,','.,.--,-',' ",,,. ' , , ,..^,,'" ~ ....^ , :'>;J'-_~_~;':~","",-" ....,-.'.,'.. .'-'-, ,..."""."'., .., BELLAMY AS~Qbl.A TES A~nda..lte z o ....... ~ u :, !a t.:) n z o N ~ ~ o ....... ..E-t ~. Z Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicanl) o c=:t :;ezoning AppIicaliort - .. I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT I ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have. or will provide serviceswlthrespect to the requested property use,incIuding but not limited to 'the<providers of8rchitectural services, real esta1e services. fmancial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach tist ifnecessmy) See aUached list 1 .Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship tbat exists when one corporation direc::tfy or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent oUhe voting power of another corporation." See State andLocalGovemment Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship. means "a relationship, other than parent"Subsidiaryrelationship,that exists when (i) one business ehtity has a controlling owner.mip intefest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or controJbetween the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of anaffiljated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or managethe.1.wo entities; 'there are common or commingled funds or assets; 'the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees .orothelwise share activities. resources or personnel on a RtgUlar basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities," See State and Local GovemmentConfIict of Interests Act. Va. Code~ 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that theinfonnation contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that. upon.rec8ipt ofnotifieation (post(:ard) thattheapplica~ has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subjeet property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled p\.IbflChearing a ing to the instructions in this package. Philio A. Shucet. President Print Name Print Name );""">" ". ~"' ;;..} ).:~ ,0 '..,~ .- BELLAMY AS~^~IATE& Agenda Jte .,:0 _""::...0, ~ . . 0 .. The Villas at Bellamy Conditional Rezoning Application List of Potentially Affi.Iiated. Business Entities .July 21 f 2005: Dragas Management Corporation Dragas.Associates, Le. Dragas Associates II, LC. Dragas Associates fll, LC. Dragas Associates IV, LC. Dragas Associates V, LC. Dragas Associates VI, LC. Oragas AssociateSVU. L.C. Oragas AssociatesVm, L.C. Dragas Associates I~ LC. Dragas Associates X, L.C. Oragas Associates XI,. .LC. Hampshires Associates. L.C. Grove ASsociates, LC. Dragas AssociatesXlV, LC. Dragas Associates V, L.C. FarrcroftAssociates. LC. Belmeade Associates. L.C. South moor Associates, LC. Westbriar Associa1es, L.C. Grace HiliAssociates,LC. North . Shore Associa1es, LC. Defmar Properties, Ine. Bellamy. Associates,. LC. The Villas at .Bellamy Ust of Businesses Providing Services to the Property: Kaufman & Canoles. P.C. Sykes, BouJdon.Ahem & levy, P,C. Rouse-Slone Associates, Ud. ,. , .'_ ,,,- ~,_,""'~~:./i,.; BELLAMY A5~~qfATES,,^'rC. AS~Odalt~ryJs,lt9 . .....e9~~;1~ Item #19 Bellamy Associates, L. C. Change of Zoning District Classification 4416 Princess Anne Road District 2 Kempsville January 11, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: We will now proceed to our regular agenda on the public hearing items. They are items that we would like to air publicly. We're going to rearrange the order on just one agenda item. We're going to move agenda Item #19 to the front, then we will follow in our regular order. Mr. Secretary. Joseph Strange: Item #19 is an Application for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District on property located at 4416 Princess Anne Road, District 2, Kempsville. Barry Knight: May we have the representative please? Joseph Strange: Their representative Phillip Shucet. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name. Phillip Shucet: Phillip Shucet. I'm the President of Dragas Management Corporation. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak with you about agenda Item #19 Bellamy Associates, I know this was the topic of some discussion earlier this morning. Just for a quick review. This is clearly an infill property project off of Princess Anne Road just a little bit north of Ferrell Parkway and just a little bit south of South Plaza TraiL It is targeted for workforce housing with price point targeted below $200,000, yet still a very attractive project that would hold its value for its owners going forward. We are using a well-known four-plex product here in Virginia Beach that is four two:"story units to a building. We are currently proposing that this rezoning from R-7.5 to A-18, currently proposing the maximum density of 120 units. The exterior of the building would be regular vinyl siding in addition to some vinyl cedar shake siding, architectural shingles for the roofing material with the appropriate development of the common elements as well as a swimming pool and a cabana. We met with adjacent property owners and one of the issues that we were asked to consider particularly from the Kempsville Church of God was to possibly relocate the swimming pool from being adjacent to the church to the other side of the property. That is certainly something that we would do as we moved on into design and development of the property. The church also asked us and was very interested in having a permanent fence between the two properties, which we agreed to do. It was a very practical requirement. The primary issue at hand here is the entrance. I'd like to review with you just briefly the process that we went through working very Item #19 Bellamy Associates, L. C. Page 2 closely and carefully with the City's Traffic Engineering department to come upon an agreement for the entrance as its currently described and recommended in the staff report. Having spent 35 years in Traffic and transportation, just wrapping up a term as Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation, I can tell you that I thought we worked through to a very appropriate solution. The density began at 241, which was envisioned as some single floor flats. It was further reduced to 132, and finally reduced to 120 through this process working with Traffic Engineering. The issue is whether or not a right turn lane is required, and secondly can it be provided as well? The frontage is not sufficient for a right turn lane. Our frontage on Princess Anne Road is limited to 90 feet and a right turn lane would normally take a minimum of 120 to 150 feet. We were asked to speak with the adjacent property owner to the south, the WilcO Service Station, to see if they would be willing to close one of their two entrances onto Princess Anne Road, or secondly whether or not they would be willing to share an entrance with us. Not surprisingly they were not inclined to agree to either of those conditions. Then working with Traffic is when we did make a further reduction from 132 down to 120, still finding that stock where we provide affordable workforce housing in Virginia Beach. On November 9, 2005, the Traffic Engineering Department asked us to reduce the width of the entrance to 30 feet. In other words, just rather than having an entrance divided by a median reduce it to a 30-foot standard entrance. We agreed to do that and frankly, I felt that was an excellent suggestion on the part of Traffic Engineering in order to address this issue. A couple of days later on November 11,2005, Traffic advised us that the 30 foot entrance was actually preferable to incorporating the gas station's entrance into a common turning lane, which would actually create a situation of even more concern. So on November 11,2005, Traffic said that 30 foot entrance was good solution and in fact a preferable one. On November 15,2005, Traffic did advise us that if the turn lane situation was documented in the Planning staff report that they believe that a waiver later on from Engineering would not be required. So we felt it was important to work with City staff to document the situation regarding the turn lane into the staff report, which is done, I believe on Pages 2 & 3 of your staff report. Another question that was asked that I thought was an excellent one was that you say you want to provide workforce housing, how do you make that happen? Well, first of all, the economics haveto fall out correctly and 120 is the minimum place where we can make that happen with this particular piece of property. If we reduce that down to 90 as was talked about a one point in time, we really fall into a product similar to one that we are developing now up north of Wesleyan Avenue, where we got about nine units to the acre. Those sell from $285,000 to $350,000, which puts out of the realm of affordable housing. We think that it's very important to stay there. I believe that we would sell out quickly of this product. I think we would probably absorb 6 to 8 units a month bringing in this much needed workforce housing into the area. We do control the investment aspect by putting restriction on the number of investors that can buy into the property. We've worked very closely with the City staff to apply for monies that would be available to help buyers with financing as well as below market interest rates. So just to summarize, it is an excellent project. It is one that brings a much talked about and a well-defined need into the City, in terms of workforce housing. We recognize that there were some issues with the entrance, and we Item #19 Bellamy Associates, L.C. Page 3 believe we worked closely and very correctly with Traffic Engineering to implement and agree to the suggestion that they offered to us. I would note that the Planning staff did recommend approval of this rezoning request. I'll be happy to answer any questions Mr. Knight. Barry Knight: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: I have a quick question. Can you just go through your process of what happens when the Planning Commission approves the density and we don't have the authority to waive any of the public work standards? Can you talk about what your planned action is to work with Traffic and what your different options are? Phillip Shucet: Certainly. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bernas. I would refer -again, back to the November 15,2005 communication where it was indicated that a waiver would not be required. If the steps that we took to address the entrance were addressed in the staff report and they are. But beyond that, once the project gets into the development stage or design stage, as with any project we would continue to work closely with Traffic Engineering in this case, as far as the final design and specific design of the entrance in order to make sure that it meets generally accepted engineering practices and standards. That is not different than the planning process where there is some discussion back and forth to reach an agreement. At the end of the day a lot of where the goals have to be balanced. That is why I go back, Mr. Bernas, I thought Traffic recommended that we reduce the width of the entrance to 30 feet, that was just a very appropriate solution, which is what we're after a solution to the situation. Barry Knight: Jay? Jay Bernas: My other question is when you're working through the site plan review phase and the development phase, would you continue to work with the adjacent property owner, the gas station, to look at another possible solution on trying to resolve this issue, which really is, and it's a traffic issue, but really is a safety issue, and balancing safety with workforce housing. I applaud what you're trying to do. I think Dragas does a great job with all of their developments, and I applaud that you're looking in to providing affordable housing especially with the way housing has gone lately. So, are you going to continue to work with the adjacent property owner? Phillip Shucet: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bernas. We would certainly continue to work with the adjacent property owners as we continue to develop the site in order to make sure that we find the very best workable solutions to bring this project to market. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you sir. Phillip Shucet: Yes sir. Item #19 Bellamy Associates, L.c. Page 4 Barry Knight: Can you call the next speaker please? Joseph Strange: Also speaking in support is Mark Cary. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name? Mark Cary: My name is Mark Cary. I'm Pastor of Kempsville Church of God, which is property adjacent to the property in question. As Mr. Shucet had noted, we have met with the representatives of Dragas back, I guess about 90 days ago now. We have received communication from them that they are willing to consider relocation of the pool and cabana. Our property has a glass foyer where our congregates exit the sanctuary. And according to the way we read the site plan that would be in direct visual view from folks as the come out of our worship service. So ask that consideration be given for that being moved or fencing that would limit line of site. And they have agreed to that. I just want to make part of this document that we have discussed that and make agreement on that. Barry Knight: Thank you. Does anyone have a question? Ron. Ronald Ripley: Yes. I have a question. Pastor, the driveway is in front of your church, is there a deceleration lane for your church? Mark Cary: No sir. Ronald Ripley: Have you ever had any wrecks by people turning into your church or corning out of your church? Mark Cary: I've been pastor here for about 13 months. There has not been an incident. We operate the church and also a daycare center. There has not been any of that I'm aware of. Ronald Ripley: So you have a straight driveway? Mark Cary: Right onto Princess Anne. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mark Cary: Yes sir. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: We have one other person signed up that mayor may not want to speak. DiFelicia Denham. DiFelicia Denham: That's me. Item #19 Bellamy Associates, L.c. Page 5 Joseph Strange: Are you speaking in opposition or support? DiFelicia Denham: Actually, I have a few questions. Barry Knight: Please identify yourself. DiFelicia Denham: I'm DiFelicia Denham. I'm a homeowner in the area. It is going to be backing into us. What little wood area that is still there, I was questioning the fact that we have a few wildlife and that I would really like to see it remain but everybody else may not. Anyway, I was wondering about their fencing. What area of the trees are they going to take down? Supposedly the Brenneman Farm thing was supposed to be a wooded area. It is no longer wooded. The trees that are coming up to the side of this are barely standing there and the bulldozer that works in there every week and keeps coming up is getting a smaller area. We were wondering about that section developing because it looks like it is going to be right on top of all this. I'm not in opposition but Ijust want to make sure that were not going to have them right on top of our little houses. No wooded area and all the wildlife is gone. I listen to the owl every morning between 5:30 and 6:00 o'clock in the morning. I like to watch the geese come across so, I don't want this to be an interference. It may not sound like the pool area might even be switched up to be a part or behind all of the family residential houses that are there now. So, that is another question for me. Barry Knight: Mr. Shucet is going to have a chance to rebut so we'll certainly get him to answer those questions for you. DiFelicia Denham: Okay. Thank you. Barry Knight: Does anyone have any questions? Thank you. Joseph Strange: That's it. Barry Knight: Mr. Shucet would you like to readdress? Phillip Shucet: Thank you very much. The lady and I did have a chance to speak before you convened. I was able to tell her that we would maintain an appropriate buffer around the perimeter of the property. There are some high canopy trees there so we would pay attention to providing some appropriate under story cover as well in the area. As far as the pool goes the pool is not likely to be relocated to the back of the property. What we were looking at there was more relocating the pool on the opposite side at the front of the property so the situation in the back remains the same as it was when we had a chance to meet with the Bellamy Manor Estates homeowners. Barry Knight: We appreciate that. She had a chance to put it on the record and you got a Item #19 Bellamy Associates, L.c. Page 6 chance to answer it on the record. So does anyone have any questions for Mr. Shucet? Thank you sir. Phillip Shucet: Thank you. Barry Knight: We'll open it up for discussion now. Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: Barry. I've watched the development that Dragas Company has done through the years and have been so impressed with the quality. The quality stands for itself. I'm delighted to see that they are working now with affordable homes. I see Sharon Prescott here from Community Development. I know that she a,pplauds this development. Because of this, I would like to make a motion for approval. Barry Knight: I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Jay Bernas: Can I add something to the motion? Not add to the motion, but for the record can I state that the Commission strongly recommends that the applicant work with Traffic and the adjacent property owner to resolve the issue of traffic and safety for the entrance into the site? Barry Knight: Sure. We'll probably get a second, and then you've already added it, but if you need to add it again we will. So, we'll look for a second. Ms. Katsias has second it. A motion made by Ms. Wood and a second by Ms. Katsias. Is there any other discussion? Would anybody like to weigh in? We've heard what Mr. Bernas said. He got it on the record. Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: Yes. I'll just make it quick. I agree with what Mr. Bernas said with regard to the traffic issue that has been highlighted in the report. I am pleased that the applicant did work with Traffic by one reducing the number of proposed units they had, and secondly reducing their entrance and changing their entrance from a divided entrance to just a 30-foot entrance. And I am positive that both the applicant and the City can come to an agreement that will work for both. This is an infill site. It is a unique size and shape. I think with the challenges that it is facing because of the small frontage on the road. But I'm in support of the application. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: I just wanted to add that I think that the applicant is going to continue working with the property owner next door to resolve the safety and traffic engineering problems. Once again, I will support it and congratulating them on having a housing for the workforce of the City, which we need drastically throughout the City. Once again, this being a Dragas project which is a very high quality product to start off with. I'm fully in support of it. Item #19 Bellamy Associates, L.c. Page 7 Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree: Mr. Henley? Al Henley: Yes. Thank you. I would like to comment to the lady who has some concerns about the additional hedging of the wooded area. I did have an opportunity to speak with the applicant, and they are more than willing to and also include an additional under story and native plants possibly dogwood and that sort of thing. I know that is a great concern, and I would be as well, also there would be a buffer in that particular area, and also some decorative plantings of Category 4 screening, I believe. So, I believe it will be additional highlight to the community. Also, I would like to encourage the applicant, which he is willing to do the work with the adjoining property owner and try to hopefully reach a compromise on addressing the safety issues of the egress/ingress of tha.t community. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments? We have a motion on the floor to approve agenda Item #19 Bellamy Associates. The motion was made by Dot Wood and was seconded by Kathy Katsias with six proffers. Lets call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE VVALLER AYE WOOD. AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of Bellamy Associates, L.c. Barry Knight: Thank you. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6325 DATE: June 2,2006 FROM: Leslie L. Lilley . :GJ B. Kay WiISO~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney TO: RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Bellamy Associates, L.C. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 25, 2006 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 las Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, l.e., a Virginia limited liabi6ty company TO (PROFFERED 'COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 25th day of May, 2006, by and between BELLAMY ASSOCIATES. L.C., a VlI'ginia limited liability company. Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth ofV..-ginia. Grantee; BACKGROUNO: A. Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Kempsville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 10.063 acres which is more particularly deseribed in Exhibit gA" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein refened to as the "Property". 8. Grantor is the owner of the parcel described in Exhibit "A" and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map d the City of Virginia Beach. Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apar1ment District. GP1N: 1476-60-9340-0000 Prepared By and Return To: Kaufi'nSI\ and Canoles Suite 2100 150 West Main S1reeI Norfolk. Vtrginia 23510 1 C. The Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation. D. The Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to penn it differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise. E. The Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the A-18 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendm~nt to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, 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 auid pro auo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building penn it, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govem the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. The Property shall be developed substantially as shown on the "The Villas at Bellamy - Conceptual Site Plan," dated July 21st, 2005, prepared for the Dragas Companies, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter, the "Concept Plan") 2 2. When the Property is developed, a swimming pool and cabana to serve the community's residents shall be constructed. 3. When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance feature shall be constructed in substantial confonnance with a monument style sign externally illuminated from ground level as depicted and described on the "Perspective View at Entrance - The Villas at Bellamy", dated May 4th, 2006, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Entrance Plan"). 4. There will be no more than thirty (30)' residential buildings, each one being two (2) stories in height, and containing four (4) dwelling units per building. The total number of dwelling units pennitted to be constructed on the Property shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) and no dwelling unit shall contain more than three (3) bedrooms. 5. The architectural design of the residential buildings will be substantially as depict~ on the exhibit entitled "Architectural Elevations - The Villas at Bellamy", dated July 21st, 2005, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The primary exterior building material shall be synthetic board siding with accents of synthetic cedar shake, and the colors used may vary from those on the exhibits but all will be earth tones. 6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said 3 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 goveming body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing -body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages! or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee. 4 WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Bellamy Associates, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: Dragas Management Corporation a Virginia corporation, Manager Cli(: )AAA7I Philip A. Shucet, President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25th day of October, -2005, by Philip A. Shucet, President of Dragas Management Corporation, a Virginia corporation, Manager of Bellamy Associates, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. ~ ~ My 1//5,pP7 (SEAL) Notary Public 5 Exhibit "A" Metes and Bounds Description of 4416 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 1476-60-9340-0000) Beginning at a point located in the northern right-of-way line of Princess Anne Road where it meets the western line of a 24' Reserved Road, said point being 943 feet, plus or minus, from the northwest intersection of Princess Anne Road and Windsor Oaks Boulevard; thence turning and running along the northern right-of-way line of Princess Anne Road, N47031'28'W, 91.43 feet, to a pin in the line of property now or formerly Trustees of The Kempsville Church of God; thence turning and running along the line of property now or formerly Trustees of The Kempsville Church of God, N36017'32"E, 1392.45' to.a point in the line of property now or formerly CH&B Associates; thence turning and running along the line of property now or formerly CH&B Associates, S53030'59"E, 166.79 feet to a pin in the western line of the Subdivision of Timberlake, Section Thirteen; thence turning and running along the southern line of the Subdivision of Timberlake, Section Thirteen, S53054'09"E, 368.40 feet to a point in the western line of a 24' Reserved Road; thence turning and running along the western line of said 24' Reserved Road, S53051'49'W, 1471.66 feet, to the point of beginning. Said parcel of land containing 438,350 square feet or 10.063 Acres. - 80- Item V-O.lO. PLANNING ITEM # 52430 Attorney Eddie Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, 5th Floor, Phone: 499-8971 represented the applicant, and noted the attendance of Joe Bushey of Clark Nexsen, Douglas Talbot and Alan S. Resh, re the application for infill development (Nimmo's Quay) of no more than 132 high end single-family homes located on 112 acres of land, 73 of which are developable land. The proposed density is no more than 1.8 units per developable acre. This development is surrounded by 6 existing residential neighborhoods. The applicant has agreed to construct two (2) lanes of Nimmo Parkway from the Fire station all the way to this property at a cost of approximately $900.000. Sewer and water, at no cost to the city, will be provided. Douglas Talbot, advised the areas of the wetlands and floodplains have been designed. Under thirty (30) homes 'are located in the 70 to 75 decibel area. Copies of a map indicating the decibel areas were distributed to City Council. The following registered in OPPOSITION: Captain Tom Keeley. Commanding Officer - Naval Air Station Oceana, 1750 Tomcat Boulevard, Phone 433-3158, Phone: 433-2922. advised this development lies within 3 miles of Ocean a andfalls underneath the AICUZ map adopted by the Navy and the City. The issue is encroachment and Oceana is the number one encroached upon installation in the Department of Defense. Single event noise will be louder in- this neighborhood which lies directly beneath the departure corridor to major Runway 23. Rear Admiral S.A. Turcotte. U.s. Navy. Commander - Navy Region Mid-Atlantic. advised this application may appear as a "pebble", but if one considers the impact of several pebbles (which are under consideration), it becomes a bolder. All of these will be examined under the Joint Land Use Study, what areas should be or should not be developed. Upon motion by Councilman Reeve. seconded by Councilman Wood. City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITEL Y to allow completion of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) applications Ordinances upon application of ALCAR, LL.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L.c. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AJliD AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-10 Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR. L.L.C.for a Chan~e of Zoning District Classificationfrom AG-I and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-JO Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane (GPlN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the site as a Conservation Area where land-disturbing activities should be avoided, mitigated or, under certain conditions, prohibited. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE AND, March 23, 2004 - 81- Item V-O.lO. PLANNING ITEM # 52430 (Continued) ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATIONOF ALCAR. L.L. C. FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943.' 2404371633). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure. Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones. Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. OberndorJ. Jim Reeve. Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva. Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Richard A. Maddox Due to illness, Councilman Maddox left at 7:58 P.M. Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act :," 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR. L.L.C. Her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.G. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.c.. she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of, and vote on, the ordinance, upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28,2003, is hereby made a part of the record March 23. 2004 - 30- Item V..K..l. PLANNING ITEM # 55055 Attorney R, E. Bourdon, Pembroke Office Park - Building One, 281 Independence Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant, and was in concurrence with the request to DEFER INDEFINITELY. to determine the 70 dbD line as it crosses the Alcar property. Because of the scale of the maps, this line occupies 200 feet. The determination should be provided within 30 to 40 days. The applicant will meet with the surrounding communities and review the plan re proposed lanes of Nimmo Parkway. Patrick C. Ormsby, 1708 Cornsilk Circle, Phone: 427-6633, President- Southgate Civic Organization, registered opposition to the building of this development, Mr. Ormsby expressed concern re lack of signage and the project "Nimmo's Quay" is expected to generate 1366 vehicle trips per day. Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Maddox, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY, Ordinance upon application of ALCAR, L.L.C.for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPliCATION OF ALCAR, L.L.c. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-7.5 Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Chanf!e ofZoninf! District Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on property located on the north side of the Nimmo - Parkway Right-of- Way (unimproved), 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPINs 2404371630; 2404573796; 2404564943). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company previously provided services to ALCAR, L.L, c., although, her husband did not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L. C. ALCAR, L.L. C. is no longer a client of Goodman and Company, she could participate in the best interest of the City. March 28, 2006 Map J-11 Map Not to Scale ALCAR, LLC /kfil\ ~ 1TT1T\I~~~ III i I L\.V' /t.:/kY7<..Y/'i;;): rlr:-.. -\ 1j,f~~Y-L~'I-V'1 /IM -1/'l.'U~' I'1I illl 10Pl1 _~. R"A....CH I. I , I \ 10/ I I I ii' ( R-4&~ II. I: I JiiPi ~ <.~fiJD'/~ JE~LJlpk R-IQ I- ~AlL .J.lkl w'~11 B J;~~ f iOPi,(1 R~ l~ ~~~ I. ,,l T'" ~~ lOPI I L ..fP>J-__LI J I~II\ ;:..\-l'\L~. \ 11- \~ If '~e-K . ,~:~~~"B~~ES"'" \ \-':.~~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~\ > _ ~ h >ff-- r-T \ ~ ~ I . lClPl \ ~ ~ 11'/ ~ ,\:,,->, ~ ~ ~ . \( / i ... ~ -- ~~ ':'tM.::.: 'U(j74""):'1 fo ~ E-- \(:_~ I ~ ~ 1; /;~~ ~-~.:.: R-I.S ~ \' -=r ~ II 14.. Crr jI , \ 1\, I AG-I ~ ~~ 11~ wir ,I lID AC-I:'~ \ NIMMO pARKWAY ~_ oc.;'1.~" ~~~ p~. :.;:V~:~,z\~~->;.:.;y~~~ I~-IO PRINCESS '1J- ~'~:,...t- --"-75ett~~~~ ~ '.- .: '..-' -. '..~:-.\ -: .':/~/ ~ \' ~ ~ ~ '~I" :.').:~~~.:.::' .:. ~<:'~:.. LJ:~::"..:';~ I "-\ \ \.) V ::fj --- ~ J :;;'" V ~ :..:;.:...:::.:'"..:.....=-:. .::.........::..~j ;;... R-IO ~__ wOOn~ ~/\fi1~ 1- 't.~ ~ (._:-:'.." '~,:~:"-:c:. ,:::"":',--.~i/.l..: 141 \ ~'II' l. ~~. ~ -'. :". ,',':';-- "". :.. ..,.. '.", ':'", Y ;-.... _.""1. H--I).. 1-"----" '- 1-----.'\L SOUTHEASTERN PARKWAY (proposed) Gpin 2404-57-3796 - 56-4943 .{~I" :~.it~b f?~. ._~~~ liI .. i <";. . . , (a'7 . l;> :t'i'" /.:,-,J l::~...""~""""" ~~~..i.l CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: ALCAR, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification, North of Nimmo Parkway Right-of-Way, 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: An Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Chanae of Zonina District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on property located on the north side of the Nimmo Parkway Right-of-Way (unimproved), 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPINs 2404371630; 2404573796; 2404564943). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE This application was indefinitely deferred last by the City Council on March 23, 2004 under the provisions of the Interim AICUZ Guidelines to provide time for the adoption of ordinance amendments pertaining to the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), which occurred on December 20,2005. The application was deferred once again on March 28, 2006. The applicant recently submitted a letter requesting that this item be placed on the June 13 City Council agenda. To provide adequate notice to the public, new public notice signs have been posted on the site, adjacent property owners have been notified via certified mail, and the application has been advertised in the Virginian-Pilot's Virginia Beach Beacon. . Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the property to a Conditional R-7.5 Residential District. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 132 single-family homes on lots with a minimum size of 7,500 square feet. The subject site has a total area of 112.3 acres. This total area can be broken up into three categories. [J Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All land within this area is below the 1 OO-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with the exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the subdivision is located. There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands present in this area. This area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the West Neck Creek linear park. ALCAR, L.L.C. Page 2 of 3 I:) Open Space Area - The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The majority of the land within this area is below the 1 OO-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet and contains some areas of nontidal wetlands. The Open Space Area contains four identified park sites, the largest being 37,500 square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet. I:) Housing Area - The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres. This includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan. Most of this area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open Space and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres. 132 units + 72.7 acres = 1.8 units to the acre. This density is below that found in the surrounding area. The applicant has coordinated the access for the site with the planned Capital Improvement Program projects in the area. There is no access planned from the residential areas to the north. It must be stressed that more than half of the site is below the 100-year floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and there are extensive areas of nontidal wetlands on the site. The significant land disturbance associated with a conventional single-family subdivision will impact these areas even with the best site development measures employed. It must, therefore, be understood that the low elevation of the overall site combined with its natural resource characteristics are cause for concern, particularly regarding the subject of stormwater drainage. The applicant will, no doubt, encounter significant issues during review of plans for stormwater drainage. It is likely that the proffered plan may need adjustment and the number of lots may decrease in order to provide an adequate stormwater system that not only serves this site but also integrates well with surrounding sites. An additional issue to be considered in the evaluation of this request is the fact that the majority of the site is located within the 65 to 70 dB Ldn AICUZ and a smaller portion is within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. Residential uses are designated as being not compatible within those AICUZ. Section 1804 of the AICUZ Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005, notes the following regarding the evaluation of rezoning applications within any AICUZ over 70 dB Ldn: It shall be the policy of the city council that no application . . . shall be approved unless the uses are designated as compatible under Table 1 below and, if applicable, Table 2, unless the city council finds that no reasonable use designated as compatible under the applicable table or tables can be made of the property. In such cases, the city council shall . . . approve the proposed use of property at the least density and intensity of development that is reasonable. Staff concludes that there are no "reasonable" uses listed in Table 1 for the property, as compatible uses consist of retail, light industrial, offices, recreational ALCAR, L.L.C. Page 3 of 3 uses, and agricultural uses. These uses are either incompatible with the surrounding land uses or not economically feasible due to the location and size of the site. In addition, staff investigated the feasibility of using this property as a wetlands mitigation bank and found it to be infeasible. Based on the location of residential use adjacent to or in close proximity to the site, residential use is the most "reasonable" use. This parcel is the final 'infill' site in this vicinity, as the remaining undeveloped parcels are severely constrained by wetland and floodplain. There was opposition to the request. . Alternatives: The City Council has the following alternative courses of action pertaining to this request: 1. The City Council may, if it desires, approve this application as proffered, allowing development to proceed through the normal permitting and construction process; 2. The City Council may, if it desires, defer this application once again either indefinitely or to a certain date. Additionally, should the City Council - pursue this alternative, the Council may elect to direct the applicant to reduce the density to one unit per acre, which is equivalent to the density allowed with the existing AG Agriculture zoning and is consistent with the footnote provisions of Table 2 of the OPNAV AICUZlAPZ Instructions for the 65 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ; or 3. The City Council may, if it desires, deny this application. 4. The Council may defer this item and request the applicant to return with a revised application limiting development to the 65-70 dB area. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as proffered. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department. Recommendation: Planning Department recommends approval of alternative 4 above. Planning Commission recommends approval. City Manager: ~4A<% k- %~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L . L . C . FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL R-7.5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NIMMO PARKWAY RIGHT- OF-WAY (UNIMPROVED) , 910 FEET WEST OF ROCKINGCHAIR LANE (GPINS 2404337163; 2404573796; 2404564943) WHEREAS, ALCAR, L.L.C. (hereinafter the "Applicant) has 12 made application to the City Council for a change of zoning 13 district classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District 14 to Conditional R-7 . 5 Residential District (hereinafter "the 15 Application") on certain property located on the north side of 16 the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way (unimproved), 910 feet west of 17 Rockingchair Lane (GPINs 2404337163; 2404573796; 2404564943), in 18 the Princess Anne District (hereinafter the "Property"); and 19 WHEREAS, a portion of the Property is located with the 70- 20 75 dB DNL Noise Zone; and 21 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1804 of the City Zoning 22 Ordinance, it is the policy of the City Council that no 23 application for a change of zoning of property within the 70-75 24 dB DNL Noise Zone shall be approved unless the uses and 25 structures contemplated by the application are designated as 26 "Compatible" under Table 1 of City Zoning Ordinance Section 27 1804 (b), unless the City Council finds that no reasonable use 28 designated as "Compatible" can be made of the property, and that 29 in such cases, the City Council shall approve the proposed use 30 at the least density or intensity that is reasonable; 31 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 32 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 33 That the City Council hereby finds that: 34 1. No reasonable use designated as "Compatible" under 35 Table 1 of City Zoning Ordinance Section 1804 (b) can 36 be made of the Property; and 37 2 . The proposed density of development within the 70-75 38 dB DNL Noise Zone contemplated by the Application is 39 the lowest density that is reasonable under the facts 40 and circumstances of the application. 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 42 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 43 That the Application is hereby approved, subject to the 44 terms and conditions set forth in the Conditional Zoning 45 Agreement dated March I, 2006, which Agreement was exhibited to 46 the City Council this date. 47 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the 48 day of , 2006. CA-I0059 OID\Land Use\Ordres\ALCARord.doc R-l June 7, 2006 2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~ f:, '1.~' Planni~Department ~I!l~ City Attorney's Office 3 ALCAR LLC I I Original: September 10, 2003 REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council General Information: REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1/AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District ADDRESS: North side of proposed Nimmo Parkway, 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane Map J-11 Mop Not to Scolc ALCAR, LLC /~ II ~ II IV /Lu~'?ff-!~ ~~li SOUTHEASTERN PARKWAY (p_d) ~~ . /j I N I 6l I I \ ll..flo : I I I I ( R I. \..c ~ I I I liiiPi '7... \ /I l;.; R 10 Ll ,k;ID / \.. l R 10 rlN~1 j"Y) \U 1 ~ (7'> '~~rfJD JJ Ii ~ lOP) I- T '~L .1 I I \' -t I\:: \ \--}"'~ -t / X, '" J.V f:J l...J ~ }nr"P\\ ' _~ ~ ~ :,( ~'<. J:j ~~' pr>:f,S AEl \'" \ I......J....< -K I 11'1'1" l l;f =:llOif Y).,~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ I '. I ~~~~~ U '\VV ' t ~ t--- /f-:( l0fh-\ 'R"t.S " ~;;~~~ ~ . ~.. .. == I e L':;/ ~~~~ ~, 'j<<' '\" AG-( ~:[ ~ ~~ r::t.~, ...' ~ '.'. .'.. NIMMO pARKWAY PRfNC~~S _ -'::"-l"; A1Grt-J. J-{1-:-~ ~~.. --)'>:'";'7''' \(:'~::::-:"'-\';"~'f~ ~111\ . ~ r. . / -;m ~:-':~:z.;: _:,::;~. \ .<~.:~~~j l ~ 7' ~ \\.. ~::- '_. /)' -;; / ' .~ ) c\~<(~~~~:~<>::-:::~?;;u.L:H .::.1 ~.i:~l\~ :~v ~ 1!/'~~f# _' (./ '\' \ (:..:':.~-'''... ",':' ,': ~, )0.;; =;:;< '.1.= C(1 T-I '--i- I""r/--_v " Gpin 2404-57-3796 - 56-4943 GPIN: 2404371630 2404573796 2404564943 REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 112.3 acres PURPOSE: To rezone the property in order to develop a neighborhood of 132 single- family homes on 7,500 square foot lots, APPLICATION HISTORY: This application was deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning Commission hearing at the request of the applicant. On September 10, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the City Council. On March 23, 2004, consistent with the Interim AICUZ Guidelines then in place, the City Council voted to indefinitely defer the application in order to allow completion of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). Major Issues: · More than half of the land on the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. Land disturbance and fill are restricted in this area by the City's development ordinances. · Consistency of the proposal with the land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. · There are two roadway projects planned for roads adjacent to this site, Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A (CIP 2-121) and Seaboard Road (CIP 2-107). Coordination and impacts on the roadway projects are concerns. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zonina The property is currently vacant and is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District. Extensive areas of floodplain and wetlands REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 2 are interspersed throughout the site, More than half of the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 1 OO-year flood level of 6.25 feet. There are three general categories of wetlands present on this site. The first are tidal wetlands as defined in the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are immediately adjacent to the flood way of West Neck Creek. The second category is nontidal wetlands as defined by the Southem Watersheds Management Ordinance and the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are present on the site for a distance of approximately 800 feet east of the floodway of West Neck Creek and also along the edge of the stream that traverses through the southeast portion of the site. The third category consists of nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and identified as "Isolated/Headwater Wetlands" (I/H wetlands). Most of these areas are at the edge of the floodplain and on the higher ground proposed for home lots. The site was logged in 2000 and 2001. Mature trees were removed from the majority of the site, Some mature trees were left remaining in the I/H wetland areas, areas bordering West Neck Creek and a 40 to 50 foot area of trees bordering the neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge, along the northern boundary of the site. The native vegetation that is currently growing on the site has an average height of 4 to 5 feet at this time. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: . Single-family homes / R-10 (OP) Residential District . Proposed Nimmo Parkway right-of-way . Single-family homes / R-5D Residential District . West Neck Creek / AG-1Agricultural District South: East: West: Zonina and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: Uses consistent with the underlying_agricultural zoning on this site, such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. With Proposed Zoning: Approximately 132 single-family homes as shown on the proffered conceptual subdivision plan associated with this request. The number of homes is approximate and may be less than 132 when the subdivision plan is reviewed in detail for stormwater management, utility services, etc. REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 3 Zonina History The neighborhoods to the north of this site, Pine Ridge and Hunt Club Forest, were zoned and developed for residential use during the 1970s and 1980s. The neighborhood of Castleton north of the site was developed for residential use more recently during the 1990s. The most recent residential rezoning in this area occurred south of the site, on the west side of Seaboard Road in 1999. This neighborhood is known as Princess Anne Woods. On the subject site, a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-10 Residential District and a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion for 255 single-family homes was denied by City Council on September 26, 2000. The subject request is similar to the 2000 request, except that the number of home sites has been reduced to 132 and there is far less fill and disturbance of the floodplain on the present plan. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The northern portion of the subject site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dS Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The southern portion of the site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dS Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. A copy of a letter from 2003 noting the Navy's position on this rezoning is provided at the end of this report (2006 communication with the Navy indicates that the position stated in the letter remains, as residential uses is designated as being-incompatible with the OPNA V Instruction). Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 30-inch force main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way fronting the southeast portion of the property. There is a 16-inch water main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of- way fronting the southeast portion of the property. This subdivision must connect to City water. Hydraulic analysis, fire demand requirements, and plans and bonds are required for the construction of the water system. City gravity sewer is not available to this development. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new pump station (off-site) and sewer system. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) I Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The subject site does not have access to an improved public right-of-way at this time. The right-of-way for the proposed Nimmo Parkway borders the site on the south, and the applicant has proffered to construct two lanes of this roadway from its current terminus near the Fire Station/Library/Recreation Center complex to the new REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 4 subdivision entrance. Public Works has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study regarding this proposal and concurs that this is the most prudent way for this subdivision to gain access to surrounding roadways. There are two roadway projects in the vicinity of this subdivision as noted below. NIMMO PARKWAY PHASE V-A CIP 2-121 This project is for construction of a four-lane divided roadway on a six-lane right-of- way, with a bikepath, from Holland Road at Kellam High School to that part of Nimmo Parkway Phase V previously constructed to provide access to the Princess Anne Community Recreation Center from General Booth Boulevard. The estimated start of construction is June 2010 and estimated completion date is June 2012. SEABOARD ROAD CIP 2-107 This project is for the construction of a three-lane undivided highway from Princess Anne Road to Nimmo Parkway, a distance of approximately 3,200 feet. This project will also include an upgrade of the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road to include a new traffic signal. Additional funding was added for the interim cost participation project to realign the intersection at Princess Anne Road. The estimated start of construction is July 2008 and the completion date is July 2009, Traffic Calculations: This development is expected to generate 1,366 vehicle trips per day. Schools The chart below indicates that Kellam High School is currently over capacity. The information provided below does not take into account the potential impacts of other proposals pending or under construction that could affect the same schools. School Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment Princess Anne 572 664 46 46 Elementary Corporate Landing 1,541 1,619 24 24 Middle School Kellam High 2,388 1,798 32 32 School 1 "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 5 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: No comments at this time. Fire requirements will be reviewed during detailed subdivision construction plan review. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non- residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The subject site has a total area of 112.3 acres. This total area can be broken up into three categories. · Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All land within this area is below the 1 DO-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with the exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the subdivision is located. There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands present in this area. This area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the West Neck Creek linear park. · Open Space Area - The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The majority of the land within this area is below the 1 DO-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet and contains some areas of nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Open Space Area contains four identified park sites, the largest being 37,500 square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet. REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 6 . Housina Area - The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres. This includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan. Most of this area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. There are some pockets of I/H wetlands that will be impacted by home construction. This area can best be described as three islands of high ground connected by roadways that traverse the lower floodplain and wetland areas. . The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open Space and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres. 132 units + 72.7 acres = 1.8 units to the acre. Site Desian . The conceptual subdivision plan shows one main entrance to the subdivision from Nimmo Parkway. The roadway extends northward, crosses a stream, enters the Housing Area and then comes to an intersection, where the road splits to the east and northwest. . The southeast portion of the site, where the stream is located, is designated as a Conservation Area. The roadway travels through this Conservation Area for a distance of 900 feet before it reaches the Housing Area. ~""'~"-"-~ f5. 'It6"""'T_IlIllt!IIICrt""" ~~~ =~~ ~~4ll. ~~.~,"?~ ~ ',-~- U -,,,"0,,- ,,,/ ~.::::;:;;" ~=~/ ~~:(~).: -....- --.rlll'<lll'~__/...~~ j,.'"!:~UQ~""" \\ (""~f#!J \t W,."...-L:L c;otlCEPTUAl. S}f '" NIMMO= REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 7 · The roadway crosses the floodplain/wetland areas in four locations. At each of these locations, the construction of the roadway will require fill within the floodplain, · There is also some fill proposed within the floodplain along the edges of some of the home lots. · The applicant submitted a conceptual floodplain fill plan to the Development Services Center (DSC). It has been determined by the DSC that this project falls under the criteria for administrative review of fill. A conceptual floodplain mitigation plan was also submitted and reviewed in accordance with the same criteria. The final approval for fill within the floodplain will depend on detailed engineering design. New information and facts may alter the expectations of the .developer and may ultimately reduce the number of home sites allowed. · The minimum size for the home lots is shown as 7,500 square feet. Most of the lots on the plan are uniform; there is very little variation from this minimum lot size. · Most of the home lots back up to the Open Space Area or stormwater management ponds, except for those along the northern boundary of the site. These home lots are directly adjacent to existing home lots in Castleton and Pine Ridge. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Currently, the subject site has no direct access to an improved public right-of-way. There is a dirt road on the south side of proposed Nimmo Parkway that connects to Seaboard Road and travels through this site. · A traffic impact study was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works. The Department of Public Works concurs with the study's recommendation that access to the subdivision be provided by Nimmo Parkway. The applicant is proffering to construct two lanes of Nimmo Parkway within the existing public 'right- of-way for a distance of approximately 2,500 feet. The roadway would be built from the ~ubdivision entrance east to the current terminus of the roadway near the Princess Anne Recreation Center. · The section of Nimmo Parkway to be built by the developer would not connect to Seaboard Road. The Department of Public Works does not recommend subdivision access to Seaboard Road until the planned roadway improvements are constructed along Seaboard Road to Princess Anne Road with CIP 2-107 (described earlier in this report), · When the two lanes of Nimmo Parkway are built, there will be a new intersection created at Rockingchair Lane, approximately 910 feet to the east of the new subdivision's entrance. Improvements and traffic movement control will be required for this intersection. Residents of Southgate and Hunt Club Forest will have access to the new two-lane section of Nimmo Parkway in addition to the residents of the proposed subdivision. . The proposed subdivision roadway connection to existing Nimmo Parkway will impact the traffic signal operation and timings at the intersection of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard, and the developer will be responsible for working out new traffic signal timings. . A temporary emergency fire station traffic signal may be required in front of the General Booth Fire Station on Nimmo Parkway. The developer will be responsible for working with the City regarding design, construction and costs associated with the installation of this signal. . The subdivision entrance road has been located to accommodate the preliminary designs for Seaboard Road and Nimmo Parkway. Additional coordination with these two CIP projects will be necessary during the detailed engineering phases of the projects. . It sh~uld be noted that the proposed subdivision will have only one access point and will not have any connections to neighboring properties. Architectural Desian . A mixture of one-story and two-story dwellings is planned. The applicant has proffered four architectural styles and a minimum square footage for the homes. In addition, it has been proffered that all homes will have a two car garage. Landscape and Open Space . The conceptual subdivision plan shows a 39.5 acre Conservation Area to be dedicated to the City as part of the West Neck Creek linear park. The subdivision entrance road traverses this Conservation Area in the southeastern portion of the site. It should also be noted that preliminary design plans for the Seaboard Road and Nimmo Parkway CIP projects show drainage outfalls at the stream located in the southeastern portion of the Conservation Area. It is likely that the proposed subdivision will also have drainage outfalls in this area, although no detailed engineering for stormwater management for the proposed subdivision has been conducted. . The conceptual subdivision plan shows the Open Space Area to be dedicated and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This area is below the 1 DO-year floodplain elevation of 6,25 feet and contains pockets of nontidal wetlands regulated ~,,\to1\A.ai'..4 ~~o/:";.'~~-~Io$t.'l " '~I!;.,.-t REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting t1([!S~L.~ ALCAR LLC ,.~-_.~, 0'" "~'-::".~'- ", l.) , \~:_.~;,~""", ,>'"J Page 9 ~:::;r by the Army Corps of Engineers. · The applicant submitted an application for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for the impacted I/H wetlands associated with this project. This application is currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers. The permit application shows that there will be some on-site mitigation to create new nontidal wetland areas for those being impacted by the roadway and home construction. These areas of new wetlands are identified as "wetland mitigation" on the conceptual subdivision plan. · The Open Space Area contains four designated park sites totaling 2.4 acres. Three of the four park sites can be accessed from the main roadway. The fourth park site, adjacent to the northern boundary of the property in the western portion of the site is not accessible as shown on the conceptual plan due to the -fact that it is surrounded by I/H wetlands that are designated to remain. Proffers PROFFER # 1 PROFFER # 2 PROFFER # 3 When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). When the Property is developed, approximately 22.7 acres of parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open Space" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. When the Property is developed, playground equipment and neighborhood park improvements meeting the City's Department of Parks and Recreation Standards shall be installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the Concept Plan. When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres of land designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 10 PROFFER # 4 PROFFER # 5 PROFFER # 6 PROFFER # 7 PROFFER # 8 Plan shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park. When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Homeowners Association, which shall, among other things, maintain the Open Space areas. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall incorporate architectural features, design elements and high quality building materials substantially similar in quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs labeled "Typical Home Elevations at NIMMOS QUAY" dated December 12, 2002 which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Anyone story dwelling shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two- story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, at two (2) car garage. When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part shall construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP 2-121 in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's engineering standards for the roadway, within the existing Nimmo Parkway public right-of-way extending east approximately 2,560:t feet from the entrance to the subdivision to connect with the existing improved Nimmo Parkway section. When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to serve the subdivision, including the possible construction of an off-site sewage pump station. 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 ~\~~c '"~"""I-''''''l- REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting [~~.;~.y J.'~.))~ ALCAR, LLC \\~ - .1/1 Page 11 ~ requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-7.S Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. Staff Evaluation: The proffers are acceptable. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated March 1, 2006, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District is acceptable, but with a caveat. Staff notes that the density of the proposed project (1.8 units per acre) is below that found in the surrounding area and that applicant has coordinated the access plan with the adjacent roadway projects and has limited the proposed floodplain fill to the roadways and edges of the lots. In sum, the applicant has proffered a plan that minimally meets the intent of the various development ordinances of the City. It must be stressed, however, that more than half of the site is below the 1 OO-year floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and there are extensive areas of nontidal wetlands on the site. The significant land disturbance associated with a conventional single-family subdivision will impact these areas even with the best measures employed in an attempt not to. A second issue concems the fact that the majority of the site is located within the 65 to 70 dB Ldn AICUZ and a smaller portion is within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. Residential uses are designated as being not compatible within those AICUZ. Section 1804 of the AICUZ Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005, notes the following regarding the evaluation of rezoning applications within any AICUZ over 70 dB Ldn: It shall be the policy of the city council that no application. . . shall be approved unless the uses are designated as compatible under Table 1 below and, if applicable, Table 2, unless the city council finds that no reasonable use designated as compatible under the applicable table or tables can be made of l~lA.B~ ci'~t~~'"~~~~ ~P?r~, . ".i~~ \~~.'" )); \.{:~~~;;.. 'i -~ REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR,LLC Page 12 the property. In such cases, the city council shall. . . approve the proposed use of property at the least density and intensity of development that is reasonable. Staff concludes that there are no "reasonable" uses listed in Table 1 for the property, as compatible uses consist of retail, light industrial, offices, recreational uses, and agricultural uses. These uses are either incompatible with the surrounding land uses or not economically feasible due to the location and size of the site. Based on the location of residential use adjacent to or in close proximity to the site, residential use is the most "reasonable" use. This parcel is the final 'infill' site in this vicinity, as the remaining undeveloped parcels are severely constrained by wetland and floodplain. A "reasonable" density in this case is one that serves as a transition from the 5,000 square foot lots to the east and the 10,000 square feet lots to the north and south, Thus, lots at 7,500 square feet are appropriate and reasonable. It must be stressed, however, that the density of this project, due to the amount of open space being provided, is at 1.8 units per acre, which is below the density of surrounding residential developments. The proposed density, therefore, is certainly 'reasonable.' Staff can support this request; however, that support comes with the caveat that it must be understood that the low elevation of the overall site combined with its natural resource characteristics, as described above, are pause for concern, particularly regarding the subject of stormwater drainage. The applicant will, no doubt, encounter significant issues during review of plans for stormwater drainage. It is likely that the proffered plan may need adjustment and the number of lots may decrease in order to provide an adequate stormwater system that not only serves this site but also integrates well with surrounding sites. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 13 2: V::I:liI I ~Hnz~i U ii '> ------- '> -.---- i i ~ i i~~ ,~! n,t ? U', -- ~ ! . ~ ~ = ~ HU~~ ~h~ i:itf!al~~: ~ t t ~ I ~ ,~ f ~H it t +~ ~ s~ - ~! ~ - ~i ~ I ~E ~ :1< j ; tA ~ !~ ( i~ i @~ ~ e~ ~ t1q ~ff~a ! n! I t1i i , i lid! ~ i. to i I ~i E~ ! S ~'~t ..._.....-....--- , \ \' --\------ .--" ~.. ---\- \ .. _I:.~<.'- ~ \.~-=--:;/ :~~~--- k~~...-: -"<..'-">.-- ~.~ - ~~..-s ~. .,..."" I ~!~~~ ~~"t ! ~~.J!! ? J ~ .S < ~ t ! B t ~, ; n~ t t l n~ . lB.......... ' ':': : .( REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR,LLC Page 14 REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 15 Typical Home Elevation at Nimmo's Quay 12112102 Typical Home Elevation at Nimmo's Quay 12112102 REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR,LLC Page 16 Typical Home Elevation at Nlmmds Quay 12/12102 Typical Home Eievatior at Nimmo's Quav 12/12102 . REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR, LLC Page 17 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA 1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23460-2. ~ ., It:.L.ffl:PL Y REFER TO: """ 5726 ''';.~~~~ 32/0222 ()~ ~:r'June 5, 2003 Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Department City of Virginia Beach Building 2, Room 100 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Duke: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning request by ALCAR LLC, for the proposed construction of 138 homes. The site is located in the 65-70 decibel (dB) day-night average (Ldn) noise zone. The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program states that residential land use is incompatible in this zone. - The Navy acknowledges the landowner's desire to develop their property, but I urge you to deny their request. We would view residential development at this site as an encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana. If you have any questions, please contact my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. Ray Firenze at {757} 433-3158. Sincerely and very respectfully, Copy to: COMNAVREG MIDLANT Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Virginia Beach City Council Virginia Beach Planning Commission REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting ALCAR,LLC Page 18 II DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ALCAR, L.L.C.: Alan S. Resh, Member; Carmine Pisapia, Member 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entiti relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. - PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Jamast, Inc.: Carmine Pisapia, President; Alan Resh, Vice President/Secretary fT reasurer 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entiti relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. 1 2 & See next page for footnotes Conditional Rezoning Application Page 11 of12 Revised 9/1/2004 z o I I ~ c: :) I I ~ r"1 ea C-::) z I I Z o ~-J ga ~ o I I E-c I I ~ Z o u z o I I ~ C ') I I ~ ,.... ea t..:::) z I I Z o ~-J ga ~ o I I E-t I I ~ Z o c ') II DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Clark-Nexsen Engineers Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C. American Law Offices, P.C. BB&T.' Stokes Environmental Intermodal Engineering 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interest~ Act, Va. Code S 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code & 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. ALCAR~L . i:?) By: '>L AlanS. Resh, Member APPlica~nt's i n::l -_ Print Name Jamast, . . By: Alan S. Resh, Vice President Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page 12 of 12 Revised 9/1/2004 Item #4 & 5 A1car, L.L.c. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit North side of Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne August 13,2003 DEFERRED Ronald Ripley: Our first order of business as lan pointed out to you is to consider any items to be deferred or withdrawn. If you have an item that you wish.for us to consider to withdrawing or deferring, please come forward. State your name. Give us the item number please. Eddie Bourdon: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I request on behalf of A1car, Inc. on cases four and five that this matter be deferred. We were frankly caught off guard by the staff comments and would like to have some additional time to discuss this application with the staff. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Anybody have any objection to deferring Items four and five? Thank you. Okay, so I'd like a motion please from someone here on the Commission to defer items #4 & 5. We have a motion by Don Horsley and a second by Dot Wood. Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from items #4 & 5. My firm is working on those projects. Ronald Ripley: So noted. Is there any other discussion? Let's call for the question please. ANDERSON CRABTREE DIN HORSLEY KA TSIAS KNIGHT MILLER RIPLEY SALLE' STRANGE WOOD AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABSl AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE ABS AYE AYE AYE AYE Ronald Ripley: Bya vote of 10-0 the motion passes with the abstention so noted. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit North side of Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne September 10, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #19 & 20, Alcar, L.L.c. Eddie Bourdon: Sorry to block your views. Ronald Ripley: We get signals from staff. I'mjust kidding. Eddie Bourdon: This one is going to be flipped over. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon and it is my pleasure to come before you this afternoon representing the application of Nimmos Quay. Mr. Resh is here as well as Joe Bushey, from Clark Nexsen who are the engineers working on this project. Mr. Resh and I have been working on this project now for about a year. My history with this particular property goes back_to 1997, which I'll get into in a few minutes. We've had a very positive process that we've gone through with staff. I want to thank Barbara Duke who I understand is sick. I think someone gave her some bad food on her birthday but she worked very hard with us as with the rest of the staff including the folks in Traffic Engineering. This is a proposal on a 112-acre parcel of which approximately 73 acres are developable acres. To create a very high end subdivision of 132 lots, probably a few less than that. These houses, we proffered the type of houses that will be built. They will be very attractive homes that will be priced between $350,000 and up. I think the quality is very clear and very evident. The property is located south of Castleton and south of a section of Pine Ridge and west of Hunt Club and west of the section of South Gate. We're surrounded both on the north and on east by residential development. To our south is the, I guess Nimmo Parkway Phase V, I believe. I may be wrong on the phase number.' And below Nimmo Parkway is the Princess Anne Woods subdivision. The property, because of the way CastIeton developed, and I guess the best place to look is up here onthe pinpoint. The property was supposed to be accessed via this roadway here through Castleton but for reasons I won't discuss, and there are a lot of reasons, and that's not going to happen and that can't happen and as a consequence, the property must be accessed by Nimmo Parkway and one of the things that we've done with this application is we've done a Traffic Impact Study, presented to the City, and this applicant will be constructing two lanes on Nimmo Parkway to meet the standards for Nimmo Parkway at a cost of approximately $900,000, and that will be extended from the fire station to the property. The property itself is a series of clustered lot configurations that are for the most part surrounded by open space. We are with this proposal only utilizing 26 percent of the land for roads and houses. Of the developable land, we're using less than 40 percent for roads and houses. In other words, 74 percent of the site is going to remain as open space. Over 60 percent of the developable land will be open space. And over 100 homes will be backing up to open space. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is not in the Transition Area. It sure as heck looks like it is a plan in the Transition Area. Now, Item #19 & 20 A1car, L.L.c. Page 2 the reason that I put this map up here is to show you that there is a little bit of history behind this piece of property. Back in 1997, Taylor Farm Associates had most of the property under contract as shown over here and they brought forth a plan to develop 230 lots on this piece of property. The property that I'm talking about is the property here. Not every bit of what I'm talking about in this application. That application was recommended for approval by the staff consistent by the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation of 3.5 units per acre. The rezoning was R-lO open space and it was recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission for approval. The Courthouse Coalition of Civic Leagues was supporting the application, as was the Pine Ridge Civic League, which I met with on a number of occasions at that time. And, between Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant deferred the application. . He was working with the Corps of Engineers and was developing Castleton at the time wanted to get all this wetlands permits from the Corps of Engineers, which he in fact did receive and the property is the subject of an approved wetlands disturbance permit from the Corps of Engineers. But during that process some contractual issues arose and other things occurred really having nothing to do with the prospects of the application being approved at that time but the contracts fell through and so the deal at that point died. It never went to City Council, but it was recommended for approval, by the staff and by the Planning Commission unanimously for 230 lots. At that time the floodplain ordinance is not what it is today, The floodplain ordinance that exists in the northern part of the city today applied to all the city at that point and that development plan would have impacted about 30 percent of the floodplain on this site. That's flood fringe. We can talk about floodplain if you all want but floodplain is not wet area. It's just area that stores a little bit of water at a 100 year storm event, but it's not wetlands. It's not swamp. It's just high land that's not high enough that is outside the floodplain. It gets wet when there's a 100-year storm event. Anyway, later in the year 2000, this property was assembled by Clark Whitehill, and they brought forward an application for 255 units on this piece of property, and that's what shown here. And what this is also to show is that all the ground here are residential lots that surround this property, developed residential subdivisions that surround this property. And, what you see here is the plan that was submitted in 2000. And, their timing was certainly not good. That's when we were dealing with the floodingissue that existed in Castleton or were trumped up in Casth~ton and mainly they were because of construction problems and blockage in lines but it was an issue at that time. They had some major storm events. We also had the Lotus Creek situation going and so floodplains were a hot button item. This 255-unit subdivision, was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Staff did not recommend approval. They thought it was too great an impact on floodplains and on wetlands and it was more significant in terms of development than the previous application of Taylor Farm Associates. So that application was actually denied. Now we have an application where this applicant has done everything that he was asked to do. He went in and said okay, I'm not going to ask for a floodplain variance to impact the floodplain more than is permitted. There is a small amount that is permitted under our new floodplain ordinance that only applies to this part of the city and I'm going to go and have gone to the Corps of Engineers to modify the existing permits on this property to reduce the impact to isolated non-tidal upland wetlands by 40 percent over what is already permitted on this property by the Corps permit with this application. And, thus we have an application before you for a plan that instead of looking like this plan, it looks like the one you see there, which Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 3 when you put that to everything around it, you see a few lots surrounded by a lot of green space up against residential development all around. There are 65 lots in the adjacent neighborhoods that abut this piece of property. Our development plan has a total of 18 lots that abut some of those lots. As a matter of fact, they abut 16 of those lots. And, what we have done when this property was logged, and it was logged a few years ago, we retained on the site, because knowing eventually it would be developed residentially, believing that would be the case because that is what our Comprehensive Plan recommends, we left a wooded buffer on the back of the property. Some of that wooded buffer is also on the 65 lots that adjoin our piece of property. There's a 30-foot easement between our property and that would remain. And, we intend to keep on our property those trees that are in that buffer. Now, there may be a tree or two towards the southern part of the property that we have to take out for drainage purposes but that's why those trees were left. It is our intent to keep those trees on the property. I see that light blinking and I don't know whether you all want me to. I have a lot of things to talk about on this, but if you want to ask some questions. Ronald Ripley: Can we handle those in questions and answers? Eddie Bourdon: I'll try to. I'm happy to do that. Ronald Ripley: I'm sure there are a lot of questions about this application. Eddie Bourdon: Ijust don't know if you want me to do it that way or address them as I go forward. Ronald Ripley: Technically, I think that would be the appropriate way of handling it. Eddie Bourdon: You all want to ask me some questions, I'm happy. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: No questions. That's good. Ronald Ripley: No, we got questions. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Obviously, I'm very familiar with this piece of land and have walked it. Having had it timbered, it does bring some issues with regard to perhaps how that open space is going to be handled, the part that hasn't been timbered. I don't know if that is part of the parcel. I assume that the timbering just wasn't in these lots because it is hard to tell exactly where it was but in that open space area is where the timbering occurred. How is that handled? Also the other thing that I would like to have addressed is the extension of the road, two lanes of that road. I heard how expensive it is. I also looked at Seaboard Road and wondered if that was a point of discussion as the extension too. Eddie Bourdon: I'll start with the last question first. It certainly was a point of discussion, the extension of Seaboard Road. That is a project that is actually under design and will be done by the City. The Nimmo Parkway proposal, that road is a VDOT Item #19 & 20 A1car, L.L.c. Page 4 project. And, the Traffic Impact Study, and frankly everyone, and I don't think there is any disagreement at all it is that the best way to access this property, is to build two lanes of Nimmo Parkway, which is far more expensive then extending Seaboard Road. And the time frame of this development will be two years before these lots will be sold. The extension of this roadway made more sense than dumping the traffic on Seaboard Road to come into this section of Princess Anne Road that currently is under some stress, which will go away with Nimmo Parkway or be significantly alleviated with Nimmo Parkway, which has been held up for quite some time. But is now going forward and will be going forward in 2008, which is the date that it's intended to be open. So, putting the traffic onto Nimmo coming out to General Booth was clearly the best way to deal with the subdivision. But what will happen is there will be an intersection at Seaboard Road when Seaboard Road is punched through to it, which will be happening also by the course of the next five years. But that project is actually in the works but it will not happen overnight. The open space areas when the property was logged those areas that were accessible. There is obviously open space area almost 40-acres being given to the City on West Neck Creek, part of what the Comprehensive Plan requires, asks for, not requires in that area that is truly low area was not logged. The other area there is some vegetation that is growing on trees but those open space areas will generally be passive open space areas but there are parts that are designated and those parts are all on areas that are either outside the floodplains and some are in it but again, floodplain does not mean that it is swamp or wet. There is a problem with perception and it's even in this write up. There's one place where it kind of talks like these are little islands of high land around low land. Folks, everything you see around this, all these houses, all these lots, those are houses and lots that were built in the same floodplain. Same floodplain was mitigated, and in this case there's minimal impact at all in any floodplain. We stayed essentially out of the floodplain except for the roadway sections that we're mitigating 100 percent. On this case, we're talking about a total of 2.1 acres of floodplain that isn't impacted at all, and we're mitigating with 5.1 acres of mitigation and again, with previous plans, the one Clark Whitehill had, 36 percent impact and the one that was before that was over 30 percent impact. So, we're totally staying out of any impacts on floodplains even though floodplains are developable land and floodplain is land that is frankly Ideal for recreation. Down at Munden Point Park most of that park is in floodplain. Significant amount of parks, Red Wing Park, is in floodplain. There are lots of parks in the city that have area within the floodplain. It's not the flood way. It's not water flying through there, it's just that what you have is during a major storm event there might be an inch or two of water that's there for a period of a few hours while they drain. That's what a floodfringe and floodplain are. Our recreational areas will generally be passive with some trails but there isn't an intention to put equipment into the park sites for people who live in the community. And, that is not a problem. It's not going to float away when there's a lOO-year storm event and you have an inch or two of water around playground equipment. That's my answer. Ronald Ripley: Charlie Salle'. Charlie Salle': Eddie, I think you alluded to it and there is some comment in the staff report about the storm water drainage for the area and the need to address it both here and in the surrounding area. Can you tell us how you have done that? Item #19 & 20 Akar, L.L.c. Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: We understand completely what the challenges are and that's why this development will meet those challenges. But, frankly, there are problems that are very long ago. Lake Placid had some problems, as did Pine Ridge because they used the wrong flood elevation. So, you got some historical issues there. The City's done a study many years ago that recommends that there be a BMP in this area, a large one to handle. There isn't anything at Oceana at all. All of the water flows south but the water that flows south sheet flows through the ditches to the south. So we got a situation here where there have been historically some problems in both Pine Ridge and Lake Placid because back before of what our standards are today. And those are problems that with this Castleton development and again, the biggest problem with Castleton really was debris in the lines, because I would suggest it was well engineered, but with Castleton there were some problems. I believe they have been totally solved. We had a very rainy period this summer, and they haven't experienced flooding problems in Castleton. Our stormwater does not go in that direction number one. Number two, it will all be handled on site and then will be released using the BMPs that are now required using today's standards. We will actually be helping the process is our opinion. And frankly back in 1997, when this was held up when the original application for Taylor Farm Associates was going through the process, I got a number of calls during the hold up period wanting to know why we weren't going forward because they viewed it, the people who were in charge o(the civic league at Pine Ridge, they viewed it as being a positive. It was going to help drainage. Clearly things that have happened since then have been done to clear the lines, to clear the canals and the drainage has been helped and so I'm not going to suggest that this is going to be a panacea but it is clearly going to help drainage and not going to hurt drainage and we're using everyone. My client, our engineers, City, their engineers, Mr. Block and everyone else are well aware of the situation that exists out there and I think everyone is working towards solving it. I think it's been solved frankly, but we're going to be under a microscope and we know that. We are also well aware that there may be a few less lots than this in the end, but at this point and this is not a situation that's been approved for a "X" number of lots. I had put in the proffers originally a maximum of 132 lots. They asked me to take "maximum" out and I said fine because I know we're not going up, we're only going down. If we go down, and I'm not saying that we're going to, but I think that's a possibility. We recognize that. We are fully aware of the challenges that this site presents, but in the big picture, and I don't want this to be overstated, the challenges are that we're not developing like everything around us on similar properties have developed in the past. We met and we believe totally exceeded the requirements that the challenges that are presented to us. Ad in the end, you also went up to a higher end product because of all the open space that you have behind the lots. You don't have lots that back up to each other. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're not asking for any variance to create any more buildable land. Eddie Bourdon: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: You're staying on the high land that exists that's receiving water now running into the floodplain and of course you have retention that's controlling some of that. Is that correct? Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 6 Eddie Bourdon: That's absolute. Our BMP's are on high land. You can't put a BMP in the floodplains. So all of our storm water retention is on high land. None of our homes are built on anything but high land. There is a total of about 10,000 square feet of area of floodplain on this entire project that will be filled a few inches on the corners of some lots. That is it. No houses are built anywhere in the floodplain. And, the City's floodplain ordinance in this part of the city allows up to five percent impact and we're about half of that, and of that, it's almost off of roads in the subdivision. I'll also tell you on Nimmo Parkway, the amount of floodplain impact there is more than 10 times the floodplain impact that we have and ours is minimal. Ronald Ripley: The number that you used for improving Nimmo, is that also include the pump station? Eddie Bourdon: No. That's the cost of the road. Ronald Ripley: So you have a road and a pump station? Eddie Bourdon: The pump station will likely be on site too. We put it in the proffers again just because we just wanted. Staff said they want to be aware. It might be offsite. We're copfident that it will be onsite, but that's in addition to the pump station. Ronald Ripley: Will that relieve any sewage issues in the area or is it just for this property and future properties? Eddie Bourdon: I'm not aware of any sewage problem or any capacity problems. I think it's just a service this property. There really isn't anything else out there that's developable. Ronald Ripley: Yes. Barry Knight. Barry Knight: I have a couple of observations. You talk about the 100-year floodplain. That 100-year floodplain could happen back to back, but the average occurrence of this happening is going to be once every 100 years. The floodplain elevation in that area is 6.3 fee( So, if you have 6.2 feet you're in the floodplain inches. If you have 6.4 inches, a difference of 2 inches, you're out of it. So, I understand from where I live, and farming all of our land down here is a whole lower than this but it is a floodplain but a floodplain is not wet area. It's area that could wet in this 100- year storm event. I kind of want to help you clarify that. And on the number of houses, you have 132 homes. You're asking for a permit for 132 homes, but it's possible that when you go in for site review and stormwater management, you could possibly end up with less than 132 homes. Would you think that 132 homes isn't set in stone. That it could possibly be less than that, because of those, but maybe is there any thought you may consolidate some of these lots? Eddie Bourdon: That's a possibility. As this process goes forward, and because of the microscope that this site is under because of the issues we talked about, we recognize that there may be both to make sure that we more than adequately deal with these stormwater issues and again, that's correcting other problems. We have considered that there may be Item #19 & 20 A1car, L.L.C. Page 7 some consolidation of some of the lots. So, there's no question in our mind that 132 represents the maximum, and the likelihood is that it will be somewhat less than that before it's over with. And, your point about the floodplain is 6.25 feet but it's absolutely correct. So, all we're talking about is a couple of inches of storage capacity. Not swamp land. There are some isolated non-tidal wetlands, that are already permitted to be impacted and were reducing that by 40 percent over that which is already permitted to be impacted. Ronald Ripley: Well, the biggest issue that I heard in the first application that came through here, and the biggest concern that I think that everybody had was the drainage that was coming out of Castleton and the adjoining neighborhoods. And, we're going to hear from some folks out there and I'm sure that they'll testify some way or the other about what has happened here. It is my understanding that's been greatly improved with some retention and the system being cleaned out and some of the things you've said. That's a real important point because it was a real big point then, if I recall, and it may still be a big point. I'm not crossing over this. But we do have some other people to speak. Eddie Bourdon: In conclusion, half the density essentially of what the Comprehensive Plan reco!lliI1ends for this area. Thank you very much for your time. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Other speakers that have signed up. Irene Duffy. Irene Duffy: Good afternoon. I'm going to pass around two pictures to look at while I speak. Just to clarify this is the area in question. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Duffy? Irene Duffy: What? Ronald Ripley: You need to speak at the podium. Irene Duffy: Oh, sorry. This is the area in question right here. This would be where a part of Nimmo Quay would be to the south of Buckingham and Castleton. And this is one of our retention ponds; our only retention pond in Buckingham. There are others in Castleton. This is Buckingham. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Irene Duffy: As I said, my name is Irene Duffy, and I'm on the Board of Directors for Buckingham of Castleton and President of Castleton. I'm here representing Buckingham today, which is a village adjacent to the proposed Nimmo Quay. Thank you for this opportunity to speak this afternoon. The Village of Buckingham is opposed to the development of this kind on the attractive land in question for the same reason you've opposed to it approximately two half years ago. At that time, City Council heard and Item # 19 & 20 A1car, L.L.c. Page 8 understood our concerns regarding drainage and flooding, and turned down the requested proposal. In addition, in a former case, the Planning Staff's recommendation to the Commission was to deny the request. We find ourselves in the same position today. Last month, when this application for rezoning was deferred, the Planning staff's recommendation was for the request to be denied. We wholeheartedly agree with that decision for the following reasons. The neighborhood we live in borders West Neck Creek and that is our storm drainage outlet. The proposed development, Nimmo Quay, will be directing their storm drainage water into the same creek. Weare a very wet neighborhood. In fact, city engineers, to their credit, are still trying to workout the kinks for the dry BMP that was proposed and dug to alleviate drainage problems that had been overlooked by the developer. The BMP was created this past winter. The attention was to have a dry BMP that filled up only during large events such as tropical storms or hurricanes or otherwise. It was to be maintained by the City in the fashion of a meadow were fescue would grow, and it would be mowed and maintained by the City. Since its creation, it has not been mowed once for good reason. If a lawn mower were to go in there it would never come out. It would sink into three feet of water that currently stands where the tall wetland weeds have established themselves. It is turning into a wetland. One might argue, well this has been a really wet year and this will never happen again. To this person I would say we had a real wet year not more than two to three years ago and that' s_ 50 percent of the time that I have lived here. If we were to have a serious storm or hurricane now, as it stands, we would have some serious flooding problems. One might argue well, this developer is different. They would do it differently. They really know how to mitigate their rainwater. They won't make any mistakes because they have smarter engineers. To this person, I would say all the prior engineers were reputable and confident. None of them started out saying we really aren't able to do this but let's do it anyway, knowing that things would go wrong. Otherwise, they would have designed the drainage differently or not built here at all. It is foolhardy to ignore what other professionals have experienced. All that we are asking is that the Commission pay very close attention to where they are proposing to build and how much fill would be brought in and where they intend the water to go. The property can be built on can be encompassed as wetlands and floodplain. There is a huge amount of standing water on that land. There is not two to three inches, and I invite you to go back there and look. There are two to three feet of standing water at any given time back there in that area where they want to build. If the water was redirected or displaced it might flood an already existing, saturated community. Can we be certain that more development directly abutting and adjacent to our home will not increase our propensity to flood during a minor or major rainfall. I would like to read a quote that I found on the website belonging to the Virginia Beach Planning Department under the heading of Flood Control. "Wetlands provide flood control by acting as a giant sponge absorbing and holding water during storms. Fast moving water is slowed by vegetation and temporarily stored in wetlands. The gradual release of water released creates erosion potential and possible property damage. When wetlands are filled, areas designed by nature to control floodwaters from Nor'easter extreme high tides, etc, are lost." We believe it is the City's responsibility to put the safety and welfare of its citizens above the interest of private enterprises seeking personal profit and gain. Weare asking that the Commission give strong consideration to the recommendation given by the City's Planning staff last month, which brings me to a question that I need to ask. What change was made in the Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 9 application request that would warrant the change in the staff's recommendation? Since the deferral last month, there has been a change in the recommendation made by the Planning staff; so, I'm wondering if the development plans were redesigned or adjusted to avoid disturbance in this environmentally sensitive area. This land is marginal at best and building here not only threatens existing homes but is irresponsible business practice regarding the new home owners of Nimmo Quay. And to Mr. Bourdon, I would say, please tell my sump pump under the house that the water in the cinder block voids are trumped up drainage problems. I thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Ms. Duffy? William.Din: I got a question. Ronald Ripley: Yes. William Din: The two pictures that you passed around shows a dry BMP. Obviously a dry BMP is only dry in dry weather but is intended to collect water. Irene Duffy: Well, the dry BMP intention was to be wet during large events. It was not supposedJo be a retention pond and it was not supposed to be a retention lake. We have one of those already. William Din: What is your intention, and I don't understand why you're showing us a picture of a dry BMP with water in it when it is supposed to collect water. Irene Duffy: Well, its supposed to be dry most of the time I would assume, if it's a dry BMP, but it has not been dry since it was done. My point is that the purpose of the dry BMP was to retain water that was supposed to go in to the permanent retention pond. It was supposed to be an over fill and it was supposed to happen only during large events such as hurricanes. My point was that it is wet all the time. We have not had a hurricane as of yet, and it already has wetland plants growing in it and it has not been maintained by the city, because we can't grow grass. It doesn't survive because it's too wet. What I'm saying is that if a hurricane was to happen now, or we were to have a large storm, it would flood because that is the last action for us, that dry BMP. William Din: And the retention pond is suppose to have water in it? Right? Irene Duffy: Exactly. William Din: And you're showing us that it does have water in it? Irene Duffy: I'm showing you that it is full and that it is at the top of the drainpipe and that is how it sits most of the time because West Neck Creek is where the outfall is for our retention pond so when it doesn't flow it ends up backing up. William Din: Are you having flooding in your area on the streets? Irene Duffy: No. It's much better now. It's much better now, than it was in the Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 10 beginning. We had a lot of flooding due to, as was mentioned, the BMP system and we haven't had a large event either so I think we're maxed out. William Din: We've had some rain events here but during the rainy events what kind of flooding do you encounter there? Irene Duffy: We don't have flooding in the streets anymore. Not since they've fixed the drainage. We do have water in our yards and in my crawl space. I use a sump pump to get the water out of the cinder block voids that are there periodically. William Din: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: JoAnn Massey. JoAnn Massey: Good afternoon. I am here to present a petition from the Chartwell of Castleton and Buckingham of Castleton homeowners in opposition of the rezoning. We oppose this rezoning based on our neighborhoods flooding problems and remedies by the City of Virginia Beach that Ms. Duffy spoke to about earlier. Castleton as a whole has always been indated with drainage and flooding issues. We do not think it would be prudent for the Commission to approve this rezoning and ultimate subdivision development of the above referenced property on Items #19 & 20. The flooding and drainage issues of Castleton, we feel would escalate as a new development in that location would permit considerably more drainage into our already overburdened and troublesome dry BMP and drainage system. I do have additional photos of the dry BMP, which has never been dry ever. It's right behind my house. I've got pictures from the very beginning up until a couple of weeks ago. It has never been dry. Here's the petition. Ronald Ripley: Is that a copy of the petition? JoAnn Massey: It is original signatures. Ronald Ripley: Do you have a copy of that? JoAnn Massey: No, I don't. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You may want to get a copy from staff later if you would like to have a copy. JoAnn Massey: Okay. Yes, I would. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Ms. Massey? Thank you very much. Will, has a question. I'm sorry. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 11 William Din: It's the same question and you're quoting that there's flooding problems and draining problems in your neighborhood. JoAnn Massey: Drainage problems now. Flooding problems before. The drainage problems being that the BMP and the retention pond flowing into the West Neck Creek which this subdivision would be draining its into West Neck Creek. West Neck Creek backs up, the retention ponds back up, the dry BMP backs up and the dry BMP has never been dry. William Din: Has the dry BMP every overflowed into the neighborhood? JoAnn Massey: The pipe is a very large drainage pipe. It's gotten to be this close to the top of the pipe. My house is right on the edge of that pipe and the water comes right up to my backyard. And, no it has never flooded my backyard but if we were to ever have a hurricane it may. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. J oAnn Massey: Thank you. Robert Miller: Christine Capozzohi. Forgive me if I mispronounced your last name. Christine Capozzohi: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Christine Capozzohi. I live at 2408 Windy Pines Bend. My husband and I bought our house and property in October 1987. Next month, it will be 16 years. We love the neighborhood. The first thing that we noticed as we pulled into the entrance, this is a beautiful bird sanctuary. We have signs there. We love being close enough to the ocean and yet still living in the country with all the birds abutting our backyard. We used to have deer come up. In the backyard, we throw out crumbs and whatever and other animals come up. We had no problem. This was just absolutely beautiful. Now that I have brain surgery in 1997, I'm' a shut-in. I have vision problems. I have no peripheral vision whatsoever. I can't drive. The only thing that I have daily is to look at the backyard or maybe once in a while be able to cross the street ifthere' s no traffic coming to walk one of my three dogs. When this proposal first came out two years ago, you were talking about them building houses in the woods. But before that we had drainage problems. I'm guessing about five years ago the City came in to help with the drainage problems. There is about a 10 foot buffer in the back of the property, which comes from the end of Windy Pines Bend to the other. I guess I'm talking about maybe 15-18 houses and a brand new drainage system, which helped us so much. I thank Castleton. First of all, while they were building Castleton and they came in and they logged all the woods behind us. They left us a few little skinny trees. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Capozzohi, you're starting to run out of time. Christine Capozzohi: I'm sorry. Ijust want to say that my property is not of any use to me if they're going to go in there and build and put more houses in. If this is passed by this board, I would like the owner of that property, or the builder to come and buy my Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 12 property from me and they can do whatever they want with that as long as I get a good decent price for my house. I thank you all very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you all very much. Robert Miller: Angela Snyder. Angela Snyder: Hello. My name is Angela Snyder. I am a resident of Pine Ridge. This application was deferred from the August 13th agenda, and I have the same question that the first lady had and that I understand that from this morning staff's meeting that the Commission now supports this application. But, what has changed since the recommendation was for denial at the August 13th agenda? I am an adjacent property owner and I would like to show you where my house is because it does effect this development. Weare right about here and the back of our house will be right behind the new development. We have terrible flooding problems. Our backyard looks like a lake just when it rains. We're not talking about a significant event, just normal rainfall. So, I can imagine that the new houses will have that problem as well. The Comprehensive Plan does identify this area as a Conservation Area. It does contain tidal and non-tidal wetlands. There will be no buffered trees for noise reduction and wildlife retention. There will be a definite negative impact on schools and roads. It was noted in the recommendation of the staff, that Kellam High is currently over capacity by 286 students and that does not take into account other developments that have already been approved and are under construction. That's a real concern. The wetlands will be negatively affected. I heard the lady mention what I was going to quote from your website, but I believe she has already done that about the wetlands being a sponge. I just wanted to stress about the flooding being an issue. The stormwater drainage is very poor. The U.S. Navy also opposed this request. They feel that it's an encroachment on their operations. I have letters of opposition I think have been filed. We do have a petition, which has already been submitted to you. There are 62 names on that. I do have a question of Mr. Bourdon, and I'll be able to ask that? Ronald Ripley: You can state it and we can ask him. Angela Snyder: The question is I heard him say and point to this map which I could not see from my location but there was going to be a row of buffered trees that I wondered where that was going to be? We ask that you deny this request. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Angela Snyder: Thank you. Robert Miller: John Snyder. John Snyder: Hello. My name is John Snyder: I've lived on Windy Pines Bend for probably since December. Just moved there. Right there would be my house. According to your plans, these new lots would abut to my back property line. Behind my property line there is a drainage system that the City had installed and I'm not sure when because I Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 13 just moved there. I have a constant problem with water running off the back of these lands onto my yard because my water is trying to go towards that property to go away from my house and my house is flooded. The way I see it with these property lines connecting or abutting to each other as they are in this drawing, if they properly grade the yards of these new homes, the backyard of that house is going to be flowing right towards the back of mine and therefore, I'm going to have more problems. All that I wanted to say about this drain that is back there is the drain sits so far high out of the ground because the ground is so low that when the water does gather around towards the drain, it doesn't get high enough to go into the drain. I've had several people come out from the City, from Public Works, and they tell me they can't access it. So, how are they going to access this when they have these property lines connecting to mine and not only is that drain bac;:k there that should be absorbing some of the water and I've been trying for months to try to get my water to go towards these drains so it would be out of my yard and away from my house and it just doesn't do it. It just stands there and goes nowhere. Also behind my fence line is the electrical box and everything else, and Ijust don't know how with these property lines like this, if anything happens, how are they going to access any of these public utilities. Those are a few of my concerns. Like I said, I'm just a new homeowner trying to keep my yard dry and at least get it running off my property and its just running right back to my property from where it is now. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Snyder, is there a ditch behind your property or is it a drainage pipe that has a drop in? John Snyder: A very large City drain with very big grates in it. I mean a small animal can go through there. I've told my son not to mess around and get his foot caught in it or something. Ronald Ripley: Is it a grading issue you think to get the water to the pipe? John Snyder: Yes. See, that is what I told the people who came out. If you all would grade the land around there a little better, maybe it would flow into that drain. Also in my baCKyard we have mature trees, very large mature trees. Earlier concept plans in past years from looking through papers, City work, they left a nice buffer with those mature trees between the neighborhoods and with the property lines connecting like that and the utilities there and everything, I don't know how they're going to do that. It kind of doesn't make any sense to me why they would want to connect the property lines. I would think you would leave it zoned between there so you could access the public utilities. I don't know whether they are planning on moving these public utilities. Ronald Ripley: Typically, what you'll find is that there will be a City easement. You have a City easement across the back of your property for which the City should be maintaining that swale. It's their easement. This development will also have to dedicate their City easements for the same reason. We'll have Mr. Bourdon address this. John Snyder: I was just concerned on how they were going to access public utilities that are behind my house and that's going to go between these two. I would also like to say that we moved in there, my fourteen year old son was really looking forward to running Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 14 around through the woods back there and being a boy. He hadn't been able to go back there. It's too muddy. He'll sink up to his knees. They ask me if I would allow them to access that area through my yard. I said bring a tow truck because any heavy equipment your taking through my yard is going to sink. My yard hasn't been dry since I've been there. I have trouble just trying to mow the grass. Those are a few of my concerns. Thank you very much for hearing them. Ronald Ripley: Thank you for coming up. Robert Miller: Jack Reich. Jack Reich: How you doing? My name is Jack Reich. I live at Hunt Club Forest. My property borders the proposed thing. When we get a rain and not even a heavy rain, water comes up four feet. I had that creek and I guess it connects to West Neck Creek at the edge of my backyard. It comes up four feet up from that creek into my yard. I have an embankment. It comes up that embankment four feet. With just the rains that we've had, I mean we haven't had, God forbid we have. It's a lot worse now since they knocked all those trees down back there. I mean in the past, when I guess water would be held in the woods back there. I didn't have that much of a problem other than in a hurricane. of course you would expect it to come up. Now, with just heavy rains like we've had. I mean I'm not exaggerating and we're talking four feet up on my property, up the embankment. I cannot get flood insurance because the corner of my property is in a flood zone. I won't have a house left. I have an above ground pool in my backyard. If that water comes up any higher, it will end up taking my pool out. I mean this is just absolutely nuts. And, they're going to drain into West Neck. It can't handle what's there now. I just can't understand any of this and I don't want to see my property destroyed. I probably lost, and anybody can come out and look, I probably lost two feet of my property in the last two years at the edge. The City doesn't maintain anything. I maintain it. I do my best to keep it up. I keep the grass cut. I keep everything back there. Clean up the garbage that flows from other people's houses down. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller, has a question. Robert Miller: When you bought the house. When do you buy your house? Jack Reich: 1987. Robert Miller: Wasn't there a drainage easement on your property then and that canal was there at that time? Jack Reich: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Okay. Since you've live there, you're telling me that Public Works have never been out there to maintain that canal? Jack Reich: No. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 15 Robert Miller: That's something we definitely have to have our staff investigate. Jack Reich: I take care of it. Robert Miller: No. Jack Reich: I have never called up and complained. Robert Miller: I believe what you're saying, and I think that could be part of the issue if your having water rise four feet, perhaps it's blocked up somewhere and it's not properly draining and it's something that Public Works can get out there and do something about it. Jack Reich: Just since they've cleared those trees. Robert Miller: I hear you. Thank you. Jack Reich: You're welcome. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Jack Reich: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Do we have anybody else? Robert Miller: Jeff Trenton. Jeff Trenton: I've got a couple of points. The first one is goes to the credibility of the proposal. We've talked about this buffer area. On page 11, the Planning staff says, "it should be noted that one particular valuable aesthetic natural resource is being eliminated with the current proposal is the existing 40 to 50 foot wooded buffer along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the neighborhoods of Castle ton and Pine Ridge." It kind of contradicts what Mr. Bourdon says. I would assume the Planning Commission is objective on this because it goes to the credibility of the proposal. The major issue I'd like to address is has everybody seen the newspaper today? You see the newspaper today, massive headlines "Super Hornets Coming to Virginia Beach." We got the squadrons. Massive headline is going to be a lot louder. Headline basically today is "Super Hornets coming to the Beach." It's big, the biggest story in this town for quite a while. Let me suggest what tomorrow's headline can be if you make a mistake on this. "City Council Approves Additional Residential Development Despite Navy Objections." Navy says new development will encroach on air operations. That's your headline. I've heard that sort of debate when I was on the Castleton Oceana Liaison Committee. The Navy would always marvel that the city would continue to build even when the Navy was saying that there are serious noise level issues and other issues concerning flight operations. And they would marvel that the city could continue to do that. Now especially today when they say we're going to get the Super Hornets. When they say they're going to be much louder. When they say they're going to have training Item #19 & 20 A1car, L.L.c. Page 16 operations with new aircraft, to have additional building to approve the next day, additional residential construction when the Navy tells you that you shouldn't be doing it, you're going against what the Navy says, and were saying that we're a Navy town and were patriotic. However, we're going to go for the buck and do the building. That is what it seems to me. I guess that is all that I'm going to say. Robert Miller: Where do you live Jeff? Jeff Trenton: I live right there in Castleton. Robert Miller: Can you point to it? There's a pointer right there on the table. Ronald Ripley: The little black thing. Jeff Trenton: I'm right here. Robert Miller: Okay. How's your quality of life there? Jeff Trenton: It's nice to have the woods behind. Robert Mjl1er: A nice neighborhood? Jeff Trenton: It's a nice neighborhood. The noise is an issue. Robert Miller: Really. Jeff Trenton: Especially the question of when the Super Hornets being louder. Because we know Navy guys who fly and say yeah, the Super Hornets are going to be a lot louder. Robert Miller: Every time you see one of those Navy guys making all that noise, why don't you thank him for the freedoms you have. Thank you. Jeff Trenton: The Navy is the one who's saying your encroaching on their operations. Not me. Robert Miller: Thank you. Jeff Trenton: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Is there anybody else? Robert Miller: No sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Where do I begin. I think you already picked up on the fact that the BMP that is holding water is a BMP that is working given the fact that we had a record summer for rainfall and the first young lady who spoke on it, I'll be happy and be candid Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 17 and say that the flooding problems are corrected. They're not flooding. Frankly, depending upon the size of a hurricane, if we have a hurricane, there are a lot of places in the City of Virginia Beach, a whole lot of places that are going to have flooding on a temporary basis and for the flat area coastal plain that we live in, that's an inevitability. There's nothing anybody can do about that if we have a hurricane. You can't design a storm drainage system for a city based on a hurricane event. And, we haven't nor have any other coastal cities that I'm aware of but we certainly in this case, being that we are downstream of Castleton, we're not going to be putting water upstream. What we also will be doing is as you all know, and as we've talked about, is our BMPs all have to be in upland areas. They have to be designed and engineered so that we are in not any way shape, or form increasing the rate of flow into that drainage system in a storm event. And, again, Castleton is the latest development that had experienced some problems. They developed, and a significant amount of their lots are in the floodplain. None of these lots are in the floodplain. The other development, Pine Ridge specifically and Lake Placid up the upstream, they have houses, many, many of them which were built in the floodplain but the flood elevation used to calculate their height was too low, which is the issue with the runoff. All of this is being addressed and has been addressed and we will be addressing it so that we will not be adding in anyway to anybody's water problem and that's what this plan represents, because it is such a minimal amount of development with all of the _sponge left unimpacted. With regard to Ms. Snyder, she brought up a number of different things. The buffer behind here, first off all, behind their houses there is a 30- foot easement between our lots and their lots that would be maintained. We also maintain wooded area along the entirety property line with the neighboring properties and of that entirety, there are 65 lots that adjoin us, this is one section. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're over your time. But you're answering our questions. Eddie Bourdon: I knew you were going to ask that question. Ronald Ripley: So consider your questions and answers. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. I'll consider mine questions and answers. We got this section here where there is a wooded buffer because it's the wooded buffer that we maintain. There are trees on the back of these lots. If you notice, these lots are larger lots than those in the neighborhood. There are a number of trees on these lots. There are trees on our property all the way around. Most of our boundary with the neighboring subdivisions, all of these lots go directly to our property line. We have left a wooded buffer and that buffer will remain. What the staff was commenting about is that in the 255 lot plan, our lots were not to the property line but we're still going to maintain on the back of these lots. Not 50 feet although in the case of these seven lots here to the east, there's already 30 foot buffer that will remain and that is an underground drainage easement and we will be able to add another 15 to 20 feet to that. So basically, about a 40 to 50 foot buffer that will occur here. This area here the buffer will be less but these lots that we adjoin here. We have 10 lots that adjoin a total of eight above us. We'll be probably able to leave about 20 to 30 feet of trees on our property in addition to roughly Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 18 the same amount of trees that exist on the back of those lots. Elsewhere, there is no impact at all in terms that trees remain adjacent to the rest of the properties. Ronald Ripley: While you're on that subject Mr. Scott, it wouldn't be appropriate for this applicant to size the drainage pipe along those adjacent property lines to service water coming off of Castleton for example but it would be appropriate for the city, when they're in there doing the development to get their grades right if the grades have gotten filled in or what not so that we get two drainage systems that are getting the water out of there. Would that be appropriate to say? Robert Scott: Really, you have to leave that up to the design engineer and what concept they're going to use to drain it. It wouldn't be inappropriate to do. Ronald Ripley: Would it be inappropriate to oversize it to take other water? Robert Scott: It's not a question so much of oversizing as it is of grades. The problem is the land is very low and very flat. The grading issues are most of the problems I believe. I certainly don't want to rule anything out like that, but at some point, someone is going to have to figure out how to drain this land and their concept might possibly include that. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: You'll also notice and it's obvious to everyone, and I'm going to show you, that there are lots all along here, lots all along here that come to our property line and had our property line were a floodplain, what does that tell you? These lots were all built in the floodplain. And, that's a reality. The houses of a lot of these people that adjoin us were in the floodplain and that's not happening on our property. We're not doing anything as far as building houses in the floodplain that exists around us. That's the key to this whole situation is that we're not going to be creating any problems for anybody else and our stormwater off of our impervious surfaces go into BMPs that we're creating on our property to hold that water on our high land not in the floodplain. So we're not affecting the flood storage capacity or the rate of flow in any way in the floodplain. Eugene Crabtree: I think you just answered my question. Your three stormwater management facilities should actually improve the wetlands that is now draining to people's property by holding it on your own property. What they say is running form the woods now and having problems with that when you put these in that should correct some of their problems because then it will not run there but will be held in your stormwater management. Eddie Bourdon: We fully believe and understand and appreciate the fact and it is a reality given the history of these other developments that we are going to be looked upon to not only make sure that we have no impact but to probably help to alleviate some of the existing impacts and we are well aware of that and prepared to address that challenge. Eugene Crabtree: That's what I was asking. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 19 Ronald Ripley: Jan Anderson. Janice Anderson: On the wooded buffer that you said you would leave there, that is a drainage easement also, is there any problem with keeping it wooded? You said that you might have to take a tree or two but it's not going to be clearer. Eddie Bourdon: Those mature trees are the ones the owner left and didn't log when the rest of the property was logged because they provide that buffer. The answer is I don't believe, we hope there aren't any trees that have to be taken out. It is our desire to leave that buffer, but maybe some that do, but they will be the ones farthest away from the shared property line. They won't be on the shared property line. Again, unless for some reason that we're not aware of dealing with the existing drainage improvements or the City drainage improvements that would have to necessitate some removal. We're not anticipating that will be the case. Janice Anderson: Is there anywhere the proffers that you can make just say maintain the wooded buffer. It wouldn't be specific. Eddie Bourdon: We could between now and City Council we could put on the plans a note about the wooded buffer that exists. That can certainly be done. In terms of the proffers themselves, I'm not sure from what other developments such as wording that anyone is really going to be comfortable with. Barbara is not here. Barbara Duke and I have had discussion a lot lately. I think that she and I'll just quote her for the staff, I think they're more comfortable with some type of a note on the plan itself as opposed to trying to come up with words in a proffer to deal with that. I think that is an issue that we could address by putting a note in to the proffer that trees in this area are to remain. Janice Anderson: The wording in your proffers. Eddie Bourdon: You're referring to the plan. Janice Anderson: To the plan. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Charlie Salle' and then Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Mr. Bourdon, in reference to the gentleman that was complaining about the aircraft, if I understand the position of this property, this property is not in the actual major flight plan of take off or landing and the crash zone is just the noise zone. So from a safety standpoint of view we don't have it in direct line of any of the major runways and therefore the noise level is the only question? Am I correct? Eddie Bourdon: That is correct. Ronald Ripley: Charlie. Eddie Bourdon: We left plenty of room for ajet to crash with all the open space on 74 percent of the property. I hope none ever do. Item #19 & 20 A1car, L.L.c. Page 20 Eugene Crabtree: Ijust want to make sure that you're not in that direct crash zone. Eddie Bourdon: No, were not even near a crash zone. We surrounded by residential development at three half units per acre. Eugene Crabtree: Just clarifying it that's all. Charlie Salle': My experience with crash zones is when an airplane flies over your head you're in a crash zone. Eddie Bourdon: With all this conservation area we're setting aside, there is plenty of room and God forbid if one every came down. We hope they wouldn't come down in any of the neighborhoods that surround us but it doesn't exist. Charlie Salle': I had a couple of questions and Jan explored part of that on the buffer zone, I noticed that the wooded buffed areas is across the actual platted lots and I guess to what extent is the subject lot owner bound to keep that area wooded? Eddie Bourdon: There certainly is an ability to put in an easement on the property. It could be a Homeowners Association that's going to own not only all the open space and the vast majority of our property that abuts to 65 lots in a neighborhood would belong to the association and so there is the ability to put an easement to allow the association to enforce not only on their own property but on the back of the 18 lots that we have that adjoin other lots. Charlie Salle': That might be one of the responsibilities. Eddie Bourdon: I would agree Mr. Salle', and I don't think you would have any problem with putting in a condition. The issue simply would be the depth of the easement on any' of the lots. Charlie Salle' : And the other question deals with drainage. This project is downstream from the areas that we had people had concerns about it. Is the system of drainage connecting the existing drainage that's will be flowing down to your project? Eddie Bourdon: There are some drainage ways that come through and it's natural drainage that clearly comes through here. That's what all the floodplain in these areas that we preserved that is directly adjacent to their lots that were created in the floodplain. That's why it is important and critical and that's why we had stayed out of those areas with our development, so that we're not impacting the natural drainage ways with regard to the manmade drainage ways. Yes, they do also traverse our property, and we will be enhancing those to some degree. Primarily, we're going to make sure that we have no negative impact on those in terms of adding in any way to flow in those drainage ways in a storm event. We're also providing a BMP for Nimmo Parkway on some of our high land, right out here at the entrance. Right here were adding a BMP that will be used for Nimmo Parkway again, so there isn't any impact on the drain when that road is built. We Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 21 do have drainage that comes across the property. There's natural drainage that comes across the property that we are not going to impact. Ronald Ripley: Kathy and then Joe. Kathy Katsias: Mr. Bourdon, are you and the developer is willing to reduce the amount of lots depending on the storm water drainage system. Is there a number that would make this economically not feasible by the production? Eddie Bourdon: That whole issue Ms. Katsias is going to be dealt as we go through the engineering, which is in this case and that really is the answer. I believe. I don't want to speak for staff, but I think the staff s comfort level with this proposal was enhanced by face to face meetings with our engineers and our clients, and we understand and have bent over backwards already and will continue to do the same to make sure that there is no impact on drainage on the property surrounding us. We walked into this knowing that the problems that have existed and to some degrees still exist, although I think they have been in a large part been solved, not totally, and we recognize that we may lose some lots in that process. But, that's an expensive process. All that detailed engineering on individual and grades and what have you, it's going to be a process that we're recognizing is going to take some time. And, I said before, we don't expect any of these houses on these lots to be on line or for sale for two years because we know that process isn't going to be a quick one. As far as a number, no, there is no way we can sit here and say it will be 120 versus a 132 and we're not in a position to know that at this point. Ronald Ripley: Joe, did you have a question? Joseph Strange: Yeah. Some of the opposition, they expressed concern that even though your saying that these BMPs are going to be on high property that maybe this isn't going to really work. Who do they go to and get assurances that your plan will work so they could feel comfortable and not feel like when they walk out of here that this gets passed that they're going to be protected. Eddie Bourdon: I think they can walk out of here and walk out of the Council meeting, because they will be hearing the same thing there, knowing that every engineer and Public Works of the City is well aware, and they've been aware for a number of years about the issues that have been brought forth and that these plans are going to be checked, doubled checked, tripled check to make sure that they will in fact they will do what in fact what we said they will do. They will not be adding to their burdens, so to speak, that exist. And, the City has studied this area extensively. We're looking at property that we are only developing on, essentially on the high land, and that's one assurance that I would take out of here. Number two, the fact that everyone is going to be scrutinizing it very carefully to make sure that we alleviate the problem. The problems that have existed, have existed in large measure because of previous errors that aren't going to be repeated again in terms of using incorrect information, in terms of what the floodplain was back in the 60's with Lake Placid. Our knowledge is so much greater now then it was in the 1960s. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 22 Joseph Strange: If you look under Public Facilities and Services it says, "city water is not available to this development. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new pump station off-site of the sewer system." And then if you look at Proffer #7, "when the property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to service the subdivision, including the possible construction of an off-site sewage pump station." How do these two relate to each other? I don't quite understand it myself. Eddie Bourdon: I believe they say the same thing. There is City water, and City water will be extended to the site at our cost. City sewer same thing, will be extended to our site at our cost. The only question there is whether the pump station will be on this site or off-site, and we are now confident that it will be on site. Like I said, it will be at our cost. There is no cost to the taxpayer at all. City water and City sewer have to be extended at the developer's cost to the property and they're available to the property. Joseph Strange: So what plans and bonds are required for the construction of the new pump station? Does the City have to do that? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. When this gets to subdivision approval. It just lets somebody know, if they're a developer and they're naIve, that they're going to have bond what they're gQing to have put that in. Joseph Strange: So the City doesn't have anything to do with that. Eddie Bourdon: No sir. Joseph Strange: I didn't quite understand myself. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Mr. Bourdon, thank you very much. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Let's open this up for discussion. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Well, since everybody else is a drainage engineer, I guess I can be one. A couple of things that were said today that need to be clarified. Number one is that West Neck Creek is a creek that drains a large part of our city, but it is also connected to both, ironically, the Chesapeake Bay and to Back Bay and it is effective in both directions. It's very unique in that sense. It's a great waterway. It's a longitudinal to the park, as we all know. It's a wonderful place to go and spend some time. There are some issues that come up, and that is trying to maintain it and make sure that it stays clear of debris. Public Works, I think, has done a very good job, but over the years, it's difficult to either stop a tree from growing, or if one fell down, to know that it fell and go out and clean that tree up. I think that's been part of the issues that have dealt with West Neck Creek. The creek, itself, carries a large amount of water during a rainfall event. The drainage in Castleton, the drainage in this subdivision, to some extent, the drainage in Lake Placid are being, what I called "detained" which means it's being slowed down and let lose after Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 23 the storm event has passed. That's the way things are engineered during computer models, and I can assure you there have been any number of, literally hundreds of models done on this particular creek to make sure that what is being done in this area is going to be done correctly and done with conscience towards not only the development that's going on but the other developments around it. Just saying that means that the storm drainage systems have presented every confidence that the City engineers are going to make sure and the developer's engineers together with those items that were talked about today from yard drainage to canal system that's not quite working to worrying about how it's going to flow into West Neck Creek. This water is already going into West Neck Creek, and the water that will be drained from this property will not be in excess of what's already going there. So, there's no net gain. That's part of the rules of the development that has to occur. One lady mentioned, I think Ms. Duffy that there was water under her house. I just want to make sure, and I think she knows this, but that is a builder's problem. That's not related to the development. There are duct valves on the Castleton outfall system at the primary outdoor fall for the Buckingham Village. A duct valve actually opens when the water in the creek is lower and stays closed when the water in the creek goes up. That was done supposedly to stop water from coming back into the subdivision. If in fact, the water is staying in the subdivision in that storm water management facility too long, then it may be that valve is not working. I would suggest that Publ~c Works get involved to make sure that they get that straight. The BMP that was supposed to be dry, but remains wet and the month of May, I think we had 20 days of rain. We've probably had the wettest summer we've had that I could remember. And, even though the events may look like they are not that severe, the continual rain causes the ground to be saturated and all of us, with any sense to my yard, to your yard to anybody else's yard know that after this summer. That would also lead to the fact that the BMP was built dry, otherwise it wouldn't have been built. It was built and it was dry. So, it was dry at some point. And the last thing is the canal system, I would suggest that is on the eastern part of this property next to the Hunt Club, and it goes across the southern portion of the property. I have walked that canal and I know that canal is heavily encumbered with existing trees and growth and other things. And maintenance probably does need to be run on that; so, I would ask that Public Works do that. And stating all of that, I think the developer has done a very unique job of backing off the previous proposals that we've seen. I believe staff believes the same, and the proposed development is one that I personally feel has achieved what all of us were asking for, and that is the honoring of the environmental situation, the honoring of the drainage situation. I do like the idea of putting in the additional condition of an easement for the buffered trees. I think that assures the people that have been here that are worried about that. Let me tell you that's a "Catch 22" when you talk about the drainage issues, because if we save the trees you can't change the grade around the trees so that may be a little bit of a drainage issue which needs to be balanced like Mr. Bourdon indicated I think with good engineering while we're environmentally sensitive to saving these trees. And, the last thing I want to say is I personally very glad that the Navy put the additional F-18As here and I hope they fly over my house everyday and every night. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Bob said it pretty well. I would like to comment on the plan itself also because I was on the Commission when it came through the first time. When you flip that board over and you flip it over to this side, it's like a Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 24 world of difference. Looking at the density, and if you take the developable acres and you divide it to what was proposed you probably get four to the acre. I think the original plan got to three and a half because there was a lot of variances required in order to create more land within the floodplain in order to achieve the number of the density. This case, the developer is not asking for any variance. The variances that we're working with is the land that's there for the most part with the exception of some of the roadways that have to get through there, and I appreciate, quite frankly, this type of exhibit because you get to see the whole floodplain in a much broader sense than some time the way it's presented, which is very hard to see the whole picture. And this is a very helpful way to view what's going on. I think Bob probably covered most everything that I was interested in talking about probably and then some. I think the fact that the developer has recognized the fact that in working with Mr. Scott, his department, there may be more adjustments. That's very appreciative from the Planning Commission's point of view, because I'm sure there's going to be some nips, picks and tucks, and once you get down on the ground with the engineers and actually measure the inches you're going to find some differences. You may just find, and hopefully that works out well for the developer, if that's the case. But, when it comes down for a motion, I'm going to support this. I think it's a good plan. I think it's very creative, and it as Mr. Miller said "it's environmentally sensitive to this piece of land" and this land is a developable piece of land and you have to recognize that. It's 72 acres. Is that correct? Yes Barry. Barry Knight: I agree with what Ron and Bob both say. We have a unique waterway in West Neck, and by being in the Southern Watershed Management Area, I would assume that the largest majority of the water is towards Back Bay. And with the trees over West Neck Creek, we're subjected to a wind tide, which means when wind blows out of the north, we get a low tide. When the wind blows out of the south, we get a high tide. And, if you have a south wind, it backs the water up here, and then if you have a rain event, which is usually associated with a south wind, then the water can't get away. So, I know the residents may not have the exact answer that they're looking for but their voice was heard today because Public Works will get a message that they need to go out there and see about these trees that are over West Neck Creek or some of the tributaries of West Neck to try and get them out of here so the water will flow out of this area a little better. I have a good comfort level with that done that this site will actually improve the drainage on the surrounding neighborhoods so I'll be supporting this project also. I wouldn't mind putting that in a way of a motion also. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to make that a motion at this point? Barry Knight: If you have more discussion. Ronald Ripley: Okay. William Din: I'd just like to make a comment also. I think this development is a environmentally sensitive development, and I know the speakers that came up here in opposition of this may feel that they don't see how this is being environmentally safe to their area, but if you look at the map, the Castleton area, the Pine Ridge area is built right up to the property line. If those areas were developed with the same environmental Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 25 concerns of these wetlands, you probably wouldn't have the houses butted right up against this property level. A lot of these houses wouldn't be there, because they are built in the flood areas or the wetlands that this development is trying to avoid. And, that's why those areas are lower. You see the line. You see the development of Castleton and Pine Ridge, come right up to that line. Well, wetlands just didn't stop there. And, so there is a lot of thought to the environment and the concerns and how this development is built around the wetland areas and I agree with the comments with the drainage. I think it will improve the drainage overall in this area and I to will be supporting this. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: I feel compelled to say one thing. You have our staff report. My comment has to do with tree preservation. Our staff has got a lot of experience- in recent times by dealing with very difficult issues like this. I must say that I would not encourage anybody to very optimistic about tree preservation on this property for two reasons. Number one, you have no tree preservation proffer. A note on the plat isn't going to do any good. By the time this is put to record most of the trees will be gone anyway. Number two, even with a tree preservation proffer, tree preservation and drainage are sort of development opposites of one another. There's going to have to be some significant adjustment to grades in this area, and to adjust grades, you've got to clear trees. I don't want to labor the point by identifying properties for you that you've dealt with and we've dealt with recently where we've had significant tree preservations proffers on them. They're not that effective in preserving trees. The development will sometime necessitate that the trees be cleared out, and this is a piece of property, with the size of the lots that are there and with the necessity to put drainage as a top priority, same degree of manipulation I suspect is going to have to take place. I think that I would not be that optimistic about the ability to preserve trees. In the interest of fairness, I just need to say that. Ronald Ripley: I think that's a very practical statement. Charlie Salle': I have a comment. Ronald Ripley: Charlie. Charlie Salle': Bob, having brought that up, I often observed, that it seems to me that's actually what happens. You have to grade lots even where there's not even a particular drainage problem, but you grade them to meet City standards even if the drainage is not an issue, and as a result of that, the trees have to go. And, I often thought that as a property owner that I would rather have the trees on the lot and drainage problems and puddling on my property then see the trees go, but it seems to me that's just the opposite than most people. We've heard a lot of comments about standing water on people's lots and people just don't tolerate it. And, I think that message comes across so loudly for the City that they set the standards so that you have to create these standards to deal with the drainage. And, I think probably we're our worst enemy when it comes to these issues. Ronald Ripley: I don't disagree. Okay, Barry, did you want to make a motion here. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.c. Page 26 Barry Knight: I'll make a motion on agenda Items #19 & 20, A1car, LLC, that we approve the application as proffered. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kathy Katsias. Is there any further discussion? Then, we would like to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSO ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KA TSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. - 80- Item V-O.lO. PLANNING ITEM # 52430 Attorney Eddie Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, 5th Floor. Phone: 499-8971 represented the applicant, and noted the attendance of Joe Bushey of Clark Nexsen, Douglas Talbot and Alan S Resh, re the application for infill development (Nimmo's Quay) of no more than 132 high end single-family homes located on 112 acres of land, 73 of which are developable land. The proposed density is no more than 1.8 units per developable acre. This development is surrounded by 6 existing residential neighborhood.... The applicant has agreed to construct two (2) lanes of Nimmo Parkway from the Fire station all the way to this property at a cost of approximately $900.000. Sewer and Water, at no cost to the city, will be provided. Douglas Talbot, advised the areas of the wetlands andfloodplains have been deSigned. Under thirty (30) homes are located in the 70 to 75 decibel area. Copies of a map indicating the decibel areas were distributed to City Council. The following registered in OPPOSITION: Captain Tom Keeley, Commanding Officer - Naval Air Station Oceana, 1750 Tomcat Boulevard, Phone 433-3158, Phone: 433-2922, advised this development lies within 3 miles of Ocean a andfalls underneath the AIC02 map adopted by the Navy and the City. The issue is encroachment and Oceana is the number one encroached upon installation in the Department of Defense. Single event noise will be louder in-this neighborhood which lies directly beneath the departure corridor to major Runway 23. Rear Admiral SA. Turcotte. U.S Navy, Commander - Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, advised this application may appear as a "pebble", but if one considers the impact of several pebbles (which are under consideration), it becomes a bolder, All of these will be examined under the Joint Land Use Study, what areas should be or should not be developed. Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY to allow completion of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) applications Ordinances upon application of ALCAR, LL.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-I AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-10 Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Chanl!e of Zonin!! District Classification from AG-I and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-lO Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), we.\'t of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the ~ite as a Conservation Area where land-disturbing activities should be avoided. mitigated or. under certain conditions, prohibited. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE AND, March 23, 2004 - 81 - Item V-O.lO. PLANNING ITEM # 52430 (Continued) ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L. C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633), DISTRICT 7 -- PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. _ McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Richard A. Maddox Due to illness, Councilman Maddox left at 7:58 P.M. Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act ,~ 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR. L.L.C. Her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L. C. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR. L.L.C., she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of, and vote on, the ordinance. upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28,2003, is hereby made a part of the record March 23. 2004 2404 Windy Pines Bend Virginia Beach, VA 23456-3954 March 16,2006 Department of Planning Current Planning Division Planning Evaluation Section 2405 Courthouse Drive Building 2, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Dear Virginia Beach City Council, As property owners adjacent to the subject site, we strongly oppose the application of ALCAR, LLC, for a change of zoning classification from Agricultural to Residential in order to build Nimmo's Quay for the following reasons: < The Navy does not support the rezoning as it would be seen as encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana. < Traffic Will increase dramatically in an already congested area. < Kellam High School is currently way over capacity. < Drainage issues affecting our property have still not been addressed. < The natural resource of mature trees and mature vegetation will be eliminated. < The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as a Natural Resource/Conservation Area and states that land disturbance should be avoided, mitigated or in certain circwnstances, prohibited. < More than half of the land is below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain level and land disturbance and fill are restricted by the City's development ordinances. < Extensive areas of wetlands would be disturbed. Although we strongly oppose this rezoning request, if this project is approved, there should be more open space between our property lines (along Windy Pines Bend) and the property lines of the proposed development. At this time, the city has no access to storm drains in this area. Although we continue to pay for city services, including storm water management, we, not the city, have been maintaining the storm drain behind our house, keeping it free from debris so that the drainage from our property is somewhat bearable. We brought up this issue at the Planning Division hearing in 2002 regarding this .- application and were advised that the matter would be reviewed. Of course, if there is no access available, it is difficult for this problem to be addressed. In addition, the proponent should be required to fund and build four lanes rather than two lanes of Nimmo Parkway. At least that way, the citizens of Virginia Beach could see some minimal benefit. The existing two-lane roads in this area (General Booth/North Landing near the courthouse and Holland Road near Kellam High School) cannot handle any more congestion which would be caused by the addition of this development and the many others already approved. We are also concerned that a new high school has not been proposed and/or budgeted knowing how overcrowded Kellam High School is. More than eighteen portable units and having students eat lunch at 9:09 in the morning are not acceptable solutions to the overcrowding problem. As life-long citizens of Virginia Beach, we feel that our tax dollars could be put to better use by improving City Services in this area which is vastly growing. It also seems that most of our tax dollars go to fund projects at Town Center 3!ld the resort/oceanfront area. These projects are of maximum benefit to the tourists that visit our city, but are of minimal benefit to the citizens of Virginia Beach. We hope that these issues will be addressed and feel that the public's voice has not been heard in the past (such as the 31 st Street Park issue). In the future, hopefully we can all work together to make this city a great place to live. Because we really want to be "living the life in Virginia Beach", but not paying for someone else's. Sincerely, Ikk.l/J j. ~~ L' {.,., ...., /,... :' ') .1" . .' 7 \.-(/1/\ ~ 7lt,~ '1 (.v' .... c'\., John & Angela Snyder CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ThITER-OBACECORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5676 DATE: June 2,2006 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Li~"eY . B. Kay Wil '- DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; ALCAR, L.L.C.. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated March 1, 2006 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 las Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company JAMAST, INC., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of March, 2006, by and between ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; JAMAST, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 48.27 acres and described as "Parcel One" in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with Parcel "Two" and "Three" is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of three (3) certain parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 112.3 acres and described as "Parcel One", "Parcel 1\vo" and "Parcel Three" in Exhibit "An attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcels are herein referred to as the "Property"; and GPIN: 2404-37-1633 2404-57 -3796 2404-56-4943 (Portion of) PREPARED BY: IISylCtS. ROURDON. AIIrnN & LM. P.c. 1 PREPARED BY: WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-l and AG-2 to Conditional R- 7.5 Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the G!antor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R- 7.5 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and .the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro qUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and m SYl(rs. ROURDON, DlAIlffiN & LrVY. P.c 2 persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title and which will not be required of the Grantors until the Property is developed: 1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community substantially In conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). 2. When the Property IS developed, approximately 22.7 acres of parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open Space" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. When the Property is developed, playground equipment and neighborhood park imprqvements meeting the City's Department of Parks and Recreation Standards shall be installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the Concept Plan. 3. When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres of land designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park. 4. When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Homeowners Association, to which membership by all residential units is mandatory, which shall, among other things maintain the Open Space areas. 5. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall incorporate architectural features, design elements and high quality building materials substantially similar in quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs labeled "Typical Home Elevations AT NIMMOS QUAY" dated December 12, 2002 which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with PREPARED BY: the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Anyone story dwelling shall contain IJIBSMS. BOURDON. no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and .. AlIrnN & LM'. P.C any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed 3 PREPARED BY: living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. 6. When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part shall construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP 2-121 in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's engineering standards for the roadway, within the existing Nimmo Parkway public right of way extending east approximately 2560:1: feet from the entrance to the subdivision to connect with the existing improved Nimmo Parkway road section. 7. When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to serve the subdivision, including possible construction of an off- site sewage pump station. 8. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/ or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all c~gnizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-7.5 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by II STIIS. BOURDON. AIURN & lIVY. P.C 4 the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available_- and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: II SYIC~S. ROURDON. AHrnN & llVY. P.c. 5 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company BY:~ Alan S. Resh, Member (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of March, 2006, by Alan S. Resh, Member of ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. ~,~LJ!-vYl ~~_ ../ Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY: lIB SYns. ROVRDON. m AIImN & lIVY, P.c. 6 PREPARED BY: lIB SYnS. ROURDON. m AlIIRN & lM, P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: Jamast, Inc., a Virginia corporation By: cli!?Q Alan S. Resh, Vice President (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of March, 2006, by Alan S. Resh, Vice President of Jamast, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Grantor. ~h-:t 12/ m~{~0 otaIy Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 7 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL ONE: That certain tract or parcel of land containing 50.955 acres, more or less, being bounded on the North by the property now or formerly belonging to the Marie E. Bratten Estate and T.C.C. Development Co., on the East by the property now or formerly belonging to Harry L. Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, and being bounded on the South by the property now or formerly belonging to Willis Brown and being bounded on the West by the property now or formerly belonging to Mauzy F. Riganto and Grace T. Riganto, and being further described as follows: BEGINNING at a 21-inch cypress located at a common comer between the property now or formerly belonging to the Marie E. Bratten Estate and Mauzy F. Riganto and Grace T. Riganto, and running thence North 74 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East 293.92 feet to a pipe, North 74 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds East 199.08 feet to an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 28 seconds East 460.48 feet to an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds East 618.23 feet to a pipe, North 75 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds East 1,900.72 feet to a pipe, and North 74 degrees 06 minutes 46 seconds East 135.60 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence turning and running South 47 degrees 11 minutes 44 seconds East 86.92 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 05 degrees 54 minutes 06 seconds East 113.50 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 36 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West 131.95 feet, thence South 20 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds West 91.11 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 48 degrees 29 minutes 10 seconds West 223.72 feet to a point in the Eastem edge of Brown Town Road, thence South 11 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds West 324.92 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch located in the Eastem edge of the Brown Town Road, thence turning and running South 75 degrees 23 minutes 42 seconds West 1,128.71 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 74 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West 1,250.65 feet to an 18-inch maple, thence tuming and running North 59 degrees 18 minutes 31 seconds West 734.65 feet to a 7-inch cypress, thence North 39 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West 37.22 feet to a 12- inch cypress, thence North 67 degrees 54 minutes 01 second West 281.79 feet to a 21-inch cypress, the Point of Beginning. GPIN: 2404-37-1633 PARCEL TWO: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying, being and situate in Princess Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County) City 11= ~~~. of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and bounded and described as follows: PREPARED BY: 8 PREPARED BY: IIsms. 1l0URDON. AlIrnN & lM. P.c. Beginning at a pine located at the corner of property now or formerly belonging to Brown, Roper and Wright's heirs and running thence N 11 % degrees W. 2.64 chains to a pine stump; thence N 43 degrees W 1.10 chains to a pine; thence N 73 % degrees W 2.87 chains to a pine stump; thence N 82 % degrees W 2.45 chains to a pine stump; thence N 73 degrees W 4.06 chains to a pine; thence N 62 % degrees W 2.81 chains to a pine stump hole; thence N 31 V2 degrees W 3.44 chains to a station on the south side of a ditch at the Browntown Bridge; thence N 56 degrees E 1.44 chains to a station on the south side of a lead ditch; thence N 70 % degrees E 1.54 chains to an unmarked cypress on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 79 % degrees E 2.30 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 57 1/2 degrees E 4.37 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 55 % degrees E 1.74 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 81 1/4 degrees E 3.53 chains to a station on the south side of said .lead ditch; thence N 67 % degrees E 1.50 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 57 degrees E 1.16 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence S 72 % degrees E 2.42 chains to a stone at the comer of property now or formerly belonging to Roper's Rail Road and the property of Lamb in the line of property now or formerly belonging to Brown; thence S 14 % degrees W 3.22 chains to a station in the line of said railroad; thence S 1/4 degree W 12.69 chains to a stone in the line of said railroad at the comer of property belonging to Lamb; thence S 87 % degrees W .47 chains to a sweet gum; thence S 87 %_degrees W 1.62 chains to the point of beginning and containing 16 acres and 37 poles more or less. Excepting from the above is a parcel conveying by deed to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia from Harry L. Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, husband and wife, for a roadway, said Deed being recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 1098, at Page 545, containing 2.690 acres, more or less, known and designated as Parcel 008 (Courthouse-Indian River Road Extended). GPIN: 2404-56-4943 PARCEL THREE: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying in "Brown Town" in Princess Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District) City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a cypress at Brown Town Bridge, and running North 44 degrees W 2.33 chains to a pine; thence N 29 degrees W 2.67 chains to a post; thence N 10 degrees W 1.89 chains to a pine; thence N 9 % degrees W 2.19 chains to a pine stump; thence 6 1/4 degrees W 4.61 chains to a pine; thence N 1 1/4 degrees E 2.06 chains to a pine; thence N 34 degrees E 4.46 chains to a pine; thence N 38 1,4 degrees E 4.82 chains to an oak; thence N 58 degrees E 3.18 chains to a beech; thence N 46 % degrees E 2.13 chains to a gum stump; thence N 86 % degrees E 18.31 chains to a post; thence S 6 % degrees E 5.81 chains on line ditch; thence S 7 % W 12.17 chains 9 PREPARED BY: 13m SYKiS. ROURDON. .. AHmN & llVY. P.c. to a stone on line ditch; thence along said ditch S 73 1/4 degrees W 1.43 chains; thence S 47 degrees W 2.08 chains; thence N 78 ~ degrees W 1.33 chains; thence S 58 1;4 degrees W 1.23 chains; thence N 74 % degrees W 2.01 chains; thence S 60 % degrees W 2.06 chains; thence S 71 1;4 degrees W .76 chain; thence S 89 degrees W 3.43 chains; thence S 55 degrees W 3.86 chains; thence S 63 1;4 degrees W 2.53 chains; thence S 81 degrees W 2.65 chains; thence S 70 degrees W 2.13 chains; thence S 57 degrees W 1.07 chains to beginning, containing fIfty-six acres and one rod, more or less and bounded by the lands now or formerly belonging to Willis Brown, and Boston Brown and Jno. L. Brown. GPIN: 2404-57-3796 ConditionalRezone / Alcar / NimmosQuay /Proffer 1 0 Rev.3/03/06 10 Change of Zoning - from AC-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-1 a/PO-H2 and B-1 A PO-HZ "if' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: LBH, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: Application of LBH, LLC for a Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and B-1 A Limited Business District on property located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, approximately 1 ,950 feet southwest of Sandbridge Road (GPINs 2404809627; 2403698016; 2403886753;2403890088;2403798068;2403793035;2414014092). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as part of the Princess Anne Transition Area, -suitable for residential uses developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan policies for this area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop a residential neighborhood of mixed unit types and a restaurant. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE . Considerations: The applicant has assembled seven (7) parcels between Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road for potential development of a residential community. The proposed development is centered on existing borrow pits that are to be converted into two large lakes. The proposed lakes will be used for non- motorized water activities. Three (3) single-family housing types will be available on lot sizes ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. A multi-family, age-restricted (55 and older) community will also be incorporated into the development. Tying the entire development together will be a multi-purpose trail system that will also connect to an adjacent City-owned site. A 4.3-acre site is designated for dedication to the City as an extension to that City-owned property. A 150-foot wide buffer along Princess Anne Road and a 100-foot wide treed buffer along Seaboard Road are also proposed. Two parcels are proposed adjacent to Princess Anne Road. The parcel will have views of the proposed lake. The non-residential parcels are designated for a restaurant and specialized services. LBH, L.L.C. Page 2 of 3 Staff does not recommend approval of this request. During the work of the Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TATAC), which devised the development rules for the Transition Area, the most frequently asked question to City staff was how density would be calculated. The consistent answer was that Section 200 of the City Zoning Ordinance, which provides requirements regarding what can be considered 'developable,' would govern. The second most frequently asked question was what the density would be, and the consistent answer was that one unit per developable acre would be the maximum. If Section 200 is applied to this proposal, the resulting density would be 2.2 units per acre, as borrow pits are not eligible for density. At some point in the future, City Council may have good reason for changing that rule, but the highly successful collaborative public process that helped create it should not be forgotten. When matched up against the rules in effect today; this request does not merit approval. There was opposition to the request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 7-4 to approve the request as proffered; however, the Commission's motion included direction to the applicant to amend Proffer 5 prior to the City Council hearing to reduce the number of units from 256 to 240. The applicant has submitted revised proffers that limit the development to 240 units. A revised site plan was also submitted showing how the 240 units will be located on the site. The applicant has also added three additional proffers: · Proffer 6 volunteers a Traffic Impact Study during detailed site plan review, and notes that the applicant will complete or bond whatever improvements are called for by the study at the entrance of the development at Princess Anne Road. · Proffer 7 volunteers $400,000 toward improvements to the section of Princess Anne Road between the Sandbridge Road intersection and the Flanagans Road intersection. · Proffer 8 volunteers the dedication to the City of the 4.3-acre parcel near the northeast corner of the development site. . Attachments: Memo from Planning Director to Planning Commission Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends approval. LBH, L.L.C. Page 3 of 3 Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manager~ \L -6c3~ L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 May 10, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Chanae of Zonina District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential district with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District and B-1A Limited Business Districts. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Properties located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, approximately 1950 feet southwest of Sandbridge Road. GPIN: 24048096270000; 24036980160000; 24038867530000; 24038900880000; 24037980680000; 24037930350000; 24140140920000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: Land Area: 116.64 Acres (111.54 acres of residential) ( 5.10 acres of non-residential) Borrow Pit Area: 122.46 Acres Total Area: 239.10 acres The applicant has assembled seven (7) parcels of agricultural zoned land between Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road for potential development of a residential community. The proposed development would be centered on existing borrow pits that would be converted into two large lakes. The proposed lakes would be used for non-motorized water activities. SUMMARY OF REQUEST Three (3) single-family housing types would be available on lot sizes ranging from 6,000 SF to 10,000 SF, A multi-family and age-restricted (55 and older) community would also be incorporated into the development. Tying the entire development together would be a multi-purpose trail system that would also connect to adjacent City Owned site. The total number of dwelling units proposed is 256 (240 units Post-Planning Commission hearing). The following table provides the break down of units. '.-';.- <' USE ACREAGE NUMBER OF UNITS BEFORE PLANNING AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMSISION Residential (Single-Family) Approximately 102.5 196 single family 180 single family Acres units units Residential (Age- restricted I Multi- Approximately 9.0 60 age-restricted 60 age-restricted familv) Acres units units RESIDENTIAL (TOTAL) 111.5 Acres 256 TOTAL 240 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 5.1 Acres - BORROW PIT 122.46 - Additionally, two parcels would be created along Princess Anne Road with views of the proposed lake for proposed" non- residential use. The non-residential parcels would be designated for a restaurant and specialized services. The applicant has provided a 150-foot wide buffer along Princess Anne Road and a 1 DO-foot wide treed buffer along Seaboard Road. Multi-purpose trails have been incorporated within the development as well as along the perimeter. A 4.3 acres site has been designated for dedication to the City as an extension to City Owned property adjacent to it. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Operational borrow pits and undeveloped parcels. East: . Single-family dwelling and open space (Highgate Greens Subdivision) I AG-1 Agricultural & R-20 Residential District . Undeveloped agricultural land and a recently approved borrow pit I AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District . Across Princess Anne Road, large agricultural lots some with single-family dwellings and one ARP property I AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District . Across Seaboard Road, large agricultural lots with single-family dwellings I AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is composed of two large borrow pits. There are mature trees along the perimeter bordering Seaboard Road. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two-lane undivided roadway that serves as a minor suburban arterial roadway. Princess Anne Road is shown on the Master Transportation Plan as a future 100-foot right-of-way width with an undivided roadway section and a bikeway. Future right-of-way dedication will be provided during site plan review for both Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Princess 13,163 AOT 13,600 AOT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use L _ Anne Road Service "e") can not be determined 15,000 AOT 1 (Level of Proposed Land Use 3 _ Service "0") 3,355 AOT weekdays Average Dally Tnps 2 as defined by existing land use and zoning 3 as defined by 204 single family homes, 60 age restricted, marina and restaurant All proposed development that will generate greater than 150 vehicle trips in the peak hour is required to have a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as part of the rezoning application. The TIS may be performed and submitted to the City for review after this rezoning process and before the construction plan submittal if a statement is included in the proffers. The following information will be confirmed upon the conclusion of the TIS report. · Right and left turn lanes will be required on Princess Anne Road at the proposed entrance to the development. · Traffic signal bond requirements for this development. · The traffic impacts with the potential connection of Sherwood Lakes to McNelly Lane in the Highgate Greens Subdivision. · Review of the details sheet shows the typical section of Street Type "A" with a 60-foot right-of-way and a 30' pavement width, which does not meet the City standards of 36 feet. · A cul-de-sac will be required at the southern end of the right-of-way on Street Type "B" (Machimungo Court). · The median width at the proposed subdivision entrance at Princess Anne Road is to be reduced to a maximum width of twelve feet. . · Crosswalks will not be permitted through traffic circles. Crosswalks will be allowed near the point of tangency on each "leg" of the traffic circle. · The use of raised crosswalks will not be allowed unless specifically approved by the City Traffic Engineer. · The entrance to the retail/rental center on Princess Anne Road must be shifted approximately 600 feet south of the northern property line to allow the creation of required left and right turn lanes for this entrance. Additional detailed comments from Traffic Engineering will be made regarding the development when the TIS is submitted to the City for approval and at the construction plan submittal stage. E!.B.E Initial access issues appear to be resolved. Will address additional details provided during site plan review. ,c'~ :"" .....':.".;7'-,. ,-". , ',,,.,. ; '^'>I.,S H ';:"-"L~J'.-. ",~, Ag~da Ite i.,....',. 'v.>.-;,<, .,,4 POLICE: Provide numerical addresses on the back of the rear load units. See standard CPTED comment at the rear of this report. WATER: There are no City water mains within the vicinity of this site. Water does not front the property, but may be extended for connection purposes provided hydraulic analysis supports the potential demand. SEWER: There are no City sanitary sewers within the vicinity of this site. City sanitary sewer is not available. Plans and bonds are required for construction of a new pump station and sanitary sewer system. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Borrow pits, BMP's or any kind of impoundment that receives runoff are not considered appropriate or safe for swimming. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT: The proposed lakes may serve as potential storm water management facilities. These proposed lakes would not be suitable for primary contact (swimming). Secondary contact (non-motorized watercraft) may be suitable. Confirmation during site plan review of drainage problems on adjacent property is required and if problems are found would need to be addressed. SCHOOLS: School Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment P A Elementary 945 899 61 +56 P A Middle 1552 1468 34.8 +32 Kellam Hiqh 2410 1839 47.5 +44 . . " generation represents the number of students that the development Will add to the school 2 'change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: The expansion of the existing Baillo Sand Pit approved by City Council on September 27,2005 is to continue to utilize the existing entrance located on property and shown as part of the proposed plan. The intense urban development shown on the plan for the Princess Anne /Transition Area as well as the traffic, conflicts with the existing agricultural land uses (farming operations I borrow pit operations). Leave the area adjacent to the Highgate Greens Subdivision open space dedicated to the City as open space. This would result in larger contiguous parcels for both developments to enjoy. The loss of approximately 38 acres of cropland and 32 acres of timberland as a result of this project. Drainage from adjacent property to the north will likely be impacted as the drainage ditches connect and drain south through the proposed development. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION: The applicant has worked with City staff on visual and physical connections to adjacent City Owned Property. The applicant has dedicated to the City approximately 4.3 acres adjacent to city owned property to enhance the open space. Also, in addition to the dedicated Transition Area Buffers along Princess Anne Road and (0' '-,", ""~' '.. ,,'c-''- ... , ; '. :''-_'>':-:~:~:~;:,-;;:L;:, ,(;:J..;.B.H., U~~.C. Ag~da Itern;~;,:12.. . '..e:~'~~;.4 Seaboard Road, a multi-purpose trail easement consistent with 'The Bikeways and Trails Plan for the City of Virginia Beach" adopted by City Council has been provided. The multi-purpose trails are designed for potential connection to adjacent properties and access around the proposed development. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as part of the Princess Anne I Transition Area. The land use planning policies and principles for this area strongly focus on promoting this area as a well-planned, low density, fiscally sound and desirable destination for people to live, work and play. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This application exceeds the recommended density for this area. Of the overall 239-acre site, 122.46 acres is currently utilized as borrow pits and not recognized as "developable" area to be counted towards permitted residential density. The developable acreage on the subject site is determined under Section 200(b)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 200(b)(3) states that any manmade drainage areas such as borrow pits and the easements over them constructed primarily for purposes other than storage and retention of storm water shall not be included in determining allowable dwelling unit density. Therefore the developable acreage of this proposal must exclude the approximate 122 acres of "lakes". After subtraction of the 5.1 acres of non-residential, the remaining 111.54 acres of land would be used for the calculation of density. Based on this definition of developable area, the plan as submitted represents a density of 2.2 units per acre, double the maximum density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. The Transition Area Matrix therefore cannot be used to evaluate this proposal. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend approval of this request. During the work of the TATAC Committee, which devised the development rules for the Transition Area, the most frequently asked question was how density would be calculated, and the consistent answer was that Section 200 of the City Zoning Ordinance would govern. The second most frequently asked question was what the density would be, and the consistent answer was that one unit per acre would be the maximum. If Section 200 is applied to this proposal, the resulting density would be 2.2 units per acre. At some point in the future, City Council may have good reason for changing that rule, but the highly successful collaborative public process that helped create it should not be forgotten. When matched up against the rules in effect today, this request does not merit approval. Please note that there are three sets of proffers. One set of proffers for the proposed residential development, one set of proffers for the proposed retail center, one set of proffers for the proposed restaurant parcel. PROFFERS (RESIDENTIALl The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (9107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve f'-:' ,.~_''- ," '~.,,' .-' - .,:; 'i. ;(,:;.B.H.,.' 'Lgt. c. Ag~,!tdaJte :1.2 as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: The party of the first part agrees to develop the Property substantially in conformity with the Land Use Plan entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES" (the" Plan") prepared by MSA, P.C., dated 07/31/05, which Plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. PROFFER 2: The party of the first part shall design and construct all public streets within Sherwood Lakes as depicted on the Plan such that street sections, sidewalks, lighting and trails shall substantially conform with the exhibit entitled "DETAILS OF SHERWOOD LAKES", prepared by MSA, P.C., dated 07/31/05, which Plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. PROFFER 3: The Grantor shall record a Master Deed of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Restrictions") governing all of the Property except that which is dedicated to the Grantee. The Restrictions shall be enforced by a Property Owners Association, to which membership by all residential units is mandatory, which will be responsible for maintaining all common areas, including the community owned open space areas (including both lakes) with pedestrian, multi-purpose trails. The Restrictions shall also require that every occupied residential unit in the section designated "AGE RESTRICTED" on the Plan be occupied, on a full time basis, by at least one (1) adult resident over fifty-five (55) years of age. The Restrictions shall also prohibit persons under twenty (20) years of age from residing in any residential unit or units for more than ninety (90) days in any calendar year. The Property Owners Association shall enforce the mandated age restrictiol=ls. PROFFER 4: When developed, the four (4) residential dwelling components depicted on the Plan shall have the architectural features, appearance and quality substantially as depicted on the "Elevations" entitled: (a) "EXECUTIVE HOMES at SHERWOOD LAKES" dated 7-31-05; (b) "MANOR HOMES at SHERWOOD LAKES" dated 7-31-05; (c) "COTTAGE HOMES at SHERWOOD LAKES" dated 7-31-05; (d) "AGE RESTRICTED HOMES at SHERWOOD LAKES" dated 7-31-05, which have been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. PROFFER 5: The total combination of single family and multi-family units to be developed on those portions of the Property zoned PDH-2 may not exceed a maximum of 256 units. PROFFER 6: The party of the first part agrees that during the detailed site plan review it shall conduct a Traffic Impact Study of the impacts of Sherwood Lakes. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Sherwood Lakes that are called for in the Traffic Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to issuance of the first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Sherwood Lakes, PROFFER 7: When the Property is developed, the :!:.4.3 acre parcel near the northeast corner of the property designated "CITY PARK DEDICATION" on the Concept Plan shall be given and dedicated to the Grantee. " ~,.'~ .' ;.,,; ,..~.,.: ", . " ';,-~:':."",>::;;,'-" ....,.;./'::...." ,~ .~ . *- ,- ,,/~ :-: ':..'^ {'-" ,.'.~',.' --,..,. ;(;::LJB .H. ,L:~ti-. c. A9'endalte.m~ PROFFER 8: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are not acceptable to staff, as they do not sufficiently address the density issue of this development. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 31, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. PROFFERS (RESTAURANT PARCELl The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (9107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES", dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted on the Site Plan shall have "low country", rurally compatible architectural features, high quality building materials and earth tone colors. Detailed building elevations and a materials board shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the review of any site plan for this Property. PROFFER 3: The only use which shall be submitted to the Planning Director shall be Eating and Drinking Establishments without drive-through windows. PROFFER 4: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and aw.ay from adjoining property. PROFFER 5: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are not acceptable to staff, as the plan in conjunction with this conditional rezoning does not sufficiently address the density issue of this development. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated November 17, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. PROFFERS (RETAil CENTER), The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (9107(h)(1 )). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES" ,dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted on the Site Plan shall have the architectural features and colors substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "RETAIL BUILDING WITH 10' WRAP AROUND PORCH", prepared by Land Planning Solution, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Elevation"). PROFFER 3: The only uses which shall be permitted on the Property shall be: a. Retail Establishments; b. Specialty shops; c. Personal service establishments to include spas; d. Art galleries; e. Florists, gift shops, stationary stores. PROFFER 4: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property PROFFERS ADDED SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION: PROFFER 5: The total combination of single family and age-restricted multi-family units to be developed on those portions of the property zoned PDH-2 may not exceed a maximum of 240 units. PROFFER 6: The party of the first part agrees that during detailed site plan review it shall conduct a Traffic Impact Study of the impacts of Sherwood Lakes. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Sherwood Lakes that are called for in the Traffic Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of the first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Sherwood Lakes. PROFFER 7: Prior to the Grantee issuing the first building permit for any residential unit, the party of the first part shall contribute the sum of $400,000.00 to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee for right of way improvements to that section of Princess Anne Road lying south of its intersection with Sand bridge Road and north of its intersection with Flanagans Lane. In accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, if the Grantee has no projects for any right-of-way improvements to the designated section of Princess Anne Road in Grantee's Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) at the time the first building permit is requested, payment of the $400,000.00 contribution shall be deferred until the Grantee includes such a project in its C.I.P. If the funds proffered and paid by the party of the first part in this paragraph are-not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. PROFFER 8: When the Property is developed, the :!::4.3 acre parcel near the northeast corner of the property designated "CITY PARK DEDICATION" on the Concept Plan shall be given and dedicated to the Grantee. PROFFER 9: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are not acceptable to staff, as the plan in conjunction with this conditional rezoning does not sufficiently address the density issue of this development. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 31, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. .'..__n,.. '\""""'--\., ,.",', '," . ~, ' ""';, ;;""';,:;<'0," ) -,>. ,~ ...... -"r.-' :", /'-'-"1 '_ ":'~.' '0' ',., c. " .- :{EL:.B.H~, AQ:&fltia ItE! AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 10 -z_ , ~ .<~. /.-::- .~ :~.?~/-,~~ 'v' - <- ~~ 7~ -i _ i~ ~l'j [1 I -, ~ It ~ i~~ uss! n..~; . Jh. J,lf~ ! it I !l ~dJ I"" il j j hIlI !u ! IS!! WI! i , . . s ~.. lI::_ ..:, HiI ill IiI 01 ~ ~ ~ l l~ 0:. .:!I . '" :!' =- <:I!:...~.=E" ~ j 'I'f.i.~~ ~ .:!i::.r.;:Z~:;; (/) Q) - ~ -c o "' IX j..;.J ] l1. 0 5-0 ~ o Gl ~O ~ < ~ O~>: 5i~!-5 - c: III ~ < : Q.Q)=~ ~..r:. Gl :5 c: ~ llll 8tJ)iE5 '2 f~ fa fa ~ If f -, ~ -Ill lJ j h 13 h fid 11 ..J:] . - ., 'p . .t =e ~. >;, H H ~. ...._-. .- 1, j! . :.. ... t. o , . , ,. ~ i~ Ii !5 .--- PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT (see next two pages for greater detail) L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 11 Conceptual Site Layout Plan Of Sherwood Lakes Princess Anne Rd.jSeaboard Rd. Virginia Beach, VA ~ ;.,. 20' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 1, 1i. WI CATfiOOII/(HV ~ LAN~!~__ ~\ ~i Propmcd Traflic Circle at McNdly Lane (Adjacent to HiJIa'" Gtcens) SIDtWALK (J'tP.) . 60 COTTAGE M1N. LOT SIZE . -- ---~;.7>-~~- PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT (WESTERN HALF) I..EJ.ti., I..I..C:. Agenda Item # 12 Page 12 \ / '50' TItAN5mON AaA I.. - EARMENT IIEl'NI./IlEHrAL CEN'l1!R I l8-1A) I *2.3 Ac. 15l1'ftANSITION _ -- f j LOCA~ MAP - SCALL: ,. _ 2.00(r JibItDAta ,.. ""-= Z239..10 AI: -.~ AC.:l - Ow. _ (PDH2) (z234.0Ac.) -.'A)(Z$.' Ac.) _~ PO+t2 ~~ It.'O......, Ooen ~ Surnmaty o,....__d, _(117.oAc.) 0,.... _ _ 740ft ('75.06 Ac.) UMl....__ lUM-........ T_-"--, 60 T___ 60 T_~_ 60 T-.l6 - I...... 60 TaIaI.d~ 240 Legend o [] . .- ---~ """""""'_7S'Ic12O' --(-~ """""""'_7S'lI1-'O' _.,. ""'O'Al.5" -- -... "'0'610" -- -- "---~ -""'_60'>0'-'0' -,. _0"..... -- i ,r ;~ ~:il g~ ~... ~~ ~i! ;~ i~ "'~ S~ DATE: 07/31/05 exhibit For Conditional Rezoning ThIll concept plan Is Inl8nCIed for ~ ~ only. ThIs plan II not lD be wed for CIClNDUClIon. Rev. Date: 05119106 lO(f O' 200' /I-.......~ _ SCALE ,.. - 200" 400' I I'topmed E1....cd Cms.waIk ., Open Sp;occ/AJlcy ConllCClion ..,. : 1 , , , , ~ ' ,. . , - I J ~..... VA~ ".,,- MSA, P.C. l..andscape ArchitOClUn: Planning Sun-eying Engineering Enrinmmenf<ll Sc:icJJc:cs M8.A PKOJ. M:H126 ", t PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT (EASTERN HALF) L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 13 I/'J Q) ~-c:i (Uac: -11 o -c~ O~ O~~ ~1Il-fi c . C II - < III OQ,>_. ~ ~ B :5 ~-- C .. Ii ,,.. "C ~ o VJ C. > ~ i I i ~ . ~ J ~l ! ~ I '" s " " ~ \ ~ ~ .. ~ t s . ~~I .~ PROPOSED DETAILS ~I 11: ilfilll ii'.~- -'.- '.. .- ' _.-- , ; , . I,,] : ~~ ;;;lH ~\~ w!ii ~.f o~lI 1 : .. Sl i ,. L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 14 I- U ::l C o II:: 0. C < o .J II:: < III !:r In l- e ..J III C 3: 2> It) , I~ s~ ,.. ~ ~I~ Zl c::~ ZI ~- '< oc ~: ~~ CI=- Zl~ j~ . L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 15 r;}~~ I V . ...: ....,;.. 0 r: ... c .... V .. ~ ... .:, \ LOT SIZE 50' X t 20' , . \', i.I' : .. , ". \"'. ., , T.: \..; I>. .-: f..:-:-.---- I: .. i.: : !.: ,.' ,. . . lL:..:.:.~..:'.-,.~-...-:-.'~ L~. .. ... L.Ol' SIZE SO'x.'~ .-............... NO.3 no. .. lAND ['LANNING SOLUTIONS 5857 IiARAOUR VIfW PotVl) ST:F. 202 SCHoue v~ 2J435--2bS7 o :;S7_9J5.Q014 r 7Si.935.Q015 L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 16 9f~~ LOT SIZE 50' X 120' ;.: . f. . ~ . : . . L'::2.::':',_~~,-,.c'.:..:...:...c _.~". . ..._,"" - - .---'--~ :...or 5IZE !5O"X12O' NO.4 g'I'i1.,.~ i'~ ;~ l.AND PLAJ'olNING SOLUTIONS saS7 HARBOUR VIEW BLVD. Sn. 202 SUfFOLJ::. VA. 2J.43$.26$7 0757.935.9014 F 757:935,901$ L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 17 I- U ::l o o It ll. o < o ..I It < III ~ III I- o -I III o ~ Lo " = :.~ '\~. I~ ;, l~ ~ 1:"1 ?;'., Iz '< - >> z ". z c_ I~. !~ ::$.d. z ;: <; ;; f- .... . L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 18 (f/~~ LOT SIZE 75' X 120' -_.~_.'_"'_..'-"'-"-"-' .... -......... ..:...... :;:.;....-:.... :.......:: '':'' ";\'L_.:::<:.:.<':...~, '" W SIX 1'5' X IlO' No.2 II lAND Pl.ANNtt-:G SOLUTIONS 5857 tt~~g~KIlj'1~4~~b!!f' 202 0751.935.9014 f 75i '?35.9Q15 L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 19 r;J~~ f4,kJ LOT SIZE 75' X 120' ". : ..o.j ,. .' I"., .~ ., . " ," 0" r. ':~ . ., .: l '....j .. ." , ~. . -.: .. _::~ I::..>....: :.....::::: .' : l.OT SIZE '!S'X,:lO NO.' g :"1 lAND rLANNING SOLUTIONS 5857 ~t':fgg~'~I!~~,~'.:~~tC. 202 0757.935.9014 f i'S7.93S.ClO15 L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 20 ~ U ::l o o a: Q. o c( o .J ~ Z o a: IL. III ~ o .J ILl o ~ U) ,." ~': " fi ,'" ~~ ~~i-- ~~ ;i3 <::,,~ .:~, ~ " . ~~ " . L.B H L L Agenda" It"' " .c. em # 12 Page 21 (jJ~~ LOT SIZE 75' X 120' "..., - ~': I .0. :1 : .1 :j o' , -\ ~ ! -.j , . ~ '-~.l i i J-'~=- f I ~'- I:' .- i' t- I:. :.. . ...... " LOT SIZE 'l'S'X12:T NO.1 II -, ..1 I i :"i .0"1 o:! -;oj " I .. .~ .1 :, .:1 - ! :. I .j ..i lAND PLANNING SOLUTIONS 5857 ~~:~1.Er'~~~.JiE. 2()2 0757.935.901-4 F 757."3$.901$ L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 22 r;J~~~ LOT SIZE 75' X 120' - :D-<n<:NoC i ~ ~~0IItT..~,.~ -"..-+-._-----~~-,_..__. - . I . .. .. ....:! .._.._.._.._"._.~:'.':'::.:':..:.....:":~ II'" ~I l' ". J~ .:'1 . ".; : ~ i .-i . ~ ) ....j '.j '-'/ ".J "1 .,' ..j " ., .. ~ ':1 ":: , " :.]1 . -I' ...,i LAND I'LANNll'o:G SOLUTIOI'o:S 585; ~~}l:~~Er':J3~?lb?iI. 202 o 7Si.93S?Ol.a r 7S7.~3S'9O]S L.B.H., LL.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 23 Cl z "I~ z ~ > gl~~ - ~. ..J =1 ~;;; ::; ~.,:., IJJ V': .It.:;: c:: ,- >"'" Z ~N 0 - >~ IJJ 0 ~ 5~ .J <; ~: ~ LL. - ~,.. c... <:: Z IIJ e,::" :> Z ~ IIJ < ~ c:: -' ~ C\I 1: fI C) ~ z C) 0 Z .J ::c - c:: ::l lD c( n. >- c:: oJ 0 ~ 0 < .J IL LL. ~ ~ .J UI ::l c:: ~ LL. ~. J1 L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 24 ,1, . . J "' '.- J:;;, -_._._~, , '" ~" lj .~ -~.__. I Ir'.,/~, :. Ii';";"" :.~. .'?~J ?I.. '."... . - . ~ ,1 :: '. ',~,; f - '-'1.1 ~I " _ II ~'...' ,I (. ~"". :.. II.. I 11 ~:. ~. ;.:~. t Y_':~.'~. '~...' .".:~~:~~? ' V r.. ~ _ . "'~. .< ',\~'I.'.~>.; J 1~1~}~%,$~ I.!ltf;._.,.r . ~.~<,,, . ~~\t~j~ '/. ,~. t; ;,: ,:. tf'H'F' C:'~ >i..., ~ -",,~ . 'r ,:~:';; "'~!;r '.l """. ....~..'C '.-r '~:. -....:... ,:I:r:.;)j;~*1~'\ . (.~i':J.': . ' .: \/~..;;:. .,:..~. - , "., -.:" -:- . ,... " ~"...... .:. . ", ..,' - , . . ..:.......~ ~~ ;;:.>~--~': ",Z1"; !~ %; '5 ~ ,~ ~,;: Iii) f,i .....~ ~ g II ~ u o c Cl Z t- e( o -I 11. 1: t- ~ ~ o o -I a: IIJ > o o z <( ~ a: e( D.. t- Z o 0:: 11. IIJ ~ <( ..J L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 25 r&;H2 Conditional Zoning Change from AG-1/AG-2 to PD-H1 1 09/27/05 Conditional Use Permit for Borrow Pit Granted 2 02124/04 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1 & AG-2 to PDH-2 Street Closure Subdivision Variance Granted 3 . 04/23/02 Conditional Use Permit Borrow Pit Reconsideration Denied 4 04/27/99 Conditional Use Permit for Fraternal Organization (Lodge) Granted 5 03/25/97 Conditional Use Permit for Church Granted 6 10/26/93 Conditional Use Permit Open Space Promotion Granted 7 10/23/90 Conditional Use Permit Borrow Pit Expansion Granted 8 04/20/81 Conditional Use Permit for Borrow Pit Granted 9 12/17/79 Conditional Use Permit for Borrow Pit Granted ZONING HISTORY L.B.H., L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 26 Ci.ty of -Virgi~rti.a Beach. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 757.38&4621 FAX (757) 385-5789 DIRECT 757.385-5801 Y8govoCOm MUNICIPAl CENTER BUILDING NUMBER 2 2405 COURTHWSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456 INTER-oFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2006 TO: Virginia Beach Planning Commissioners FROM: RobertJ. Scott, Planning Director ~ SUBJECT: Rules for Development in the Transition Area On February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission deferred two rezoning applications of LBH, LLC for property surrounding a borrow pit on Princess Anne Road. The proposed development is subject to the Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TATAC) guidelines, which specifies a maximum density of one dwelling unit per developable acre. As you may recall, this proposal is at a density of 2.1 units per developable acre, . or, to put it differently, meets the 1 unit per acre requirement if density credit is given for the acreage of the borrow pit, which is not developable acreage, and in addition~ certain consideration for density is given for age-restricted senior housing. During the February 8 discussion, the Planning Commission asked whether a differen.t approach to the rules might be appropriate, given that this application, though dense, appears to promote recreation and open space goals. The density rule of one unit per developable acre was derived by the TATAC, a group of diverse stakeholders appointed by City Council during the fall of 2002. The recommendations of TATAC were adopted by the City Council in February of 2003. The density rule was derived after several months of hard work and compromise in a very open public setting. It should not go without mention that the applicant in this matter served as one of the Council appointed participants. Although the group jointly settled on the rule of one unit per developable acre, the zoning ordinance does not lay out a definition of the term "developable acre". Accordingly, I was asked as Planning Director how this rule would be administered. I was asked this repeatedly in the TATAC deliberations, in the Council debate that followed it, and in numerous discussions MEMO: Planning Commission Members Page 2 surrounding them both, and in every instance, I answered that Section 200 of the zoning ordinance would govern. Section 200 specifies in detail which types of properties are to be given density credit and which are not. In every application that has been brought forth in the Transition Area since February of 2003, Section 200 has been used to identify eligibility for density credit. I believe it is the established rule applicable in the Transition Area and everywhere else in the City. It is sensible, logical, and effective. It is the acknowledged purpose of the TAT AC report to promote recreational and open space opportunities within the Transition Area. While a borrow pit clearly is not eligible for density credit under the rule just outlined, it could under certain circumstances provide valuable water-oriented recreational opportunities equal to the recreational benefit of high land for which density credit would be given. The certain circumstances I allude to are of course related to the suitability of the physical characteristic of the water body. It could be that a different rule than the one agreed upon, if the circumstances were right, might serve the purpose of the TATAC report equally well. The problem is that a rule arrived at by a careful deliberative method engaged in by diverse stakeholders at the invitation of the City Council should not simply be tossed aside and replaced by a new rule, no matter how meritorious that new rule may seem, without careful consideration and the knowledge and concurrence of the Planning Commission and City Council. To do otherwise would undermine the well-intentioned public involvement that Council has put in place and cast doubts on the integrity of the governmental process. If the Planning Commission and City Council were to consider a rule applicable only to the Transition Area giving density credit for borrow pits provided a.) they were incorporated into residential developments, b.) they were converted into suitable active recreation areas available to the public; and c.) they would otherwise be unavailable for public recreational uses, the Commission and Council might find that the purpose of the Transition Area guidelines were better served by that rule. Elements, including but not limited to, water quality, bank stabilization and treatment; water body depth, size and configuration; relationships to other elements such as roadways, existing neighborhoods and proposed lots; configuration of the resulting development, including lot size and location; completion of the amenity prior to the resulting additional lots being released for permits; and availability of the amenity to the general public, should all be considered. I strongly recommend that such consideration not be extended to parts of the City outside the Transition Area, since density considerations are simply different there. The strong weight given to recreation and open space by the TATAC approach sets the Transition Area apart. It has been customary in all areas of the City for City Council to provide some density consideration for senior age-restricted housing on the grounds that seniors often do not impact the full range of city services and facilities that younger citizens and their families do. Acting on a case-by-case basis, Council has granted consideration up to twice the MEMO: Planning Commission Members Page 3 allowed density in some cases, but in other cases where the roads were already heavily impacted, less density credit was extended. No adjustment to this approach is suggested here. The LBH project, aside from the issue of density, has no critical problems or. shortcomings. It is well designed and appears to complement the character of the Transition Area. If you do not feel comfortable with the type of rule change outlined above, you should not approve this application. The worst situation is a good rule not followed. However, if you feel this approach could help the Transition Area and are comfortable applying it, if and where other similar cases arise, then the issue of the matrix must be discussed. Ordinarily, the staff does not provide a matrix evaluation when an application fails to meet the basic requirements, but since the Planning Commission has raised this issue, provided here is one calculation following through on the existing rule (which would allow 76 conventional units plus 60 age-restricted units, for a total of 136 units) and another following through on the alternate rule (which would allow 180 conventional units plus 60 age-restricted units, for a total of 240 units). RJS:jrns I I Transition Area Matrix Allowable maximum residential density for any rezoning in the Transition Area under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan is 1 unit per acre. The maximum density can be achieved through adherence to the Evaluative Criteria provided below and further explained in the Design Guidelines for the Transition Area. Each section of the Evaluative Criteria below ties to the Design Guidelines through the graphic icon at the top of the section. For further guidance on the respective section of the Matrix, turn to the page of the Guidelines that has the corresponding graphic icon. Staff will 'score' the proposed development for its consistency with the Evaluative Criteria below. The scores are then totaled and the total is 'plugged' into the formula below to determine the recommended maximum density for the development. PROJECT: LBH MATRIX REVIEW DATE: PROJECT DATE: Evaluative Criteria Total Comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project 0.6 preserves and integrates into the overall project the natural resource amenities on the site. Amenity 4.0 Nature and degree of the amenity Design Degree to which the project 4.9 incorporates good design into the project Transition Area Matrix Page 1 of 7 C:\Documents and Setlings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc Line A -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. Line B -- total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 Line C --total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible 1 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). Line D -- total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the site. Line E -- total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. (1) Natural Resources Existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and related features a) Are natural resources protected? Comments: the site has no significant natural resources except for a stand of trees adjacent to the north side of the borrow pit and a wooded area adjacent to Seaboard Road. The remainder of the site is borrow pit and cultivated field. The stand of trees on the north side appears to be largely removed to provide for home sites. The wooded area adjacent to Seaboard Road is largely preserved as a buffer. b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: No. As noted above, much of the wooded area on the north side is removed for home sites. The other wooded area is retained as a buffer but is not . integrated into the development. Due to the borrow pits, the development maximizes the open areas / cultivated fields of the existing site for home sites and infrastructure. Note: the borrow pits (future lakes) are not considered natural resource amenities. They are considered man-made lakes, which are addressed elsewhere in this matrix. YES x (0 to 1 point) NO 0 (0 points) YES 0 (0 to 1 point) NO x (0 points) NATURAL RESOURCES TOTAL Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Total 0.6 o 0.6 Transition Area Matrix Page 2 of 7 C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\.. T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc (2) Amen it A feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? Comments: The plan depicts the amenity as being the borrow pits transformed into lakes. The lakes are visually available to those who do not own property in the development. b) Does the amenity consist of recreational components? Comments: The amenity is related to recreational components. There is a small playground at the western edge of the larger lake. There are trails running along the border of the lake, primarily within the buffers adjacent to Princess Anne and Seaboard Roads. The plan also shows the dedication to the City of a 4.3 acre park site on the northern edge of the larger lake. Total YES X (0 to 1 point) 1.0 NO 0 (0 points) YES X (0 to 1 point) 1.0 NO 0 (0 points) Transition Area Matrix Page 3 of 7 C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc c) Are improvements made that provide visual or physical access to the natural resources on the site OR are improvements made to create a new amenity to the property? YES x (0 to 1 point) 1.0 Comments: Yes. In order for the amenities to become reality, the existing borrow pit will have to be extensively altered to create the Jake as depicted on the plan. Also, trails will be constructed and a playground provided. NO o (0 points) d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? - YES x (0 to 1 Comments: Yes. The trails shown on the point) 1.0 plan connect to the neighborhood street stub to the north, to Seaboard Road, and to future trails along Princess Anne Road. NO o (0 points) AMENITY TOTAL 4.0 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Transition Area Matrix Page 4 of 7 C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\... T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc (3) Desi n Creation or execution in an artistic or highly skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. a) Are natural or man made water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? Comments: Yes. The plan depicts the alteration of the existing borrow pits to lakes. The resulting lakes are the central focus of the amenities for this development. b) I~ there an attempt to integrate the amenities as an integral part of the overall development? Comments: Largely yes. Due to the location of the borrow pit (future lake) on the site, it is not possible to surround it with home sites. As a result, the development is designed such that the lake and wooded area to the west is accessible to the residents by way of the trail system. Additionally, the restaurant proposed on Princess Anne Road is provided a unique location where the lake is the primary amenity. YES x (0 to 1 point) NO 0 (0 points) YES x (0 to 1 point) NO 0 (0 points) Total 1.0 0.9 Transition Area Matrix Page 5 of 7 C:\Documents and Setlings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES x (0 to 1 1,0 Comments: Yes. The plan depicts the point) required Transition Area buffer along Princess Anne Road, which will be altered and planted to vastly improve the view from the road from that which currently exists. The new buffer will also provide a view of the lake, any activity upon the lake, and the homes on the far shore of the lake. NO o (0 points) '. d) Is a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering or massing of homes used to achieve a primarily apen space development? Comments: There is not a significant YES x (0 to 1 1.0 point) mixture of lot sizes. However, there is definitely a clustering of homes, as the plan depicts a type of neo-traditionallayout at its core consisting of small lots on alleys and open spaces. In contrast, the plan depicts a more traditionally lot layout along the street on the north side of the lake. Additionally, the plan shows a cluster of age-restricted multi-family dwellings at the south end of the NO o (0 points) .. site. The remaining site is either wooded, landscape buffer, or lake; thus, the cluster of neo-traditionallots does provide for a large area of open space, Transition Area Matrix Page 6 of 7 C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc e) Does the development use roadway and "hard infrastructure" that is appropriate for its design? Is it consistent with the vision and recommendations of this area as expressed in YES 0 (0 to 1 1.0 the Comprehensive Plan? point) Comments: Yes. NO o (0 points) DESIGN TOTAL 4.9 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Transition Area Matrix Page 7 of 7 C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desklop\.. T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Change of Zoning District Classification West side of Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne May 10, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: We will now go into the regular public hearing. Mr. Secretary, please call the first item to be heard. Joseph Strange: Thank you. The first item is item #12, LBH, L.L.c. An ordinance upon Application of LBH, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-lO Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and B-IA Limited Business District on property located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, approximately 1,950 southwest of Sandbridge Road, District 7, Princess Anne, with eight proffers on the residential; five on the restaurant; and five on the retail. Barry Knight: Welcome. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and it is my privilege to come before the Commission this afternoon representing LBH, L.L.C. on this application for the proposed Sherwood Lakes recreational community. This is a proffered rezoning application of an assemblage of seven parcels totaling just under 240-acres. This large assemblage of property extends form the west side of Princess Anne Road to the east side of Seaboard Road. The entirety of this property is not located in any AICUZ noise zone. The property adjoins two large subdivisions to our north, Highgate Greens and Three Oaks. Each of these were zoned and developed in the Transition Area before there was such a thing as a Transition Area in our Comprehensive Plan. These are two very, very nice residential communities, which are similar to many dozens of other communities north of the Transition Area in our city. Their densities are roughly two units per acre for Three Oaks and just under three units per acre for Highgate Greens. In fact, if you look up on the Powerpoint, you will see the lots in Highgates Green that abut us as well as well Three Oaks over here. McNelly Lane is a sub-street from Highgate Greens that ends at the property border. There are lots that are adjacent to this property in Highgate Greens. From a zoning standpoint and a precedence standpoint, the location, the contextual circumstances of this proposal parallel those of the Signature at West Neck, where in that case the applicant assembled another large tract of land directly adjacent to Courthouse Estates. Courthouse Estate is also another very nice large residential community that is located in the Transition Area that was zoned and developed before there was.such a thing. They don't meet the TAT AC Guidelines just as Highgate and Three Oaks do not. Courthouse Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 2 Estates was over three units per acre. I have provided you all with a copy of the staff write up and evaluation of the Villages of West Neck application, which I may expound on later, but again, this is the same type of situation here. In addition to sharing the northern boundary with these two subdivisions, we also share a northern boundary with a large parcel of property that the City recently acquired from the Hill Family, which upon an elementary school has been constructed and most importantly, a 37-acre public park will be created. That park is immediately adjacent to our northern lake, and if you could put the Powerpoint plan up there, that public park will be located in this area on Princess Anne Road. We have proposed to dedicate 4.3 acres of our property because of the large scale of this development. It does not look like a lot when you look there but that is actually 4.3 acres of land, which will bring that public park all the way to this northern lake, which will be a public amenity and opened to the public, and rights to access it will be provided to the City through that public park dedication that we will make with this application. This lake, but the northern lake especially, will be created out of this large borrow pit that EV Williams have operated on this property for decades. It will be 80 acres in size. That lake is located one half of a mile from the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Sandbridge Road. We will be shaping it, sloping the banks, creating benches. It will be available for non-motorized vessels such as sailing, kayaking, and paddleboats. We are doing that instead of filling that borrow pit with an earth material. We prefer !lot to have not to have more dump trucks coming down our way. There are already dump trucks down there as it is. We prefer not to fill the lake with an earth material. We prefer that it be transformed into this recreational amenity, and more importantly, into a fantastic visual amenity as well, at the Gateway to the Transition Area, and for the southern part of the City. It will be a truly unique fantastic open space that extends two-thirds of a mile along Princess Anne Road. This Sherwood Lakes community is 3,400 linear feet of frontage on Princess Anne Road or two-thirds of a mile. Before I go any further, Bob Miller will be speaking also with regard to the water quality in the lake, so I will leave for him to discuss water quality with regard to these lakes. Along our two-thirds of a mile of frontage, we will be dedicating a I50-foot Transition Area buffer to the City, landscaping it, and creating that beautiful amenity. In addition to the ISO-foot Transition Area buffer, there will be an additional 60 to 150 feet of landscape, open space, on the west side. It is just the buffer extended and will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. So the open space along Princess Anne Road will vary from 210 to 300 feet in width, and then beyond that will be these two large lakes, an 80-acre lake and a 40-acre lake. We will be creating a multi-purpose trail, 10 feet wide, paved trail, all the way around the lake connecting also to Seaboard Road, again only the trail connecting to Seaboard Road, and connecting to a pedestrian access to McNelly Lane. This trail system will also connect across Princess Anne Road to the development on the Munden Farm, which then connects to Heritage Park, and then to Ashville Park so you will be able whether on foot, on bike, or on roller blades, to go essentially from Back Bay or from the eastern end of Ashville Park all the way to Seaboard Road with this development, and the other developments in the Transition Area that will be taking place. Weare persevering a large forested natural area along our western boundary extending roughly a third of a mile along Seaboard Road. None of that Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 3 will be touched. It will remain and we will be dedicating a 100-foot Transition Area buffer along Seaboard Road in that area. There is no access to Seaboard Road from this development other than the multi-purpose trail. In total, 75 percent of this community will be open space, with 52 Y2 acres of green space and a 122 Y2 acres of lakes. There will be one entrance to this community, a divided entryway from Princess Anne Road. We have properly designed all the street sections within the community, as noted in the proffers. The main entrance road features trees on both sides of the road, as well as the multi-purpose trail along the northern side, and the 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the southern side. A feature of Sherwood Lakes, which is almost unique as the two lakes themselves (that we propose to create rather than fIll in these borrow pits) is the unique design of the residential component, which occupies a mere 25 percent of the almost 240 acres of land that we are seeking to rezone. Jim Arnhold, was on the TAT AC Committee. His team has spent countless hours traveling, and researching exceptional, award winning communities from South Carolina to Florida. They have met with planners, architects, and public officials to ensure that the design elements, chiefly the extensive use of alleys and rear loading garages, which are unique to Virginia Beach, have been appropriately designed and will be successfully implemented. I think your staff has reviewed this thoroughly and agree it is a well-designed project in that respect. All the proposed single-family homes, 196 in total will have wide expansive front porches on_the fIrst floor and second floor in many cases. They will all have setbacks from the front property line between five and fifteen feet. They will all front on sidewalks and open space in front of those sidewalks or in some cases sidewalks, street, and lake. They will front on the lakes and none of the homes backup to the lake. Typically, in our community most of the home sites on the water back up to water via lakes or via Chesapeake Bay but in this case, we are not doing it that way. We believe that this is a more open field to provide a greater sense of community and interaction within the community. We proffered four great plans. You have all of those plans dealing with cottage homes, and their size, and their values. We've also got an age restriction component, 60 units and five buildings with elevators and parking underneath. It is a long process that we have been in. It is a very complicated application. We've got a lot of th!ngs to discuss. I think most of you are familiar with the proposal and its very positive design element. The last thing that I want to talk to you about is the map that you all should have that overlays these lakes on the Municipal Center. If I could just have another minute or two to describe what is in your packages. If you were to stand today back behind Zero's in the office park behind Zero's, across the street, where some of you eat lunch occasionally, or behind Kellam and Eaton about 150 yards. If you were to look north and you envisioned standing there right in the middle of Princess Anne Road, looking north from there. You would actually be looking west from Princess Anne Road. As you look to your right, the first home that you would see from back behind Zero's, after looking across this open space and this lake, would be on the baseball diamond at Kellam High School. If you look straight ahead, again from Princess Anne Road looking straight ahead towards Seaboard Road, the homes that you would see would actually come across the intersection of Nimmo and Princess Anne Road behind the Harris Teeter, and the homes that you would see would be on the TPC Golf Course, the 14th Tee of the Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 4 TPC Golf Course. That gives you the size and the magnitude of this open space, this vista, this viewshed that we are going to be creating along Princess Anne Road. It is precisely that phenomenal view shed at this gateway to the Transition Area and to the rural southern part of the City that led the TAT AC folks to think that the City ought to acquire this property, and create such a recreational and open space amenity. The City doesn't have the money to do that obviously, given all the other constraints with regard to our open space funds and BRAC, and TAT AC. Mr. Arnhold, who was on that committee, it is his desire to create that vision and help that vision to become a reality, and n~t see dump trucks come down here for the next 15 years filling these pits with earth materials so they would then be developable again as they were before it was a borrow pit. I know that I am out of time. There are number of issues that I would like to discuss but especially dealing with the scenarios that were discussed this morning in your informal session with regard to the TATAC and the Transition Area Guidelines. I don't know if you all want me to discuss those. I don't stand beyond my time. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon. if you would stand by for questions. Eddie Bourdon: Sure. Barry Knigpt: Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: I think. we should extend some time to let Mr. Bourdon explain. Barry Knight: Would you like to ask that in a question of him as far as this concerned? Kathy Katsias: Eddie, could you please? Eddie Bourdon: I know a lot of us have wrestled with this, and I certainly have had lots of discussions with Mr. Scott, and also with Kay this morning. It has been our position, and we filed an application to do so, but it was never our desire to fill these borrow pits. If these borrow pits were to be filled with earth material, they would be developable acreage, just as they were before they were borrow pits. Because we prefer to get to the point that I think that everyone wants us to be in and we have these beautiful recreational and open space amenities, we did not want to go through this process of filling the pit to turn around and come back with this same application to take some of the dirt back out of the pit in order to create these lakes. It is there. We should take advantage of that opportunity as opposed to leaving it as big holes in the ground. We also understand that the Comprehensive Plan, which is not law, but the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the density should be one unit per developable acre, but developable acre is not defined anywhere. We have an appreciation for the fact that Section 200 of the Zoning Ordinance was utilized by the staff in terms of trying to evaluate applications and has been utilized to evaluate applications. I normally don't quarrel with that but we believe that is exactly what the T AT AC Committee wanted to see happen. This was not discussed by TAT AC with regard to borrow pits. There was discussion with regard to non-tidal wetlands Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 5 however. And with regard to non-tidal wetlands, the discussion was that since they were developable because they could be filled with permits, that Section 200 made sense since non-tidal wetlands are developable and count for density. Yet, we don't want people developing those areas. We want those to be set aside and the properties to be clustered elsewhere. Similarly, the borrow pits can be filled and developed. It is developable acreage. We don't think there is a logical connection there. We think that it makes a lot more sense to treat these as potential amenities and potential developable acreage. We don't want to develop them. We are developing them. We don't prefer to develop them with homes on them. We prefer to develop them as a recreational amenity as open space. So, it is our firm belief that the Comprehensive Plan, which is not law, that the Comprehensive Plan is your general guidance, that the Comprehensive Plan envisions just this type of development, and it is exactly what we should be trying to achieve. In Mr. Scott's memo to you all, it recognizes that is certainly something that may be consistent with the vision that the Council and this body had when they adopted the TATAC Guidelines, and that is exactly what we believe is the case. We think it would be illogical to suggest that we should give density to non-tidal wetlands, but we should give density to property that was high to begin with, and could be developable again by filling it. We just don't think, and we are certain that was not something that TATAC took into consideration or even discussed, but we do know that T AT AC desired that this be a recreation~ amenity. In order to make that happen and in order for it to be economically feasible to make that happen. we need to be able to utilize the property using that in some form or fashion as density. We provided you with the way it was evaluated on the Villages of West Neck where they had 2 Y2 units per acre, which was provided for that assemblage of property in order to create a very unique and very valuable asset in the Transition Area, the Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course and all that went with it granting that was all before TAT AC. It is still an example of a very significant development in the Transition Area. And because we are in that area, there is a lot of different time lines, and different types of development, but it also sets a precedent that we think is applicable in this instance. We also think it is important to note that the Transition Area is going to be something that all of us are going to thank the people who led Virginia Beach over the course of the last number of years for creating this Transition Area. It has been a long time. It goes all the way back to the Green Line for that matter. This is going to be a jewel in the City's crown that will surpass most of the other jewels in our crown. People just can't quite envision it yet because it is work in progress. It doesn't look like it is going to look when it is done. I don't think it makes any sense to, and our Comprehensive Plan scenario to suggest that this isn't what the TATAC Committee and what our Comprehensive Plan is looking to try to achieve in this area. We are also blocking off potential development of higher density development flowing from Highgate Greens and Three Oaks, just as was done with Heron Ridge. The Heron Ridge development where the City paid millions of dollars to acquire land to create that golf course and help create that golf course, I should say along with the private sector, and the homes that went with it, where it was in a way, in my estimation, blocking off the development above it, Foxfire, from continuing south on higher density, non-Transition Area development because of similar properties. The same is true with the Village of Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 6 West Neck and Courthouse Estates, and I would suggest that the same is true here with the two developments above us. If we were to fill this pit and wait ten years or longer for that to take place, I would suggest the pressure on our City over that period of time are going to increase as we run out of land to bring greater density further south. Our belief is that the best way to see that does not happen is to have the Transition Area take hold in its entirety all the way across the northern tier of the Transition Area, so that we don't have higher density development going south. We think this serves that purpose as well. All the purposes that we believe the Comprehensive Plan ought to serve by this proposal. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon. Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: So basically, what you are saying is that we should ignore Section 200 that specifically identifies borrow pits as being excluded from density, and especially given the fact that during the whole T AT AC process, I understand from staff that when the members had asked how are we going to determine density in the Transition Area, they told them Section 200. Eddie Bourdon: My position on that Mr. Bernas is that Section 200 was put in our Zoning Ordinance 30 years ago when we didn't have conditional zoning, number one. We did not have a Transition Area, and we had, at its infancy, we probably had two Comprehensive Plans. Planning was quite different in those days. It applies to, and it was intended to apply to, what we now call straight unconditional zoning. The properties that had zoning. But it only applies to residential or apartment zoned property. It was intended to apply to those pieces of property that had zoning, straight zoning so that someone owning a piece of property would not be able to, in essence, double up by putting in a borrow pit. There are some other amenities to use the property and then transfer or it could be wetlands transfer the density into high land. It makes perfectly good sense in that context of applying to zoned property a zoning ordinance provision that deals with the development of that property. As it pertains to this property, as we propose to zone it, we are not transferring any density from the lakes to the borrow pits to the dry land. What we have here is a Comprehensive Plan situation where we came up with a concept by which we are trying to limit the density so that open space and recreation are the key component. We want to limit the density to one unit per developable acre. As Mr. Scott has indicated, there is no definition of developable acre anywhere in our Comprehensive Plan. It does not exist. The Comprehensive Plan is not our zoning ordinance. But what Bob apparently indicated was that in determining what was developable, they would look at Section 200 of the Zoning Ordinance for guidance, because that is what a Comprehensive Plan is -- guidance. It is not the law. It is guidance. I don't dispute that discussion took place, and that was said. I know that it was discussed with respect to non-tidal wetlands, which did get discussion by the TAT AC Committee, and was the focus of some back and forth on how to do it. But as has been stated previously today with regard to the borrow pit issue it was never something contemplated with regard to borrow pits. The conversation that did take place with regard to borrow pits had to do with the desire to see those borrow pits utilized as Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 7 recreational open space amenities. I think Mr. Scott has laid forth in his memorandum to you a means by which, because it is a Comprehensive Plan issue, a means that this body and City Council can certainly ascertain that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is best served by what is being proposed with this application. We had contemplated, and had an application pending for a long time, to fill, which the city has, to fill these borrow pits with an earth material. In order to make it clear that were we today to be dealing with the property that had not been dug out or were dealing with a property that we are going to fill and then create these lakes, it would meet the TAT AC requirements. So that is the real dilemma here. I provided you a copy of an application that was approved less than three years ago to fill a borrow pit and put 190 residential apartment units on there. It was approved. Rightfully so, as it was a good application. That is simply to point out that borrow pits are not considered to be "off limits" to developments. You can fIll a borrow pit and develop it. That could be done here. Our point is we don't need to go through that charade of filling something that we really don't want to fIll. We would rather create the amenity immediately as opposed to going through that long process just so we would then be developable under Section 200, and then we could get the density. Again, this is not legal. This is a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan level is purely guidance and not law, and that is why nothing needs to be changed as far as Section 200 is concerned. All that needs to happen is that this body and eventually City Council must make a de!ennination as to whether they believe that what is being proposed is something that is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, Section 200, we didn't bring up the idea of changing Section 200. That was never anything we contemplated. Our point is that Section 200 is a Zoning Ordinance provision that applies to zoned property, and not to say it is wrong to have pulled it out and used it as a way, a means, of determining what is a developable acre from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint. But I think that for a Comprehensive Plan issue that is solely limited to the Transition Area that we can and should evaluate whether that really fits what we are trying to do with the Transition Area where we have these borrow pits. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: Yes. You had mentioned the neighbors right next door. I believe you said one.was two plus density and one was three plus? On your application you have two and a half. Is that going to be reduced a little bit, and what will the result be for this? Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. Three Oaks is actually just under two units per acre, and Highgate is just under three. Janice Anderson: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: When I was talking about more than three that was Courthouse Estates. Janice Anderson: Okay. Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 8 Eddie Bourdon: We have proposed 256 units, including 16 that are age-restricted. The staff has run, which you all have a matrix on the proposal in which they have determined that it would not gamer the full amount, which is what 256 would be because of the age- restricted. They have suggested that if the Commission, and eventually Council, wants to take the position that creating these amenities is what the Comprehensive Plan is really desiring to create here, that number would be reduced. They did so because there is no natural feature that would preserve other than the trees on Seaboard Road. They don't get any credit for creating the lakes. We're not quarreling with that; so, it would be reduced to 240 under the matrix that the staff ran. We certainly are not going to quarrel with that, but that is deemed to be a prudent way to develop. We don't have any problem with doing that. If we did reduce the number, we would reduce those by requcing 16 of the cottage homes, which are the smaller ones and we would keep the age-restricted portion of the cOInmunity, because we think it is important to have the intergenerational community that T AT AC speaks of and wants to achieve in the Transition Area. Janice Anderson: So, that number, the 240 that was put in the report, that kind of matches the next -door density? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. If you don't take the borrow pits into consideration at all, it would still be les~ than the adjacent properties. That is correct. If you give the credit for the two for one age-restricted, it would be less than the adjacent. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Sorry for the long answer to it. Janice Anderson: That's okay. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon, your neighbor to the northeast, David Hill, he called me and said that with the elementary school, the borrow pits, and with some of the farming operations, he has some drainage concerns on there. I believe he spoke to the developer, . . and the developer said "Don't worry, I'm going to look out for you". The developer is an honorable man, I know. Have you had any further discussions on Mr. Hill's drainage? Eddie Bourdon: Actually, Mr. Miller is here to talk about the water quality. He might be a better person to discuss than, and I but I have no doubt whatsoever that we will take care of the City and or Mr. Hill's drainage issues. I know there are some drainage issues out there with regard to not having easements and what have you. We are prepared to provide the necessary relief. Mr. Miller can best discuss that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: Maybe you or Bob can address what we were talking about in our earlier session about water quality. Maybe he can address two issues. One is public health. In Item #12 LBH, L.L.C. Page 9 fact, that these lakes will be used for stormwater management facilities and that there is a lot of runoff and nobody knows what the chloroform levels will be in the lake. So how can you get density from a recreational area if you don't know for sure you can use it? Lake Trashmore is an example with the suspended boating operations there. My other thing that maybe he can remember to address, is this issue of public safety. Typically, with borrow pits they have extremely steep side slopes in borrow pit operation. What I don't know, and it is not clear in the plan in the application at this point, is if you got a little kid walking along the edge, and you got a lot of trails, someone falls in, 50 feet deep, there is no general slope. My concern, to address this issue at this point, is that there is nothing in the Site Plan Ordinance to convert a borrow pit into a recreational lake, and so if he could speak to some of the things that you are doing? I know you are required to do a 5 to 1 slope on the exit strategy for the borrow pit, but how can you allay the public safety concern with regard to the slopes of the borrow pit and with depth? Eddie Bourdon: I don't want to steal Bob's thunder. We have discussed some of the questions that you raised earlier. The one thing that I do want to, and I am to some degree going to steal some of his thunder, the chloroform level in the Lynnhaven River is actually higher than in most of the BMPs in the city, and those are very small. This lake that you described is not going to be an issue. In fact, we were planning on using forebays. We can even direct all the stormwater to the southern lake for that matter. I will let him discuss that issue in greater detail. Barry Knight: Any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. Mr. Secretary. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Bob Miller. Barry Knight: Welcome Bob. Robert Miller: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Barry Kn.ight: Please state your name for the record. Robert Miller: I remembered that part. I'm Bob Miller. I'm a professional civil engineer with MSA. We will go ahead with what Jay was asking. I think one of the biggest things, and the reason why I brought this picture, is try to demonstrate that when we talk about these two areas, we are talking about lakes, Weare not talking about borrow pits. You can stop talking about borrow pits. We are talking about effective lakes. The size of these two lakes, again Eddie gave you the overlay that we did for the Courthouse area, but if you look at Lake James, and I know that Joe is very familiar with that, is the size of approximately the larger lake. Lake Christopher will be the size of the smaller lake, You can get in context that these are huge lakes. These are very big lakes. They are wonderful for recreation. It is very, very good for water quality and for the environment in total too. The way we are going to handle a couple of things, and just let me go through the water quality issue. The water quality and Public Works has standards as you Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 10 know, of course you know because I deal with them all the time too, Public Works standards are about six different things. They deal with runoff, and we will deal with Mr. Hill and or the City park property with regard to stormwater management for those facilities. This will be a regional BMP. That was always a great intention that we had. Jay referred to the fact that we have a lot of engineering BMPs allover the City. Sometimes along VDOT projects, we get a little one acre site at comers and things like that truly are difficult to maintain, and sometimes not as effective because they are not well maintained. The wonderful advantage of this type of a system is that it is already 50 feet deep. The groundwater is about 10 feet down; so, it will be 40 feet of water. V olumetrically, that means that at the bottom where the sediments would be, the first one inch of rain is what we concern our self within engineering theory, but actually even after that, there is a certain amount of sediment and pollutants that come along. They will settle at the bottom. We have a huge volume of aerobic area, a thick layer, which is better than 35 feet deep. That area will support all kinds of waterfowl and water life, that would be fish and so forth. This one big lake is 1000 feet across; so, if you can think of stormwater management, that is really a minor part of this. Water quality is the biggest part. The outfall is into a ditch system that goes down through Heron Ridge to West Neck Creek and eventually into the North Landing River. In that watercourse, what we will be putting in there is water that will be very, very clean, free of sediment, free of pollutants._ I'm not going anywhere, because Ed just stopped me. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree will sponsor you. Robert Miller: Thank you. Eugene Crabtree: Whatever time he needs. Robert Miller: The bank stabilization. What we will do is that we will have 5 to 1 slopes or better. We will use some benching. We talked about some environmental benching which will be beneficial again to the overall ecology of the lake. It will be a great showplace. It will be an opportunity for people to come out and see what that means at an environment like the park and the recreational activities out here. The 5 to 1 slope- we will hydro seed that. The groundwater, like I said, is about 10 feet down. That will still leave us 40 feet of depth of lake. This, again, is just a great asset for the community. The body of water, and I mentioned it before, will be very aerobic. I will just mention that one more time. Again, we don't think you can find a better quality of water once you have this filled, then you will have in this situation in our city right now. Eddie referred to Lynnhaven, and I'm on Lynnhaven 2007, and truly, we have some work to do there. That is a very important project, which we are going to succeed in, but we do have some people with issues there. The smaller BMPs again, and I will go back to that, if you look up at Highgate Green, which is adjacent, you can see some smaller BMPs. When you do the smaller BMPs, if you have waterfowl and other issues, they actually do have a great affect. Most of the time we are not but 6 to 8 feet deep in most of those cases. That allows us to be able to put those systems in, but it also says that depth doesn't allow for a Item #12 LBH, L.L.C. Page 11 lot of flexibility where you get a great inrush of waterfowl for some reason. Just across the street, Munden Farm was just approved, and that has smaller BMPs. The smaller BMPs are not bad, but they are actually nowhere near the water quality that we are talking about in these two lakes. Ashville Farms, if you think about Heritage Park, those are all great systems as far as the design goes. They will work very, very well. This is much better. It is natural existence, as lakes, like these are going to be quite a bit better than the downstream, and the only thing that I will mention there, just to finalize, is that the amount of the hydrodynamics of that course of water. What happens is, in that creek that goes down through Heron Ridge, is that there is species growing along the way. Again, if you are carrying sediments or pollutants and things like that, the likelihood is that you are going to damage some of it. We will be providing very, very clean water that will outfall into that existing watercourse, and it will be very beneficial to the growth and the stability of that watercourse. With that, I think I have answered your questions, but I will be happy to answer them further if I have not. Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: Are both lakes going to be considered to be dedicated to the City for regional BMPs or only the south lake? Robert Miller: Both lakes will be dedicated. They are both part of the system. Jay Bernas: As stormwater management facilities? Robert Miller: Obviously. They can both be stormwater management. Now, we can, as Eddie indicated, you could segregate it and say we can have one part be in the smaller lake, and that would be the primary stormwater management facility, but the depth of these two lakes, I just have no concern with that. Weare not talking 6 to 8 feet. Weare talking 40 feet, and we are talking about a life process of these lakes that just cannot be __ and I don't even know how to properly put the qualification on the quality of the water. Jay Bernas: It was my understanding that the lakes were going to be maintained by the Homeowners Association; so, it is going to be by the Homeowners Association or is it going to be dedicated to the City? Robert Miller: I will let Eddie speak. Eddie Bourdon: They will be owned by the Homeowners Association, but as far as drainage easements are concerned, we can engineer those that the drainage goes all way into the southern lake or we can use both. Both of these will be owned by the Homeowners Association, and the public will have the right to utilize the northern lake for recreational purposes, and the multi-purpose trail that totally encircles it will be for the public, as is the park site there. It will be part of the park for all intents and purposes. We would dedicate it to the City, but I don't think the City wants the lake. We will Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 12 maintain the lake, but we can have the easement for drainage in the lake, and if we do use it for any drainage, we will also anticipate putting in forebays where those outfalls might be, as another means of making sure we don't have sediment going into the lake. But the northern lake will be available for public recreational use. It will be posted "Not for Swimming", but for all types of boating activities, those will be perrititted. Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: What, other than the sludge factor, at the bottom of the lake with the aerobic bacteria are you going to be doing? Are you going to be planting wetland grasses? Are you going to try to create other areas for an opportunity to develop the ecosystem to help with the water quality? Robert Miller: Well, primarily that will be limiting it to benching around the lake. Yes, I just said a few minutes ago, we are going to do some benching. We have not identified the exact amount of it, but, in other words, there will be opportunities all around the lake to be able to do aquatic benching that will be beneficial to the environment of the whole lake. I will do that. I don't think that is an issue. We have done that before. We have done it to some of the lakes at Ashville Park and at Heritage Park. So it is a common use of providiJ:?g a good environment to help get the stormwater runoff and so forth to be able to filter prior to getting into the waters in the lake. The bottom is not anaerobic bottom. I don't want to imply that the sediment and so forth goes to the bottom. It is not like the typical situation, because it is not going to be so shallow. When we talk about maintaining these lakes, I think the majority of the maintenance on this lake would be the stabilization around the banks and so forth, and maybe some of these benches. I don't see anybody coming in to dredge these lakes anytime perhaps, considering the depth. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. AI Henley: I have a question for Mr. Bourdon. The lake is going to be owned by the Homeowners Association, so any liability associated on this body of water will be at liability of the Homeowners Association and not a liability to the City of Virginia Beach even though the public will be using it. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: That would be our interpretation at this point. Yes. Al Henley: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Let me also mention that Barry Frankenfield and the folks at Parks and Recreation have expressed to us on numerous occasions that they are very, very, very anxious to have this opportunity presented. They are very enthusiastic about the opportunity to utilize this lake, which unlike the lake at Mount Trashmore, which was initially meant for this type of activity, we are not next to a dump. We don't have those issues that exist with regard to those that have come to exist with Mount Trashmore. The Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 13 water out of this borrow pit has been discharged into that body that Mr. Miller was describing that goes into the North Landing River for 20 plus years. It is the same groundwater that is going to recharge this lake, and that groundwater has not polluted the North Landing River. That is for sure. That is one of the more vibrant bodies of water and rivers that we have in our city and in our commonwealth for that matter. It is the same groundwater that is going to be recharging this lake. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley, are you done? AI Henley: Yes. Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: As a follow-up to AI's comment or question, you mentioned that Barry in Parks and Recreation was excited about this project. Has the developer offered to dedicate the lake for recreation to the City? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Absolutely. Jay Bema~: And what did the City say? Eddie Bourdon: I don't think the City wants to have the liability of maintaining the lake or having the liability of owning the lake. You have to ask them. Jay Bernas: But the offer was made? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Absolutely. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Gene Hanson. Barry Knight: We1come Gene. Gene Hanson: Mr. Knight. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I would like to say one thing about the Transition Area Advisory Committee first. Barry Knight: Identify yourself. Gene Hanson: I'm sorry. Gene Hanson. I sat on that Committee. I did not miss any meetings. I did not miss any Committee meetings. The term Section 200 was never brought up. The vision that we had as the Transition Area Committee was that there were Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 14 three borrow pits in the Transition Area. You are looking at two of them now. We were hoping that the City would end up buying those borrow pits, and turn them it into a municipal park. Now without having to dip into the coffers of the City, we are having the opportunity for Jim Arnhold and his group to provide precisely what the Transition Area Committee wanted to occur right there. Now talking about what I was really coming to say, and I'll be happy to address any of the comments. I don't think that it was documented ever that the words "Section 200" was presented. But we did discuss these borrow pits. It was assumed that they were going to be municipal parks. I'm here to talk not so much about the attributes of exactly what Mr. Bourdon put forward because he missed the word "horses". I'm not going to add anything more, but horses will be using the multi-purpose trails. I can promise you that. But I would like to address the people who are involved here, which to me is always primary in my mind. I own a horse farm not too terribly away from here. I'm on something called the Pungo Village Land Owners Association Committee. I'm also President of the Back Bay-Pungo Civic League. So what occurs down in this neck of the city is keen in my mind. I think that after serving with Jim Arnhold on the Transition Area Advisory Committee and watching him as a developer ensure that area was going to be well protected. Jim was one of the vocal people saying one unit per developable acre. Not one per acre but developable acre. I had a wonderful time working with him, and I know he would certainly assure us that the goals of th_at Transition Area Committee would be fulfilled. I not only feel that in my heart, but before last year, before this plan came into fruition, he also came before the City's Bikeways and Trails Committee. I'm fortunate enough to be sitting on that Committee at the present time. He just didn't tell us what he wanted to do. He came to this Committee asking us what we could do as the Bikeways and Trails Commission to enhance the recreation potential of this development that he has proposed. I think overall this would be a nice development for the area. . It fits in with linkage and you could use that buzzword for the areas across the street. I have seen how the trails work. I'm very much in support of it. I will be happy to answer any questions. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Mr. Hanson? Thank you Gene. Gene Hanson: I would like to add one thing. I do know how old he is too because we went to high school together. Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary. Joseph Strange: Okay. The next speaker, speaking in opposition, is Michele Cleland. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Michele Cleland: Hello. Barry Knight: Please identify yourself. Item #12 LBH, L.L.C. Page 15 Michele Cleland: My name is Michele Cleland. I am a resident of Highgate Greens. I appreciate the opportunity to address you all today. I agree wholeheartedly with the staff recommendation of non-approval. I guess due to the density guidelines not being met. I realize, as I was reminded several times this morning, they are guidelines and not laws. But hopefully as far as the citizens go, they are guidelines that we would take very seriously. I did have a couple of things that I don't understand, and maybe some following same conversations with the developers, these issues would be brought to bare is that for one, I don't understand the calculations that being in Highgate Greens and looking at our community, where our smallest lot is 12,000 square feet and our largest lots are Y2 acre, how our density could be so much higher than what's being proposed. I realize -- that is something that I think would need to be conveyed to $e surrounding neighborhoods. I also like to note the traffic figures in the package that we were able to look at. I'm assuming that only looking at the Princess Anne Road entrance and just doing a little bit of math, there appears there is a 25 percent increase in Average Daily Trips. There would be existing conditions, and as somebody who has to make average daily trips in this area, that is pretty substantial. These people who are going to live here are not going to be going to Pungo, I do not believe, on a daily basis. They are going to be up Seaboard Road or they are going to be going up Princess Anne to get to General Booth. If any of you all have tried to go down those corridors at certain times of the day, I would le~ you know that I cannot make a right turn, much less a left turn out of my neighborhood at certain times of the day. You just have to wait. So, I just wanted to give you a personal feel for that. Terming Princess Anne Road as a minor suburban artery is a little bit misleading. It is pretty major to me. I also like to draw attention to the recommendations that were made by the Department of Agriculture. I believe the recommendation to preserve the area adjoining the northern boundary is really not Highgate Greens. It is an existing open space that the City owns. It is an excellent suggestion, and that would be the northern perimeter of the Sherwood Lakes proposed development. I also believe that it would have bearing on another concern that was raised by the Department of Agriculture, which was the drainage in the north. The open space that is owned and maintained by the City behind me does not drain well. We all have OUf backs of (mf yards drain into this. I can imagine the way that this looks that these folks will also have the back of their yards draining. It is something definitely that I would hope that the Commission would consider and the staff would consider. May I have one more minute please? Barry Knight: Yes. Michele Cleland: Thank you. It also impacts the local schools. I know we heard a lot about the borrow pits, but these are quality of life issues. I'm not against development. I knew that when I purchased my home. And I was hoping that it would be a nice development behind us. But Ijust wanted to say that these are already overcrowded schools. I believe Kellam is about 30 percent over capacity now. So lastly, Ijust ask the Commission to please accept the Planning staff s recommendation. Thank you. Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 16 Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Cleland? Thank you ma'am for coming forward. Joseph Strange: The next speaker in opposition is Laura Sisino. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Please state your name for the record. Laura Sisino: Laura Sisino. I am here to oppose the plans for Sherwood Lakes mainly for the high density of the 2.1 per developable acre. I realize that there is a lot of question in the Princess Anne Transition Guidelines on what is a developable acre. I think that really has to be figured out. Because if this gets through, that sets precedent for everybody else that will follow. I have a petition for you. I have a total of 99 names that are opposed to this because it is not in keeping with the density. There is just too much on here that is just part of the Section 200 Zoning Ordinance. If we go back to that, it does say that these borrow pits are not considered developable land. You know if an option is to wait ten years to fill it, then maybe that is what we need to do. I think it is great to have the lakes for the public and open space. I think that is an awesome thing, but there is just too many houses on the land that is actually developable. And that is going to overburden our schools and our roads. I mean Princess Anne and Seaboard Roads can't handle all of this traffic._ I personally feel that the developers who purchase property should know what the guidelines are and what the limitations are. Whether there are laws or not. They should know what they are getting into. Your job is to make sure that you adhere to these guidelines and you let them stick to them. So, I hope to make sure that we can figure out that little fine line that everyone is questioning on what is a developable acre. So, I'm going to hand out more petitions. You guys have them in your package, and my letter. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. Joseph Strange: Okay. The next speaker in opposition is Scott Lovell. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Scott Lovell: Good afternoon. Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record. Scott Lovell: My name is Scott Lovell. I am the Chair of the Legislative Committee for Highgate Greens. I think we had a little bit of procedural mix up. I was not sure exactly what was considered the representative for the opposition, so I was hoping for a little bit more time than three minutes. Some of the things that I was going to discuss have already been mentioned. So I am going to try to keep that brief. I am, like I said the Legislative Committee Chairman for Highgate Greens. I have been involved with the Board of Directors of Highgate Greens for nine years. Over that time we have seen Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 17 development just going rapid in our part of the area with not a lot of support of infrastructure being built, primarily roads. It kind of leads to one of the reasons why I was asked to speak for the group, because I am also a civil engineer and I am involved in the transportation industry. I have been involved in the transportation industry in Hampton Roads for about 20 years. And, in the 20 years that I have been involved with transportation, I haven't seen the type of crisis that we are facing in this state with regards to transportation that we are currently facing. When I moved in to Highgate Greens nine years ago, I expected that I would be driving on Nimmo Parkway today. I can tell everybody here today that I am involved with that project, and it is currently not scheduled for advertisement for construction until 2009 and we won't drive on it until 2012. And that road is continually touted as the saving grace for the Transition Area. But by 2012, it is going to have little affect on the. traffic along the two lane stretch of Princess Anne Road, where we front, just because of all this development that is going on out there. So that was one of the main reasons, and that is one of the key reasons why we are here in opposition to this is because the Comprehensive Plan and the TATAC Guidelines were established to try to manage growth in the Transition Area, and partially because of the problems with transportation out in that part of the City. So, we would really hate to see the chipping away, as you will, at those guidelines because of that density issue. You heard a lot about that already so I am not going belabor that issue. But I also _wanted to mention some other things with regards to the development and why we are in opposition to it. It is really because of the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. Nowhere will you see existing neighborhoods - Three Oaks, Highgate Greens or proposed neighborhoods - Heritage Park, Munden Park, Ashville Park with the type of lots and home site that Mr. Arnhold is proposing here. You are not going to see a 5,000 square foot lot in any of these neighborhoods. Regardless of how the density is calculated, these are inconsistent. You are not going to find rear-loading cottage homes in any of these developments. It is very inconsistent with the types of development that are in the surrounding area. I see the timer light. Barry Knight: Mr. Lovell, we will give you a few more minutes. Scott Lovell: Thank you. I appreciate that. I want to say that we are not opposed to a development here. We have met with Mr. Arnhold and some of his folks, and they have been very accommodating to some of our concerns. We just are opposed to the density of the development that he has proposed here. It has got some v,ery attractive elements and amenities that are going to be great for our community, the lakes in particular. But chipping away at those Transition Area Guidelines right now is not a good idea in light of the transportation issues that we are seeing across the state. Not just here in Virginia Beach, but across the state. So, I would really be concerned with that. As I mentioned, Mr. Arnhold has met with our community association. He came to one of our meetings and met with our Board of Directors, and with some of the folks on McNelly Lane who will be connected to Sherwood if, in fact, this goes forward. I just wanted to state for the record some of the things that Mr. Arnhold has offered up as concessions on the plan. One is the elimination of the vehicular connection to McNelly Lane, which I think is on Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 18 the current plan, some concealing of the pedestrian walkway between McNelly Lane and Sherwood Lakes, the addition of landscape buffers between the home sites and Highgate Greens and Sherwood Lakes, elimination of any common property lines. There have been some other items that have been requested. No parking signs on McNelly Lane for the park. Those have been documented, and I believe everyone has received letters. Our letter as an Association, and there have been some individual letters from homeowners on McNelly Lane. So in the event that a development in this area is allowed to move forward, we asked those elements be maintained. 1 want to state once again that we really would oppose this, and we would love to see Mr. Arnhold come back with a revised plan that is more consistent with the surrounding area, and that is a little bit closer to the density recommendations of the Transition Area Guidelines. I believe, if he came back with something that had more of the 10,000 square foot executive homes, to quote Mr. Bourdon; "I think you have a neighborhood view that would shine a little bit brighter as a jewel and as that Transition Area Gateway". There is no need for this type of density here. Just a couple of other points I would like to make. I was at the work session this morning, and Mr. Bernas raised a couple of very good points, and Ijust wanted to address those real quick. He raised the issue that this could potentially be used as precedent for other developers to kind of play with the density recommendation of those guidelines. I would have to say that we would all be fooling ourselves if we didn't think that was going to be the c~se. The other issue that he brought up was what the public perception would be if, in fact, we deviated from the recommendation of those TAT AC Guidelines. I can tell you that I have spoken with representatives of several of the Homeowners Associations in the surrounding area. The perception would be that those guidelines are somewhat toothless. I think it would be a very bad precedent to set at this time. What I would like just to, in closing, say is that we would love to see a development here. The issues with the lakes and all, I know they would be worked out. As a civil engineer, I can understand what Mr. Miller was talking about with regards to runoff and all. I think they would be a wonderful amenity. I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, if you will, in this case, and have a community that provides those amenities that they were looking for in the TAT AC Guidelines but also with a neighborhood that is more consistent with the surrounding development. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Lovell. Are there any questions? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: That is all the speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I appreciate the comments of all the speakers from Highgate and especially Mr. Lovell, and I would point out the fact that Mr. Arnhold has spent a considerable amount of time with the residents of Highgate. You all have letters. We even provided letters in your package from the folks on McNelly Lane. The first thing that 1 want to mention is there appears to be a couple of comments especially those from Michele Cleland. And it was sort of echoed by Mr. Lovell that lot Item #12 LBH, L.L.C. Page 19 size equates to density, and I don't think that is the case. I know this Commission certainly recognizes that. We and the TATAC and the city as a whole, especially the Transition Area, one of the things that is urged is that we have a variation of housing types, and that we not just have the large estate brick homes. And that is exactly what this provides. There are homes similar to this, although not in great abundance, in Ashville Park, and certainly there is a neo-traditional segment of the development, I apologize, I can't remember the name of it that we approved a number of years ago down here at West Neck Road for the Overton Family, that has a segment with some alleys and rear loading garages. The density issue doesn't have to do with the size of the lot. I would say that the lots that are closest to Highgate are all 11,000 square foot lots. There are none of the cottage homes are located there. Cottage isn't used. It is a derogatory term. In fact, those homes that you see in the elevations in the plans, those homes will sell $400,000; so, definitely they are not inexpensive homes. The landscape buffers and the elimination of common property lines, we've done all of those things that have been discussed with the folks at Highgate. We don't control putting no parking signs on the roads in Highgate. Those issues -- we don't oppose what they might want to do there. We will be doing a traffic impact study. It is one of the things proffered, as is the same currently with regard to Ashville Park. And we do anticipate there will be improvements made to Princess Anne as a consequence on both of those developments. Our entrance to Princess ~nne Road is about three quarters of a mile from the intersection of the Princess Anne and Sandbridge intersection where it shows a four-lane divided highway. All development in the Transition Area will be tax positive, and it will absolutely help add to the financial resources to the City to improve the roads that do need to be improved, and we certainly all agree with Mr. Lovell that Nimmo Parkway is long overdue. We certainly expect it to be built hopefully, if not by before 2012, certainlyby then. This is the type of development that would pay for those road improvements that need to be made, and Princess Anne Road is not a dangerous road. It is a straight road from here to Sandbridge - from where we are to Sandbridge Road, and from there it is a four-lane highway. We will be making improvements to Princess Anne Road based on what the traffic impact study requires. I know that I am out of time. I could say a little bit more. Barry Knight: I am sure we have some questions for you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? John Waller: I have a concern about the roads and transportation. This thing is going to improve the road in front of your project. Is Parks going to do a little bit on their side of the road? Who is going to take care of the big picture? That road should have a four-lane highway with a median down the middle. So, two-lanes, dump trucks, and school buses, and if you're lucky enough to be able to get your SUV on there, on Sandbridge Road. What is going to happen? Eddie Bourdon: You're asking the wrong person that question Mr. Waller. I know you appreciate putting me on the spot with that one. I think some of it is rhetorical. I will say this. I have no doubt whatsoever that the individuals exiting this community, which isn't Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 20 going to be built overnight, we are talking a few years down the road anyway with regard to what all has to take place here, but the folks that will be entering Princess Anne Road will certainly have an easier time getting out of their neighborhood than the folks do getting out of Highgate Greens on to that section of Princess Anne Road. I wouldn't quarrel with that at all. We will be making improvements as dictated by the traffic impact studies, which I am certain will include some widening and some turn lanes at our entrance. You don't get the second borrow pit until the end of this calendar year, and with the process being what it is, it will be a number of years we will be seeing traffic coming out of this development. Ashville Park, which is already under construction - that will be well in advance of anything we will be doing as far as homes on this property. But those are decisions that obviously will be made by the City Council, and those are issues with regard to funding. That is what the Transition Area does. It provides the opportunity that we can pay for more of our own roads because getting the money from Richmond is tough to do these days. John Waller: Mr. Scott, what is City's plan for improving Princess Anne Road? Robert Scott: This section of Princess Anne Road. John Wall~r: That is the section from there to Sandbridge. Does the City have any plans to do anything with it? Robert Scott: Well, as with all of our road plans, were finding it more and more difficult because of reduced funding. So, a general statement is that most of these projects are being pushed back in time. In some cases, considerably back in time. So although it is the desire to do the necessary improvements to some of these roads, part of them are capacity issues and part of them are alignment issues. There are very bad curves in them in some cases that just need to be straightened out and things like that. In any case, and the truth of it Mr. Waller is that we are finding it extremely difficult because of lack of funding. We keep on schedule with these improvements so they are being pushed back. Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate where the folks in Highgate are coming from because the section of Princess Anne Road in front of Highgate is far more difficult today because of the traffic coming to the Courthouse and the traffic heading towards Chesapeake and vice versa. It is much, much more congested there than this section of Princess Anne Road. I really don't have any heartburn that this development in the Transition Area developments will be able to be adequately accommodated on this section of Princess Anne Road with the improvements that will come along with them. I cannot sit here and quarrel with the fact that getting out of Highgate Greens on that section of Princess Anne Road is and can be a bear during the peak traffic hours. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you sir. Eddie Bourdon: You're welcome. Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 21 Barry Knight: We're going to close the public comment session. We're going to open it up for discussion amongst the Commissioners. Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. It is a pleasure to see a development of this quality in our City. Very rarely do I open the paper and see the Virginian-Pilot talking about our development and our developers. May I just read, please, just a couple of sentences. This is from March 20, 2006, where the Editorial page said, "Virginia Beach residents have learned to be wary of developers bearing gifts, especially ones with long strings attached, And so it is with Sherwood Lakes, a project intending to reclaim two exhausted sand mines on Princess Anne Road. In this instance, the snap judgment is reliable. After extensive grading, two lakes would dominate a neighborhood of cottage style family homes and condos for seniors. The lakes, at 40 and 80 acres would be owned and maintained by the homeowners. But the Green Belt around them would be given over to everyone for strolling, biking, boating, kite-flying or just lying around on a blanket. By comparison, the main lake at Mount Trashmore is slightly less than 40 acres". Following up on what Mr. Hansen said, they also say "this is a handsome gift, one that comes at no charge to the taxpayers." They end their editorial by saying "an exception for Sherwood Lakes ought to be granted if it is clear that the public is getting the biggest favor and not the developer". Another part of this development that pleases me is the front porches. I know that _when I was a child, people sat on the front porches and all of your neighbors knew each other. They took care of each other. They took care of the children. I love to see the neighborhood concept that Sherwood Lakes is bringing back to our city. I have known Mr. Arnhold for over 25 years, and I know the quality of his development. It is my pleasure to support the development, and when time comes, I will be happy to make the motion. Thank you. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Obviously the issue is do we connect the lakes to the land or the land to the lakes? That is the issue. I guess we have all wrestled with that more than anything else. The application seems to be a good application. This is not thefrrst time that we've had a philosophical discussion. We had it at Heritage Park, when we were talking about their equ.estrian amenity, and that was disconnected from the residential portion, and should we consider that, and maybe that was pre- TAT AC, but it was the same kind of concept that we had. We were trying to get to an open space equation. Whether you looked at it from that point and not as another story. We have the same kind of example at Heron's Ridge. No, it wasn't Heron's Ridge. It was a little, and I can't remember. It was a few months ago. We had a project right next to Heron's Ridge. It was about 6 or 7 lots that abutted the golf course. But the golf course open space didn't count. I couldn't quite understand that, because if it is open space, it is open space. I realize that you have to get it on to your site, and the developer is trying to meet that. I think they have worked that out if I am not mistaken. That is an example when you're disconnected from the land but not. Here you have this borrow pit that is going to turn into a lake. I think, if you didn't have the public connection that has been proposed, maybe it would be an issue. Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 22 Maybe I would be looking at it a little different. In this case, I see this as an extenuating circumstance. I think the T AT AC Committee when they met, and I was Chairman of the Commission when that occurred, and I was very proud of the work that they did, I think they did just a fantastic job in trying to really look at holistic plan for the Transition Area. You look at this as open space. I think that people who are sitting on that front porch that Dot just described, they are going to be looking at some very incredible nice open space. That is what that is. The size of the lots -- there are many lots in Ashville Park that are similar in size. There are some larger lots. There are some lots that range up to 15,000 to 20,000 square feet but there are a whole bunch ofthem 7,500, 12,000 square feet. So the lots, I am not that hung up on the lot size. What I am really more concerned about is do you connect the water to the land or the land to the water. I asked the question this morning in the informal session. Is this plan being proffered as a plan so that the lakes are part or the plan? And the answer is yes. I just have a hard time seeing it differently. So, I wrestle with the thought of this. I am going to support this also. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I agree with Mr. Ripley. I think it is a question of whether or not the lakes are developable or not. They really are developable land if chose to be, and as it is, it has been_chosen to be left as open space, which is to the benefit ofthe entire city and the citizens of Virginia Beach for recreational purposes. And, therefore, as far as this being a precedent that is going to be set for future commissions, we take each application individually as it is anyway, and we evaluate it individually. By doing it, and making an exception to this one time, we are not setting into law something that in the future we would have to do that if we change the zoning ordinance and go that route in the future. We will have no choice. We would have to do everyone of them. If we do it the way that it has been suggested today, and we look at this as open space, and the fact that it would be developable land if they chose to do it, this is a one-time situation. We can make allowances for this, and in the future we can take up each application in their own merit and judge it for that. Therefore, I am also going to support this application. I think this is a terrific thing, and the open space, and the amenities that it has with it. I think there is nothing in the city that is going to compare to it. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: First, I like to say that I think the development is a great development. I really don't have an issue with the development as a whole as much I do with the calculation of the density. Before I go into my position, I first like to bring up a red flag that kind of came up to me was that if this is such a great amenity when the developer offered it to the city to Parks and Recreation, to operate and maintain, why didn't they jump at it? They declined because of the liability. So to me, it kind of diminishes the value of the amenity. But regardless of that, I think it is a great development, but my position though is that I agree with our attorney's interpretation that if we were to move forward with this development, we would have to amend the City Code. It is clear. It Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 23 says borrow pits. It is in black and white. I am not an attorney, but to me it is very clear. I understand Mr. Hansen's said that Section 200 was never brought up, but we got it in our report. Mr. Scott, Mr. White mentioned to us that was the basis for calculating density within the Transition Area. I think given the public's input on the Transition Area Guidelines, I think if we deviate from that and we tell them that we are going to use Section 200 as our requirements to calculate density, but we are going to change our minds now and throwaway the whole public process, and the perception that we are going to modify it. It is very clear in the code. I just think that if I was in the public, I would be really concerned about this City and how they are handling the public process, and discounting what the public has worked so hard to come up within these Transition Area Guidelines. So, if the time comes, I am not supporting the application. I would be more supportive of deferring the application in light of amending the City Code, and allowing' the public process of amending the City Code and bringing that to City Council. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bernas. Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: When you review the staff's recommendation, the staff recommendation looks at lots of different things and not just density. Density is just one. At least in my opinion it is very clear that Mr. Arnhold has met or even exceeded their expectatiops on what else they were looking for in a development: connectivity, amenities, and everything else. What we get down to is the density issue. And that is because there has become a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan, the TAT AC recommendation, and this Code section under zoning. The guidelines refer to a developable acre. There is not a definition in the guidelines. They don't come up with any kind of definition, but what the staff has used is the zoning definition. That is what they have been using. So, it is not really one in the same, but that is where they have been drawn from. In this situation, the borrow pit could be filled and be developable; so, you can come up with the same number of houses that you could. Now, if this was undevelopable land like a wetlands that could not be filled and developed, even though a lot of developers would like to fill, a development like that just wouldn't happen. But a borrow pit can be fIlled and developed without a question. I am very concerned with . - deviation from guidelines also, but to stick with them because of a technicality, I am not in agreement with this. I think this is unique. It is a borrow pit that can be filled and have development acres. If we reduce it, and I would be in support of reducing the 256 down to 240 to match the next door neighbor's zoning so it is not higher or the nearest density. But what do you get from that? I think that is what Ms. Wood has talked about, and Ron, that the TAT AC said that this should be lakes, and it should be used for the public, and the public should buy it. You are getting this from the developer. Like the applicant said, Mr. Bourdon, said they are paying the cost of this development for the lakes. So, the City is getting what they wanted in this area. The density, I don't think it is out of line at all with the neighborhoods that have been there. Even with the numbers for the density, just because there are holes in the ground, it is not a developable acre if they filled it and you would have the same density. I think the benefits for the public outweigh, and I would be willing to deviate from the guidelines in this situation. Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 24 Barry Knight: Mr. Livas. Henry Livas: I would agree with that, and the analogy of the fact that the borrow pits could be filled and utilized developable area. I don't think we should penalize the developer now -- not after the great recreational benefits that are being presented. So for that reason, I would support the project also. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: I think the public expects us to look at all aspects of each one of these items that come before us. Even though, I think all of us, when we first look at this, and we see the size of this development, we might have questions in our own mind as to the density. Once you start really diving into this and looking at all the amenities that the city is getting, I see it a little bit differently than Jay does when he says that Parks and Recreation may have not wanted to take this over. Maybe they didn't want to pay for the upkeep. Maybe they didn't want to assume the liability. Here is a private developer that is willing to do this, and provide these amenities to the city. I see that as a plus for the developer and an amenity for the city. So, I will be supporting this application. I think the public will see that we have done due diligence with this application, and really studied it ,!ery carefully. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Strange. Is there any more discussion? I will weigh in. This is in the Princess Anne District. I am the Princess Anne District representative. This is a wonderfully designed, engineered, and represented piece of property. The houses look good. And, if it is completed, I am sure that it will be a wonderful asset to the city. The problem that I have with it, that I keep hearing, is the density issue. The density issue, and it was addressed in the TAT AC, one house per buildable area. We have in here a little discrepancy about what is a buildable acre. I see both sides of the story on this. I just believe it looks like if Mr. Scott says they were discussing Section 200, and that is what the guidelines went on, that it doesn't qualify to add the borrow pits in here. So it looks like to me what we are trading is that we have one house per one developable acre, and that looks like it is pretty well set in stone. We are adding density for recreational amenities. It isn't clarified in there if you have a recreational amenity even as nice as this one is going to be, how much credit you give to it. Do you give 20 percent? Do you give it 100 percent? That is what I am wrestling with. I think it gives the Planning Commission, in my mind, too much discretion. I would like to see public input to change T AT AC Guidelines or to amend Section 200 to include borrow pits in the Transition Area. So, with giving us too much discretion, Ijust don't feel comfortable. If we went forward with an ordinance change or a change to TAT AC, and the public had input and said this is what they wanted, I would absolutely be supporting this plan. But I just have a question as to how we are calculating the density. So I won't be supporting this as it is presented because there is a clarity issue to me. Is there any other discussion? I will entertain a motion. Item #12 LBH, L.L.C. Page 25 Dorothy Wood: I would like to make a motion that we accept the project Sherwood Lakes. Barry Knight: You made the first. Is that as presented? Dorothy Wood: As presented. Barry Knight: Not revised 240 homes on property? Dorothy Wood: As presented. Barry Knight: As presented? Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Barry Knight: Do I have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree is a second. Janice Anderson: Substitute motion. Barry Knight: A substitute motion? Okay, we have a substitute motion on the floor. Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: Approve with a reduction to 240. Barry Knight: Okay. We have a substitute motion on Proffer #5 to be changed between now and Council to reduce the 256 dwelling units to 240. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: I'll accept that and second it. Barry Knight: You accept that? Would withdraw your original? Okay. We will vpte on the substitute first. We have a substitute motion on the floor by Jan Anderson and a second by Dot Wood that between now and Council amend Proffer #5 to reflect a maximum of 240 dwelling units. Is there any discussion? I will call for the question. AYE 7 NAY 4 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE HENLEY AYE NAY AYE NAY Item #12 LBH, L.L.c. Page 26 KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT LIV AS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER WOOD AYE NAY NAY Ed Weeden: By a vote of 7 -4, the substitute motion has been approved. Barry Knight: Thank you. M Jt-Y g ,,"oo.i::. J TO 1'1 E /I1l!>ETJ..5 of THE fLFjAJ/J/NG CO,.,,,, ISS loAl SuSSE'er 51+ER. w~C>J> L.".;:.r:.s REeOAJI Nt;, fROpoSPJL. FP-o/YJ :B~flN"flD:T. BYRNE - :-7 a.. 8' ~..s PL't/IJ ,,"f)E C-r V, ~($OJI't B EItCH V/t ~3 LJ S" b Lf30- OS7) RECEIVED MAY 0 9 2006 PLANNINGDEPARTMENT THE It PPLJ C~Nr IS PROPDSI AJtJr I'r c(:)/t1 B I4)ED S VS (NESS / Res I P E IV 11191... l+eJ vS IAJ(;,. p E1/1::c..4r I'l7EA.I T ~AJ rjf-I,S FR.t:>PER. TY, 'IT /NC,L.VPE:.S ~s-, ITtJUSI,vr:, LMJlr..s,l M o~ 1H-ItAJ 7"W I~E THE Al&J/l1B&1'< If--tLct..Uen 8Y 7f'fIE PR.IAJCESS 1t4JIVE / 7i<."AJSlr/uAI .IJ-/1.E'f GtJIDbL~AJE.s. rH€ DEVE'-" pel< Is 77l 'Y 1~6. 7Z' C'~u^rr r#E ~ UR.ReJv'r B c;Il..Je 0 IN P Ir..s I Ft..JT(J~E "t..../I-/< Es~ /ts OEtlELDP/HlL.E I'rCRE ItGE. IJs P~/A)T~ e>ur By 71tE 5rlffF '</i:P,rl1/ 71fIS IltJre~p~IiFT/-r71tJ'" ~s /A./~"AlSIS,E"''- w/rl'/' ThE C"~,/AJ& ORO/NI9Nc.E "'110 IS LhJ~CEP'T/rf1L€ II\)tE S l,/uvL./) IItJ SIS r fN/t'f' T1t1s n-,PL/ C,l'JAlT Ct:uJFtJ~1'1 To TH-G' (;UIDEl./A.JES :::rUST LIAE /j-u- aTlfe.tl. J>EYEZ-"peleS~ Fo~ '17t1f R €A$ON Tfils !lEco,.;nJ&, l'~() PIJS"t.. S/'/(')IJJJ) 8€ DF:AlIE.D ./ SIN c el'2 ELj, ~.l?4~d ~ v \~n . 'v ~\-_ PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess Anneffransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre. Tile current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural cmaracter. Name .~ nV\R L-€uJl'~ ell; Lk.. Le.;,,0 j > Vl1A6&ic W DO J2(tM ~L.~ 5ekWl 1.a.H\t~ Address Lf- \)6 2:&'1 S"\ ~'s- ~f)". ~_, ch.fs~ ilL (OVi1..hy J4f~Wf> i)lC..iV'e. 2,. 3 'f"(". ~4'D1 2~g Crnro -P\ p~ To C>"'.....')::r.> {i....._ i" ", ''_-. -;.. i .-,....\-' .'c.~' ___....." _ '" ,. Co./Dept.,?,... ~ . ; -" r::;..J ...- ....... Phone # i' ,r .r.. 0 '1 ) l' '~i Fax # ";\"'~' ".- Fax # 1...,' / to., i ('I.f" :2. '''''' I . ..... '-''-I -"('~'O T '. )'~ C~~BrZ ~,~~'jD l.J....~s tQ~O:::~p'rVI~L. ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REQUIRE..Ll'.a.c.,n u, \C)..r 100apunns sUDJect to special restrictions AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE pursuant to section 5B.5 (c) of the Site Plan TO ALL DISTRICTS Ordinance (Appendix C) shall not be included in deteI?Dining minimum. lot area requirements. A. REGULATIONS RELATING TO LOTS, YARDS, HEIGHTS, OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING Sec. 200. Lots. " (a) Density, lot coverage, floor area ratio and lot area. For purposes of determining allowable dwelling unit or lodging unit density, lot coverage, floor ar~a ratio and minimum lot area require- ments, the following shall be included: (1) Public and private utility easements, so long as the total width of the easement is twenty (20) feet or less; (2) Easements for ingress and egress in favor of others; (3) Flood fringes; (4) Manmade drainage areas and the ease- ments over them constructed primarily for storage and retention of stormwater runoff on the lot and conveyance from the lot except that only the first ten (10) feet of such areas closest to their boundary shall count toward minimum lot size re- quirements; (b) The..following shan not be included in de- _term.iDjn~ the allowable dwelling unit or lod~g . unit....d~!!!iitY..,J~overage. floor area ratio and !!linimum l~~~quirement~: (1) The floodway portion of any floodplain; (2) Any body of water except as mentioned above; (3) Any manmade drainage areas such as borrow pits and the easements over them constructed primarily for purposes other than storage and retention of stormwater; (4) Wetlands; (5) Any part of a public or private utility easement whose total width is more than twenty (20) feet; and Supp. No. 76 2506.1 CO. C_ vb' ~~7'Jt.i. tti<. Phone # '1' 7...; . Lj 75'1. ~. 200 (d) Lot width. (1) Lots abutting rights-of-way that are straight or where the radius of curvature is ninety (90) feet or more shall meet the following standards: (i) The width of the lot shall be deter- mined by measuring across the rear of the required front yard.' Each lot shall be configured so that a straight line' drawn across the rear of the required front yard is equal to or greater in length than the minimum. lot width for the district in which the lot is located. (ii) A straight line drawn between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the right-of-way line shall constitute the street line frontage of the lot. Each lot shall be configured so that the width of this frontage is at least equal in length to eighty (80) percent of the required minimum lot width. (2) Lots abutting rights-of-way when the ra- dius of curvatUre is less than ninety (90) feet or on the turning circle of cul-de-sacs shall meet the following standards: (i) The width of such a lot shall be determined by the following method. First, a straight line is drawn be- tween the two (2) points where the side lot lines intersect the right-of- way line; second, a straight line is drawn from the center of curvature through the midpoint ofthe first line into the lot; third, a straight line is drawn perpendicular to the second line and a distance back from the right-of-way line equal to the re- quired front yard in the applicable district. The length of this third line between the side lot lines is the width of the lot. Each lot shall be configured so that the width meets co (HIGHGAtE GREENS J p.o. BOX 6887 . VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456 Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development Operations Building, #2 Municipal Center 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Attn: Ms. Karen Prochilo Re: Proposed Development - Sherwood Lakes Ms. Prochilo, On Saturday November S, 2005, Mr. Jim Arnhold, the developer for the proposed Sherwood Lakes residential development to be located adjacent to our neighborhood, attended our annual homeowner's association meeting to discuss his development plan ("Plan''). The meeting was attended by the Highgate Greens Board of Directors as well as by nearly 150 members of our association. On November 12, 2005, members of the Highgate Greens Board of Directors met with Mr. Arnhold to discuss our neighborhood's concerns regarding the Plan expressed at the HOA meeting. In response to our concerns, Mister Arnhold agreed to amend the Plan as follows: . Elimination of the proposed vehicular connection to McNelly Lane; . Addition ofa 10' wide meandering pedestrian connection at the end ofMcNeUy Lane (to include extensive landscaping to conceal the pathway); . Elimination of two of the proposed lots adjacent to Highgate Greens home sites at the end of McNelly Lane and addition of 20' landscape buffers at the rear of the remaining adjacent lots; . Addition of20' wide landscape buffers between home sites at the end of Upper Greens Place and proposed "executive" home sites at the northeast corner of Sherwood Lakes. The proposed modifications to the Plan are described in greater detail in a letter received from Mr. Arnhold, a copy of which is attached. The Board of Directors and the residents of High gate Greens appreciate Mr. Arnhold's efforts and willingness to respond to our concerns to make the Plan more acceptable to our neighborhood. In the event that the Sherwood Lakes development is approved at this site, we request that City staff ensure that, at a minimum, these modifications are included in the development plans. In addition, we would ask that the City investigate the potential for emergency access to Sherwood Lakes from Seaboard Road, rather than from McNelly Lane, as you have suggested is the City's preference. However, we as a community oppose the Sherwood Lakes development plan in its current configuration. We feel that the development as planned is inconsistent with the character and quality of existing nearby neighborhoods, as wen as other developments proposed in the transition area such as Heritage Park and Asheville Park. In addition, we oppose the current plan www.highgategreenshoa.com Highgate Greens Proposed Development - Sherwood Lakes November 22, 2005 because it appears that this development does not comply with the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Transition Area Development Guidelines ("Guidelines"). The Guidelines recommend a maximum density of one dwelling unit per developable acre. The site proposed for Sherwood Lakes is approximately 244 acres with approximately 122 acres of borrow pit that would be converted to lake amenities. City of Virginia Beach ordinances provide that borrow pit acreage cannot be considered as developable acreage for calculation of dwelling unit density. As a result, the maximum number of dwellings that can be allowed for this site to conform to the Guidelines would be approximately 122. The plan currently being proposed for Sherwood Lakes includes more than twice that number, 264 dwelling tmits. In addition to our concern over the dwelling unit density, the "zero lot line" configuration of the development, as well as the rear loading cottage homes are aspects of the Plan that are inconsistent with the design and quality of all the surrounding developments 'and planned developm~ts, including Highgiite Greens, Three Oaks, Highgate Crossing, Heritage Park and Asheville Park. The southern section of Virginia Beach has experienced rapid growth in recent years, placing a strain on existing infrastructure including roads, utilities, schools and other City services. The 2003 Guidelines were established in order to control growth and proposed developments and to protect the quali1;y ofllfe that the residents of this part of the City enjoy. Approving the Sherwood Lakes Plan as currently proposed seems to be in conflict with those goals outlined in the 2003 Guidelines. We urge the City to deny this Plan unless and ootil it is modified to comply with the density recommendations of the Guidelines and meet our objections to the Plan. We are available to discuss this matter with you at any time. Please contact me or either member of our Legislative committee as listed below if you have any questions or comments. Scott Lovell David Hinchee 466-9608 427-0844 Thank you for your continued consideration of our position on this issue. Sincerely, 1?.~ ~ Rich Kaiser President, Highgate Greens Homeowners Association Home: 430-6763, Work: 306-6090 cc: via email & certified mail Mr. Jim Reeve (jreeve@vbgov.com) Mayor Meyera Obemdotf (mobemdo@Vbgov.com) via certified mail Janice P. Anderson Donald H. Horsley Robert S. Miller, m John: S. Waller Planning Connnission Members Eugene F. Crabtree Katherine K. Katsias Ronald C. Ripley Dorothy L. Wood William W. Din Barry D. Knight Joseph E. Strange Sherwood Lakes 11/12/05 RE: Highgate Greens subdivision concerns 1. The road connection has been eliminated. The connection to Highgate Greens will be made by a 10' wide, :MEANDERING, multi-purpose trail. Extensively landscaped open space will be provided on either side of the multi purpose trail. a. The multi-purpose trail will connect to an extensive trail system throughout Sherwood Lakes, and will provide the residents of High gate Greens access to the following: i. The 35-acre park currently owned by The City of Virginia Beach. ii. The shopping centers located at the intersections of Princess Anne and Sandbridge Roads. 111. The new elementary school. IV. The other subdivisions within The Transition Area. 2. A 20' landscape buffer and park. will be dedicated to the City ofVrrginia Beach. The park will be located at the north property line, adjacent to the 35 acre city park site and the 20' landscape buffer will be located along the common property line between Sherwood Lakes and the homes on Upper Greens Place. The buffer will preserve the existing trees between the homes on Upper Greens Place and Sherwood Lakes. Additional landscaping, up to Category IV, may be provided within the 20' landscape buffer if the existing trees are not adequate. The additional landscaping will be provided upon request by the board of the Highgate Greens Home Owners Association. 3. Sherwood Lakes will provide a varied mix of single-family detached homes. a. Cottage Homes- these homes will be built on minimum 6000 square foot lots. Homes will be rear loading with parking for a minimum offour cars in addition to a two car garage. These homes will all front open space areas with sidewalks on all sides of the open space. Homes will average between 2200 and 2400 square feet of living area and will have a starting base price of approximately $430,000.00. b. Manor Homes- these homes will be built on minimum 9000 square foot lots. Homes will be rear loading with parking for a minimum of four cars in addition to a two car garage. These homes will all front open space areas, or overlook the lake amenity, with sidewalks on all sides of the open space. Homes will average between 2600 and 2900 square feet of living area and will have a starting base price of approximately $575,000.00. c. Executive Homes- these homes vvill be built on minimum 9000 square foot lots. Homes will be front loading with parking for a minimum of four cars in addition to a two car garage. These homes will overlook the lake amenity, with a sidewalk and multi-purpose trail on either side of the street. Homes will start around 3000 square feet of living area and will have a starting base price of approximately $665,000.00. Sherwood Lakes 11/12/05 RE: Highgate Greens subdivision concerns cont. Sherwood Lakes has been designed using Traditional Neighborhood Design, or "TND", similar to the successful designs found in "Celebration Station" and "Baldwin Park", both ofwbich are located in Orlando, Florida The goal ofTND is to encourage a sense a neighborhood. This has been accomplished by using reduced front yard set backs and useable front porches, a combination that encourages residents to converse with each other while they are taking a stroll or relaxing on their front porch. The reduced front yard setbacks, in addition to the shifting of the homes through use of a zero lot line, also enables residents to maintain a sense of privacy in their rear yards. During preliminary reviews, Sherwood Lakes has proven to score bighly on the Transition Area Matrix and substantially meets all of the TATAC guidelines. The subdivision provides over 74% open space, and a lake amenity on a scale that has not been attempted in the City ofVrrginia Beach. Karen Prochilo From: Sent: To: Subject: patrick shuler [pshuler@stricklandandshuler.comj Monday, November 21,20052:12 PM Karen Prochilo FW: Highgate Greens Resident Concern -----Original Message----- From: patrick shuler [mailto:pshuler@stricklandandshuler.comJ Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:09 PM To: 'Kprocil@vbgov.com' Subject: FW: Highgate Greens Resident Concern Hello, My name is Patrick Shuler and my wife and I live at 2305 McNelly-Lane, Va. Beach, VA 23456. As a resident of virginia Beach living in the Highgate Greens development, I have some concerns about the proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood replacing the E.V. Williams property. I am in favor of a development replacing the exhausted pit, but am concerned about the connectivity that is proposed to our neighborhood, specifically to our street. I would like the following changes considered to the plan: 1) The connection to Highgate Greens at McNelly be a narrow meandering bike ~ath rather then a road, emergency access, or a wide straight bike path. 2) The buffer between the two neighborhoods at McNelly be SO feet of wooded area as to deny visibility between the two neighborhoods. 3) Possibly place the emergency access onto Seaboard Road. I respectfully request that this correspondence be shared with the Planning Committee and City Council in making their decisions. Very truly yours, Patrick L. Shuler Patrick L. Shuler Strickland & Shuler, P.C. One Columbus Center Suite 520 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757)' 466-3072 voice (757) 466-2854 fax The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Datrick L. Shuler, Strickland & Shuler, P.C. at (757) 466-3072 or by return e-mail to ~shuler@stricklandandshuler.com and purge the communication immediately without making any copy or distribution. 1 Karen Prochilo From: Sent: To: Subject: Amy Hougasian [amyhougasian@yahoo.comJ Monday, November 21,2005 1 :11 PM Karen Prochilo Proposed Sherwood Lakes Development Dear Ms. Prochillo, My husband and I, along with our 3 children (aged 3,6,9) live at the very end of McNelly Lane in the Highgate Greens subdivision. Our property would run directly beside the proposed neighborhood. We have several concerns about the proposal. 1. We would be greatly opposed to any cut-through at the end of our street. We could handle a narrow bike path, but not an emergency access. We have 12 children under the age of 16 living on our street. We have enjoyed very little traffic and little concern for our children's safety as they run, play ball and learn to ride their bikes on McNelly. Plus, children from other streets corne and play on McNelly because of the safety. With a 20 foot wide cut~through, that would all change. We are not only concerned with traffic in our own neighborhood, but also with traffic from the proposed Sherwood Lakes, neighboring communities and any other traffic who desires to cut through McNelly to shorten their commute. Speeding is a problem already in our development. I can't imagine adding hundreds more cars as cut through traffic. . Safety is of the utmost concern. Having looked at the proposal, I see that there is a proposed easement for a bike path onto Seaboard Road. It would make much more sense to have the emergency access there. The rescue teams from the courthouse area would be able to simply turn onto Seaboard (where there is a light) and have direct access to the side of Sherwood Lakes, close to the proposed senior living complex. This would eliminate the Leed for emergency traffic winding through our neighborhood where children are always at play. 2. We are also concerned about crime. Our one way in, one way out design is, in and of itself, a major deterrent to crime. Plus, it takes a long, long time to turn out of our neighborhood. Yet another deterrent. Again, we are concerned for our safety. 3. Another factor to consider is parking. If any type of access is allowed at the end of our street, including a bike path, we feel that no parking signs should be erected. Again, we have small children playing on our street, and we don't want to become a major thoroughfare to Sherwood Lakes. We would hope that residents of our community would ride their bikes, but those intending to picnic may decide to park on our street and walk. Tying up our street with unnecessary vehicles would further risk our safety as emergency vehicles may not be able to get to us! 4. On McNelly, we enjoy our privacy. The proposal only allows a 20 foot buffer of woods between the neighborhoods. We would request that the buffer be extended to 40 or 50 feet. A big reason we bought this house 4 years ago was because of the relative privacy and that our children could play back here. 5. We understand that there are certain city restrictions concerning the total number of hOuses allowed on this property. Given the fact that our roadways can't bear the current load, we would ask that the developer reconsider the density of homes. Keep in mind that we are pretty pleased with the concessions the developer has already made. We are just asking for a few more, some of which he has no control over. We could accept the proposal with the following conditions. 1) no emergency access on our street (Seaboard would be better anyway) 2) Narrow the bike path and make it meandering lith heavy landscaping 3) erect no parking signs on our street 4) extend the buffer zone ~o 40 or 50 feet 5) further address the density issue. I thank you for your time and efforts. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 757 430-2020, or respond by email toamyhougasian@yahoo.com. 1 Best regards, Amy, Steve, Katie, Keith and Claudia Hougasian 2300 McNelly Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Highgate Greens Amy Hougasian 2 Karen Prochilo From: Sent: To: Cc: Chantal Sexton [csexton@hpmlaw,com] Monday, November 21 , 2005 12:20 PM Karen Prochilo william.m.sexton@navy.mil; pshuler@stricklandandshuler.com; amyhougasian@yahoo.com SHERWOOD FOREST OPPOSITION EMAIL Subject: Good Morning Ms. Prochillo: My husband, my 7 year old son, and I live at 2304 McNelly lane in Highgate Greens. We oppose the development going in right next door to us in what is currently a Pit. The Plan as currently proposed is inconsistent with the design and quality of existing nearby neighborhoods as well as other developments proposed in the transition area. In addition, we oppose the Plan because it does not comply with the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Transition Area Development Guidelines. We are only 2 lots away from the dead end where Mr. Reeves is adamant about putting a road through. We vehemently oppose this. 1. Notwithstanding the fact that the traffic is horrendous on the roads around our neighborhood, if a road were put through on our dead end street, we have 12 kids on McNelly Lane alone (not a long street), and we foresee this as a means for everyone from the other side (Sherwood lakes, Sandbridge, Pungo, Lago Mar, " . you name it) to cut through our neighborhood to try and get a jump on traffic that is already crazy on Princess Anne to and from the court house (it take 10 minutes to make a left turn onto Princess Anne, and the right turn is rapidly getting worse) Nimmo parkway's incomplete status does not help with traffic at all. (I hear it won't be complete until 2012 now.) We also fear people in the other direction (from the ~ourt house or down General Boothe) would also use our neighborhood as a cut through to get to the Food Lion, Pungo, the schools, Catholic Church, etc.... 2. We would also have a new worry, that of crime, We were told when we built the house that this neighborhood would be a one way in and one way out neighborhood to deter crime. This was a feature we really favored. What happened?? 3. Parking on our street in front of our houses to get to the park in Sherwood for those who are too lazy to walk or ride their bike is another potential problem. With our kids out playing, we worry about any unfortunate events that might Occur as a result of this. 4. We have a problem with cars going faster than the speed limit anyway in our neighborhood and finally we are educating people through our HOA that it is just not worth it to speed. If a cut through were to become approved, the speeding would be even worse. Again, we are concerned about our children outside playing, while someone in a hurry to get to work cuts through and hits a child. Can Mr. Reeve live with that, if that were to Occur? However, having said all of this, if there was some sort of compromise on the part of the devel~per complying with the guidelines, and certain changes were made to allow a subdivision over there, we would respectfully not agree to it unless the following were met to our satis faction: 1. NO vehicular cut through on McNelly lane, period. 2. Construct a meandering bike (4 foot wide not a 20 foot wide bike path) path at the end of our street so that there is no grand entrance to the other side and vice versa. ~. Instead of the proposed 20 foot buffer, make at least a 50 foot buffer between the 2 neighborhoods with thick dense vegetation. 4. Put no parking signs up on the end of our street and impose a 50 dollar fine for those who violate the restriction, except for McNelly Lane residents and guests of those McNelly lane residents. 1 Page I of 1 Karen Prochilo From: Chris Keylor [chriskeylor@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:21 PM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: Sherwood Lakes Proposed development Ms. Prochilo, Thank you for taking time to meet with me yesterday and for answering the questions I had on the draft plan, as of 9 November, for the proposed "Sherwood Lakes" development. I would like to share some of my thoughts on this current draft: 1. I think the preserVation of the stand of trees along all of the property adjacent to Seaboard Road is important and should be included in any final plan. 2. I think the incorporation of a walking trail, with a connection out to Seaboard Road, is smart planning and beneficial to the adjacent community and should be included in any final plan. 3. I think the current plan which does not create a cut through to Seaboard Road from the back of the development is something that should be preserved in the final plan for several reasons: A. Creating an additional road would require removal of some of the tree stand which is such a nice feature of the current plan. B. That section of Seaboard Road has limited visibility because of the numerous curves. C. Additional traffic past the elementary and middle schools on Seaboard Road would increase safety concerns. D. Seaboard Road and its connection to Princess Anne Road which leads to the Municipal Center area is already massively congested during school and commute hours. Again, thank you for your time and for considering my comments as this project moves forward. vIr, Chris Keylor 2565 Seaboard Road Virginia Beach, VA 23456-3501 430-7770 home 314-2906 work Yahoo! FareCllase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 11/2912005 17 Winslow Court Annapolis, MD 21403 February 6, 2006 Mrs. Dorothy L. Wood 3809 Thaila Drive Virginia Beach, V A 23452 (sent via email todotw@cox.net) Dear Planning Commission Chair: On Wednesday, February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the application for zoning reclassification submitted by LBH, LLC. The application includes the development of approximately 200 singl~-family homes and 50 age-restricted units. The application also includes conversion of the two borrow pits to lakes for recreational purposes, including rental of boating equipment. I am a property owner on Princess Anne Road and I need to share with you my strong opposition to this application. The development of this quantity of homes along this stretch of Princess Anne Road will inundate the area with traffic volume the roads are not equipped to handle. Additionally, the increase in school-aged population will have a negative impact on the crowding of schools in that area of Virginia Beach. I am also opposed to the recreational use of the lakes that will be created from the borrow pits. The borrow pits are dangerously deep and their use as a boating facility will introduce a liability that I believe the city should avoid. The application for zoning change may have met all the requirements of a development in the transition area according to the Planning Commission. But, I implore you to consider the reasonableness of the request to develop this many more homes in the transition area. The Heritage Park and Ashville Park developments are already creating an overdeveloped situation. Please do not exacerbate the situation by adding another 250 homes. - Thank you for your kind attention and consideration of my views. Sincerely, Nancy E. Williamson cc: Karen Prochilo, Staff Planner M/tY 8' ;'0 oI::- I 10 1'112I'1t!>et<5 of tHE- (L1)IJ/JINC, Co,.,,,, ISS loAl $u15Sftr 5J+~R. W~C>P L.'t~'E.s R~~o,.;/ AJt:, rROpoSPil.. - . fp-o/ll) 13 ~fl N ItRD :r. BYRNE ~ "... 7 ~ 8 f:.s p L't N ". () IE: C--r V,Il..(;OJ/" BE"..cH V It ~ 3 '-J S" b J.f 30 - 0 S- 7 / RECEIVED MAY 09 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'rriE ItPPL..JC"Nr IS PROPDSINf:r A coIl1B/4JED B vS IN E$S / RES J P E IV /'1 A L fTt:J vS I A) Go- P E1I 1=7...4,. ~EA.J"" IAJ rJtls p,,()pel2.r'Y~ Zr IWC-L.VPE:..I ~S-, tr"us/#tS uNlr..s.,l M ()~ "Tfr~1V 7'W/~E -rHE ,vVM8ER, "'ueHAJI?D BY 71f/E PR.I AJ CESs 1t4),JE I /;J.".AJ$ J T}/,)A) ,lJ-RGJIT G tJ I Di#L.JAJE-S ~ IH€ DCVEL" pt:r< IS 77l Y I~(;, TZJ C-t:JUNr r/fE / ,., ~ c... UR.(l.eJV'r B t>1l~ ~ w P I"-..s F~TtJ~E '-/1-1< E.S /ts OEvELDP/HlL.€, ~c.R.E ".GE. Ifs Pt:>/AJT~ e>UP- BY 71/'E 5r~F /(EP.I2V; 7HIS IN rell PR ~//orYIII,J 1$ /AlCt>AJ$IS IE~'- vtJ IFI-I rilE z:!:" ~JAJ & OR.OI"',*/'JC,E "AlO 1.$ VN~cEP""/reL~ W/E 5Itul/L.D I JJ S/$ r rl1/t'l' r1f1s n-,PLI CJlJAlT ct:)AJF(J~~ TO 71ft:' G.UI DE"l./AJES ::rVST '-lAc /fu- t::> 71fel2. 1>EVI::~t> PEltS, FOR rH'15 R€It5()AI/ THIs /lEe"N/AJ6 ,,eOPtJS'Jt- Sr/t:11/.1,J) 8€ DENIEJ:> SIN c eI2EL'>',; $~~d fr- .$ourd 54 &smo 2821 Sea6oart{ lJl.patf 'VirlJinitL <Beacli, 'V.ft. 23456 a>IUme 757-689-2600 p~ 757-689-2901 May 8, 2006 MAY 0 8 2006 Planning Commission and City Council, The Sherwood Lakes proposed plan is opposed to for it does not fit in the Princess Anne Guidelines for the density is much higher than what has been determined would be a good balance in keeping the area~s rural charachterwithout overburdening our school systems or roads. One of the most frequently asked questions was how density would be calculated, and the consistent answer was that Section 200 of the City Zoning Ordinance would govern. Under Section 200 (b)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance states that any tnanmade drainage areas such as borrow pits and the easements over them constructed primarily for pwpose other than storage and retention of storm water shall not be included in determining allowable dwelling unit density. The guidelines state that it shall be one unit per developable acre maximwn. Sherwood Lakes is proposing 2.1 units per acre, which is double the maximum density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition area!!! Let's work together as a community so we may continue to shape this area and provide a clear vision that will respect its past while we plan for its future in providing and preserving the quality this wonderful area deserves. The highly successful collaborative public process that helped create the Princess AnnelTransition Guidelines should not be forgotten. Laura Sisino PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes for it does NOT meet the Princess AnoelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre. The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural character. Name Address -:r L. 6,,'{!{:+h <t.M. :J8& tA1li1s~A-J .. ~ PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess AnnelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre. The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural character. Name ~vr- At, E.11IfJtl~6C: ~H~' ~. i \\r ?, ~~b'7, . PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES Located on Princess Ann and backing-up to Seaboard Road Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess Anlteffransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre. The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area'~ rural character. Name Signature /l7Ci r-v 'I " -z..2.J,f- 'j,J .,r~ ~t. ~ ~ \I /4. If...'t Y.:J't. Z21 2- V .. ~ \" \ ~\~'l PETITION . ~ . AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LA~ Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road .., Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess AnnelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per develop~ble acre. The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin ,the area'.. rural character. Address 7 i S W':J ,'"vJw..,.I;" C';- V ~ 1 / ',. \;~ f A^ U- ~Q '~~ /4 ~ iT:il/JA{ .. {~~ ~;~ Ulr(i1l1 fu~ ~ ~ VJj fltJl A4h ,~.~ ~@ ?ldi'~ 4/3 ~ I.J? 6/IJ{)S ~ PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess Aonerrransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre. Tile current plan will contin,,~ to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural character. De1or~ S_ ~4Ml It/\ . ~. fl ~~ I; {5SA blAt IdV/GE:r; -rc; .. 'X. ~A... 0 O..N~'t\ h,,- I . ,-I \ ()~\iKI"i S(?.'~-\-L." ~ '<,:;:,~;.~ "..J'~tJ\j\ PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess AnnelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre. The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural character. I Name ~~ JklLr .!/~/)~ c:.:,. /.k~-t. Je.~t.e.' Pla.t1.~a.n Signature Address .# ~ · lifJ5 ~ P...J ~.~ ;)'~7/~ ~~ , ~ /8'rsO No ~ iJ.a~-I&... PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD'LAKES Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes for it does NOT meet the Princess Anne/Transition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre. The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural character. Name Signature Address ...,,' <''''-f PL ^ . rAf.\<:: /YJ "'...., .- ..) v F-j1VT'jIf) u (M\., .Pxt CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6313, DF-6421, DF-6422 DATE: June 2,2006 TO: FROM: Leslie l. Lilley ~ B. Kay WiISO~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; L.B.H., LLC: Conditional Rezoning L.B.H., LLC: Retail L.B.H., LLC: Restaurant The above-referenced conditional zoning applications are scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreements, dated July 31,2005 and November 17, 2005 and have determined them to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. Copies of the agreements are attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW las Enclosure' cc: Kathleen Hassen PREPARED BY: ~ sms. ROURDON. .. Am:RN & 1M. P.c. L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company E.V. WILLIAMS, INC. f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation LORD DeLONG, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31 st day of July, 2005, by and between L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the fIrst part; E.V. WILLIAMS, INC. f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the second part; LORD DeLONG, L.L.C., _a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the third part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the fourth part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of two (2) parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 136.5 acres designated as Parcels One and Two in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Parcels One and Two along with the other parcels described herein and in Exhibit "A" are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and GPIN: 2414-01-4092 2404-80-9627 (Part of) 2403-69-8016 2403-88-6753 2403-89-0088 2403-79-8068 2403-79-3035 1 PREPARED BY: WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of five (5) parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 102.6 acres and designated as Parcels Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. These five (5) parcels along with the other parcels described herein and in Exhibit "A" are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 to PDH-2 with underlying R-1 0 District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes inc~mpatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the PDH- 2 (R-10) Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following rea.sonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or Quid pro Que for zoning, m SITts. ROUROON. WAHrnN & 1m. P.C 2 PREPARED BY: ~ sms. ROURDON. DI AIlERN & llVY. P.c. depicted on the "Elevations" entitled: (a) "EXECUTIVE HOMES at Sherwood Lakes" dated 7-31-05; (b) "MANOR HOMES at Sherwood Lakes" dated 7-31-05; (c) "CO'ITAGE HOMES at Sherwood Lakes" dated 7-31-05; and (d) "AGE RESTRICTED HOMES at Sherwood Lakes" dated 7-31-05, which have been exhibited to the City Council and is on f1le in the Department of Planning. 5. The total combination of single family and age restricted multi-family units to be developed on those portions of the Property zoned PDH-2 may not exceed a maximum. of 240 units. 6. The party of the first part agrees that during the detailed site plan review it shall conduct a Traffic Impact Study of the impacts of Sherwood Lakes. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Sherwood Lakes that are called for in the Traffic Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of the first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Sherwood Lakes. 7. Prior to the Grantee issuing the first building permit for any residential unit, the party of the first part shall contribute the sum. of $400,000.00 to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee for right of way improvements to that section of Princess Anne Road lying south of its intersection with Sandbridge Road and north of its intersection with Flanagans Lane. In accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, if the Grantee has no projects for any right-of-way improvements to the designated section of Princess Anne Road in Grantee's Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) at the time the first building permit is requested, payment of the $400,000.00 contribution shall be deferred until the Grantee includes such a project in its C.I.P. If the funds proffered and paid by the party of the first part in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. 8. When the Property is developed, the z4.3 acre parcel near the northeast corner of the property designated "CITY PARK DEDICATION" on the Concept Plan shall be given and dedicated to the Grantee. 9. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall 4 PREPARED BY: continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially. revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public-hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested With all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. 1) 0: c.: ec : Sms. ROURDON. AIIfRN &; liVY. P.c. 5 PREPARED BY: III SYIa:S. ROURDON. .. AlIfRN & lM. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: E.V. WILLIAMS, INC., a Virginia corporation '-.~ /'.------::, -- . -.~ ~"- -_. . .X, ___~-c.-:;;----' J .~ /' Thomas L. Partridge, PEfsident ~ (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINiA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this /1- ..fit.- day of August, 2005, by Thomas L, Partridge, President of E.V. Williams, Inc., a Virginia corporation. J 9L::E~~ { My Commission Expires: 7/:3 tj~ 7 7 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL ONE: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in the Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being shown and designated as PARCEL "A" 1,481,191.00 Sq. Ft. or 34.00 AC., on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DAVID B. HILL, JR. (D.B. 2522, PF. 1294) Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", dated December 18, 1990, prepared by Miller-Stephenson & Associates, P.C., which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 212, at Page 5. GPIN: 2414-01-4092 PARCEL TWO: ALL THAT certain tract or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon and all sand, minerals, mining rights, licenses, permits, and all other appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as "A - 102.96 Ac." as shown on the plat entitled "Survey of Property of Evelyn L. McKnight and Land Farm Co., Inc., Map Book 102, Page 23 (erroneously referred to as Map Book 91 at Page 52 in prior deed), Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by W.B. Gallup, Surveyors, dated April 21, 1969, revised November 23, 1973, duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia simultaneously with a Deed dated February 22, 1974 from Evelyn L. McKnight and William R. McKnight to Capricorn Associates, which Deed is recorded in Deed Book 1403, at Page 687, in the Clerk's office, said parcel being of the dimensions as shown on said plat tow which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property. Less and Except that ten (10) foot strip which was conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach for road widening as recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2028, at Page 723. GPIN: 2404-80-9627 (Part of) PARCEL THREE: PREPARED BY: ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land, situated on the east side of Seaboard Road, Princess Anne Borough, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being designated as PARCEL C, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Property of Lee Edward Johnson Estate, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by AID Syn:s. ROURDON. mAIImN & UVY. P.c. 9 PREPARED BY: mm SYKIS.1l0URDON. DI AHrnN & llVY. P.C Harold R. Warren, Jr., Certified Land Surveyor, Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated April 15, 1968, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 78, at Page 49, reference to which plat is hereby made for a more particular description of said property. GPIN: 2403-69-8016 PARCEL FOUR: ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 43.770 acres shown and designated as "PARCEL 'B-1"', on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCEL B SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO., INC. (M.B. 102, P. 23)", made by -Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated 2, September 1988, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2816, at Page 1072. GPIN NO: 2403-88-6753 PARCEL FIVE: ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 7.162 acres shown and designated as "PARCEL 'B-4"', on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCEL B-1 AND THE REMAINS OF PARCEL B PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO., INC. (D.E. 2816, P. 1072 Plat)", made by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated August 25, 1998, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 272, at Pages 95-96. GPIN: 2403-89-0088 PARCEL SIX: ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 5.219 acres shown and designated as "PARCEL 'B-5"', on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCEL B-1 AND THE REMAINS OF PARCEL B PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO., INC. (D.E. 2816, P. 1072 Plat)", made by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated August 25, 1998, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 272, at Pages 95-96. GPIN: 2403-79-8068 10 PREPARED BY: 11m SYKIS. ROURDON. mADam & u:vv. P.C PARCEL SEVEN: ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 46.625 acres shown and designated as "REMAINS OF PARCEL B - 'NOT A BUILDING SITE"' on that certain plat entitled "RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCELS B-2, B-3 AND THE REMAINS OF PARCEL B PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO., INC.", made by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated June 10, 1999, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 278, at Pages 15-17. GPIN: 2403-79-3035 CONDITIONALREZONE/LBH/SHERWOODLAKES/PROFFER 11 PREPARED BY: .:g sms, ROURDON, fill AIIrnN & lM. P.c. L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company E.V. WILLIAMS, INC. fjkja BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 17th day of November, 2005, by and between L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the frrst part, Grantor; E.V. WILLIAMS, INC fjkja BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation, party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a murucipal corporation of the Commonwealth of VirginIa, party of the third part, . Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 2.81 acres which is more particularly described in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional B-1A Limited Community Business District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN: Part of 2404-80-9627 1 WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and 1:!1e need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or Quid pro QUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that ,this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, aSSIgns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES", dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the PREPARED BY: Virginia Beach City Council and is on fIle with the Virginia Beach Department of IISms.DOURDON. Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). · AHmN & UVY. P.c. 2 2. When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted on the Site Plan shall have "low country", rurally compatible architectural features, high quality building materials and earth tone colors. Detailed building elevations and a materials board shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the review of any site plan for this Property. 3. The only use which shall be permitted on the Property shall be Eating and Drinking Establishments without drive-through windows. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. All references hereinabove to B-1A District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by PREPARED BY: the goveming body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which IlWBSYICI;:S. ROURDON. was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of mAllmN &lM. P.c. Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along 3 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: By: Arnhold Marketing Services, Inc., a Virginia corporatiOlZ::~Member v (SEAL) . Arnhold, President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: fiC The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of November, 2005, by James M. Arnhold, President of Arnhold Marketing Services, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Managing Member of L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. ~1Me~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: AllgJl~t 31,2006 _ (P-c?6 _ 6 h PREPARED BY: _ SYm. ROURDON. a1Al1mN & U:VV. P.C 5 bee €v-n ber PREPARED BY: IISYilS. BOURDON. AIIIRN & IIVY. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: James A. Openshaw Vice President ~ ., I :c (SEAL) tl : STATE OFVIRGI~ CITY OF ~;~ '. c~to-wit: . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this OJ..O ~ day of N~~:e:ere@.r, 2005, by TOOm6l.$ k;-p..;w.t1iag@, PFesid€Bt of E.V. Williams, Inc., a Virginia corporation. JOf'l'e 5 A. O~sho.uJ IJICe.- ~e$.i~"" O.91€t- Notary PUb My Commission Expires: 7- 3 I - 07 6 L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company E.V. WILLIAMS, INC. f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 17th day of November, 2005, by and between L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, Grantor; E.V. WILLIAMS, INC f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation, party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY -OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a mumcipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the third part, Grantee. WITNESSETH: - WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 2.354 acres which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from AG-l Agricultural District to Conditional B-IA Limited Community Business District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and PREPARED BY: GPIN: Part of 2404-80-9627 _ SYns. ROURDON, DOl ADrnN &: IfVY. P.c. 1 WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and- prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, -as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and t:he need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro qUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the. physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, aSSIgns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES", dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the PREPARED BY: Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of IISYU:S. !JOURDaN. Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). . AIlrnN & lIVY. P.C 2 2. When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted on the Site Plan shall have the architectural features and colors substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "RETAIL BUILDING WITH 10' WRAP AROUND PORCH", prepared by Land Planning Solutions, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Elevation"). 3. The only uses which shall be permitted on the Property shall be: a. Retail Establishments; b. Specialty shops; c. Personal service establishments to inClude spas; d. Art galleries; e. Florists, gift shops, stationary stores. PREPARED BY: 4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan _review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. All references hereinabove to B-1A District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in _ SYIa:S. ROURDON. .. AIlmN & lIVY, P.c. 3 writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the goveming 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 goveming body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proce_eding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: 1mB S\'I([S. ROURDON. .. AlImN & UVY. P.c. 4 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: Arnhold Marketing Services, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Managing Member By: AL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: -cc:=' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of November, 2005, by James M. Arnhold, President of Arnhold Marketing Services, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Managing Member of L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. ~~~~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: -AUgllBt Jl, 2086 (:yJ6- 6 6 PREPARED BY: mSms. ROURDON. MAHfRN & lM. P.c. 5 ~'<::8~'\ \c.yer PREPARED BY: !lIB sms. BOURDON. .. AlIrnN & llVY. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: E.V. WILLIAMS, INC., a Virginia corporation t James A. Openshaw Vice President (SEAL) ~~~~~,~~~~'~4. to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b~fore me this 2.0+4.. day of N:'oVeuiber, 2005, by Th{)m:a~ 1., PSI. tridg:e, PF€13ideat of E.V. Williams, Inc., a Virginia corporation. ::r~lfne.s A . q,e,,'\~~0 lhee ~<-€S ,dud ~ 0 . Q . . Notary Public r:J My Commission Expires: 7-3 1- 07 6 PREPARED BY: E SYKIs. ROURDON. m AIIrnN & LM. P.c. EXHIBIT" A" Commencing at a point on the western right of way line of Princess Anne Road (variable width right of way) at the dividing line of property now or formerly Willard A. White and Parcel B-1; thence along said right of way line in a northeasterly direction, a distance of 3,275 feet more or less to the point of beginning; thence leaving Princess Anne Road North 570 24' 22" West, a distance of 265.47 feet to a point; thence North 320 33' 57" East a distance of 387.68 feet to a point; thence South 570 12' 31" East, a distance of 264.15 feet to a point on the northwestern line of Princess Anne Road; thence along said road South 320 22' 11" West, a distance of 386.77 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 102,541 square feet or 2.354 acres. GPIN: Part of 2404-80-9627 ConditionalRezone/LBH/SherwoodLakes/Proffer3.3 7 Map E-3 Moo Not to Scole {~::~ffi CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing that certain street known as North Oliver Drive shown on that certain plat entitled "EXHIBIT' A' SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF N. OLIVER DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY (MB 21, PG 5) JUNE 10, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford, DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE . Considerations: The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the adjacent existing R-10 (SO) residential properties and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional B-4 (SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre. The applicant has assembled all of the properties adjoining North Oliver Drive, north of Shore Drive, and proposes to consolidate them into one site to be developed as a multi-family residential project. The Viewers determined that no inconvenience to the public would result by closing this right-of-way, subject to the closure being part of the rezoning and conditional use permit noted above. There was opposition to the request, as the closure is part of the rezoning and use permit applications, and there was opposition to those requests. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve the request, with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee, The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Ocean Properties, L.L.C. - Street Closure Page 2 of 2 Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall re-subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall provide an easement to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works for the continued maintenance of Lake Bradford. The actual size and location of the easement shall be determined by the Department of Public Works. 4. The applicant shall verify that no public utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach Departments of Public Works or Public Utilities shall be provided prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~ IL , ~bV'1. Staff Planner: Faith Christie OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. Agenda Items 15,16, & 17 May 10, 2006 Public Hearing REQUEST: 15) Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SO) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SO) Mixed Use District. 16) Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family dwellings 17) Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, and 4832 Shore Drive, and 2209, 2213, 2217,2216, and 2208 North Oliver Drive GPIN: 14793746930000; 14793776110000; 14793756800000; 14793775880000; 14793757530000; 14793758630000; 14793769120000; 14793778500000; 14793777500000. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 - BA YSIDE SITE SIZE: 3.58 acres APPLICATION HISTORY: On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission deferred these requests so the applicant could meet with the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and to allow residents of the area adequate time to consider the proposal. Concerns regarding the proposed density, school population, traffic and pedestrian safety were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. ." OCEAN PR!>P~RTIES!~LC Agenda Itetris15,t6,:~;t7 'g~g....eJ ,.,.'. ,"H'W'. On January 19, 2006, the applicant appeared before the Shore Drive Advisory Committee (SDAC). The applicant presented plans with a reduced density of 80 units and a reduced height. The SDAC was pleased with the changes, but offered the following suggestion for additional modifications: 1. The applicant should consider further reducing the density. 2. The applicant should evaluate the left turning traffic from the site for safety issues. On February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation for deferral of these requests until such time that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force completed its work and provided its recommendations regarding safety-oriented pedestrian and vehicular improvements to the corridor. On April 20, 2006, the Shore Drive Safety Task Force presented its findings to the Shore Drive Advisory Committee. The Task Force divided the recommendations into "regulatory" recommendations and "infrastructure" recommendations. A further break down of those recommendations included "short term", "mid term", and "long term" goals. The Task Force presented 31 recommendations to the SDAC. Some of the recommendations include installation of "yield to pedestrian" signs, repairing damaged sidewalks, installation- of sidewalks where none exist, evaluation of crosswalks at intersections, evaluation of lower speed limits along Shore Drive, and shoulder improvements. The applicant's plan is unaffected by the recommendations, as the primary recommendation of the Task Force applicable to the site is that a sidewalk be installed. The applicant's plan depicts the installation of a sidewalk along the frontage of the site. Installation of a crosswalk in front of this site was discussed at the January 11 hearing; however, the recommendations of the Task Force support improvement of the intersection at Pleasure House Road in order to provide a more safe and controlled location for crossing as opposed to a mid-block location. In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the Task Force, CJ The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre; CJ As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building has been reduced; CJ Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can turn right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S. Oliver Drive. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the existing R-10 (SO) residential properties and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional 8-4 (SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre. ,.'-,-,""-'-- .:>"~-",..:.:, .' '-"~:-. ' '. .,', ," -....,. .. "".':" OCEAN PRelPERTIESiLC' Agenda 'teiri~t5,t6,i~;.17 . >p~ne2 .,,_.:.... "-':":"-"":-";':~-':'-{';'~:' ',.- ....',.. .' .....-.. The applicant assembled all of the properties fronting North Oliver Drive, north of Shore Drive, and proposes to consolidate them into one site to be developed as a multi-family project. The submitted conceptual site and landscape plan depicts a 3 to 4 story building with 77 multi-family units centered on the site. Parking is located on the sides of the structure. The proposed building is three stories in height along Shore Drive and on the westem side of the site. The building graduates to four-stories in height along the eastern and northern portions of the site. Parking is also located under the four-story sections of the building. Open space varying in width from 55-feet to 115-feet is provided in the rear of the site adjacent to Lake Bradford. The proposed storm water management facility is also located in this area. Fifteen-foot landscape buffers are shown along the site frontage and along the western property line. The submitted elevations depict a modified cottage style of building. Varying rooflines, porches and faux gazebos provide architectural relief to the building. Upon entrance to the site from Shore Drive the proposed building features an open area with covered colonnades above. The interior courtyard features recreational amenities such as a pool and landscaped areas for the residents. The applicant indicates the square footage of the units will range from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Nine single-family dwellings and North Oliver Drive currently occupy the proposed site. The current R-10 Residential zoning allows for nine single-family dwellings. East: West: . Lake Bradford . Shore Drive . Across Shore Drive is a shopping center / B-2 (SO) Community Business . WaWa / B-2 (SO) Community Business . Waters Point Townhomes / A-12 (SO) Apartment SURROUNDING LAND USE AND "ZONING: North: South: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: To the rear of the site exists Lake Bradford. The site is located within the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance area. There are no cultural.features associated with the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore Drive is a four lane divided minor suburban arterial in front of this site. The site is within the project limits "../ ,:,"-~'><: "."""', .> ,'-' "'-'.,' "-d-',";"""'" OCEAN PR~~F1RTIES)~LC/. Agenda IteOls15,16,?~<17 '~~g~:4 .-, ..'-~v.: of the Shore Drive Phase II demonstration project. This project, which is currently in the scope definition phase, will include intersection, pedestrian, and aesthetic improvements. A right-of-way reservation along the frontage of Shore Drive may be required during detailed site plan review. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Shore Drive 22,516 ADT 1 28,200 ADT 1 Existing Land Use Z - 90 ADT Proposed Land Use 3 _ 505 ADT Average Dally Tnps 2 as defined by 9 single-family homes 3 as defined by 77 multi-family homes WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an existing eight-inch water main and a 16-inch transmission water main in Shore Drive, and a six-inch water main in North Oliver Drive. The existing sites will have several existing 5/8-inch water meters, one of which may be used or Ilpgraded for the project. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer gravity main and a 24-inch HRSD force main existing in Shore Drive. Analysis of Pump Station #307 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: Schoo~ Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment Hermitage 552 672 6.2 4 Elementary Great Neck Middle 1124 1032 2.7 1 Cox High 2116 1854 3.9 2 T" ' " generation represents the number of students that the development WIll add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Seven portable classrooms currently exist on both Great Neck Middle and Cox High sites. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being within the Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site 1). Land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non- residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. -, -' ;,,,-,- . .,: .(.< ." '<""~' .' , .'. .~~ ;; OCEAN PR~~ERTIE~';~LC Agenda IteIpS15,16,;~{17 ).......fl~~~...f! EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requests for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family dwellings, and Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford. The proffers and conditions are listed below. In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the Task Force, [J The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre; [J As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building has been reduced; [J Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can turn right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S. Oliver Drive. The proposed density is within the guidelines for this size parcel in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. Additionally, based on the reduction of units, the School Board now calculates that the school population will be increased by only 4 elementary students, 1 middle school student, and 2 high school students. Based on the type of units proposed for this development, those numbers could be less, as these units-are more commonly purchased by young, single professionals and empty-nesters. In regard to traffic volume, the new figure for daily trips corresponding to the reduction in units is 505. According to the City's Traffic Engineering office, this portion of Shore Drive has a capacity for 28,200 vehicle trips per day. Presently the volume is 22,516 trips per day. Thus, the addition of 505 trips is still well below the current capacity of the roadway. The character of the Shore Drive corridor is defined by the unique positive relationship between its residential and commercial components. This delicate balance is assisted by a set of design criteria, the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines, intended to make all these diverse structures physically compatible with one another and with their setting The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended to encourage sensitive and responsible development, balancing that need with respect for property rights of owners of undeveloped and underdeveloped land. Before the adoption of the Shore Drive Corridor , Overlay District the history of development in the corridor had been characterized by too high density on too small parcels of land. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended, in part, to restore the proper balance. The requirement for a conditional use permit for multi-family dwellings within the Shore Drive Corridor recognizes that certain uses which, by their nature, can have an undue impact upon or be incompatible with other uses of land within the immediate area. However, the proposed use may be allowed under the controls, limitations and regulations of a conditional use permit, as long as the proposed use is fundamentally compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff is charged with evaluating the impact and compatibility of the proposed use, and recommending conditions and restrictions that will assure the use as being compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located, both in terms of existing land uses and conditions, and in terms of development proposed or permitted by right in the area. .<" .. ,',' '.-.: ,'.. -,.:.."",., ~ .", ,:,-:--,::::." OCEAN PR~fERTIESlL.C Agenda Itemst5,t6,;~:17 . 'e~ge.5 The Shore Drive Corridor is a unique resort residential community, which provides a wide mix of housing styles and types. This particular request is rare in the Corridor in that the applicant has been able to accumulate nine parcels of land for consolidation and development in accordance with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District and Design Guidelines. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed residential use and density are compatible with the surrounding land use pattern, and is less than the permitted density for a parcel of this size within the Shore Drive Corridor district. The submitted conceptual site layout and landscape plan depicts a coordinated development of the site in terms of design, parking layout, landscaping, and traffic control and circulation within the site. The submitted building elevations depict proposed buildings of three and four stories in height to be constructed of high quality building materials in a design complementary to the Shore Drive Corridor. Staff believes the submitted proffer agreement and conditions listed below will produce a quality project that is both compatible with the area and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Shore Drive Corridor. Thus, Staff recommends approval of the requests as proffered and conditioned below. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (~107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIMUS SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA." Dated 8/31/05, prepared by MSA, PC. which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. PROFFER 2: When the property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Shore Drive. . PROFF.ER 3: The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick. PROFFER 4: > '~"'.:~~;".,,~~ <> ";' '-w>' '_....,._ . OCEAN PRE)PERTIES< Agenda It~$t5,l6, :::>,' There will be no more than seventy-seven (77) residential units within the building depicted on the Concept Plan, PROFFER 5: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are acceptable. The proffer agreement insures the site is limited to 86- 77 units and developed in accordance with the submitted site layout and landscape plan, and the submitted building elevations. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated 9/14/05, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. CONDITIONS for the STREET CLOSURE 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2, The applicant shall re-subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels, The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall provide an easement to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works for the continued maintenance of Lake Bradford. The actual size and location of the easement shall be determined by the Department of Public Works. 4. The applicant shall verify that no public utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach Departments of Public Works or Public Utilities shall be provided prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 6. .Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions . within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. .' - . ,","" .-".':'" OCEAN PRE>PERTIES;~l.c5 Agenda Iteail'S.15,t6'~~it7 ......./e~ge 7 ": '. ,.,. ;:"-,;' . .'"'>'-:,:" """~:'-:"':':,:::- ....:., CONDITIONS for the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. The applicant shall install a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Shore Drive and tie it into the existing sidewalk located to the east of the site. The applicant shall also provide landscaping in accordance with the Shore Drive Phase /I Demonstration project within the right-of-way along the entire frontage of Shore Drive. 2. The applicant shall provide a sidewalk from the building to the required five-foot sidewalk at Shore Drive. The proposed sidewalk shall be constructed of either pavers or stamped concrete. 3. Fifty percent (50%) of the building exterior shall be constructed with hardi-plank siding. Synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick shall be used as accents and for architectural relief. All decks, handrails and columns shall be wrapped with vinyl. Doors and windows shall be vinyl clad wood, vinyl or aluminum. Roofing materials shall be standing seam metal, shake shingles, or architectural grade shingles. Bui/ding and roof colors shall be neutral or earth tones. 4. The proposed berm along Shore Drive shall be 3 to 4 feet in height and shall meander and undulate along the frontage. Plants listed in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan Appendices, Landscaping Guidelines, shall be used on the site. 5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City staff. All lighting on the site should be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society. 6. The applicant shall maintain a 30-foot buffer adjacent to Lake Bradford. The buffer area shall be left in its' natural state and shall not be disturbed. 7. The applicant shall eliminate the straight / left turn lane from the plans and shall close the median break on Shore Drive opposite the existing location of N. Oliver Drive. The applicant shall consult with Public Works Capita/Improvement Program division and Traffic Engineering division regarding the method and materials to be used in closing the median. 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 aI/applicable City Codes. . The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. . . ,.;;;"";-,- ;,~, OCEAN PRE)PERTIES Agenda Ite.....~lS,16,.. . e"" R~E~E~~LC OCEAN P(S15,16';~i11 Agenda 'teT,< .~~~~.~ f;/) E :J - C - E o 0"0 c: C l 0 KU .~. - "g -e,' ~ "0 lIJ- ~. ~ 0."0 :>. as. ~ L. ~ ! CO' if ii jIJ\ ! : = ..., ".l: III t~ ~! Oc:taS!l U...J~> "'6..... <11I0 CO-OIl 11I10- . ,,;," "- ~OCdl,,- B..:B B lllj;'U'" III "~Ca~ ~ DO::!IIlOl co .. ra -000110 ". ~ :5-1ttID,... C .. .. :J E ~o ~ I",ii:~~l~. .:Ii..i..l J ~ f= . - fli]IIl]<< '" ;s 8. . to. i!Q. :"11 ::I S '! J~ ~!:! ,,~j:;Jo.~ II) W1 0. ll. ll. _...._... po. ... ....~ -'3.~ -~ .ri .n ~ U .~ ~i'~ ~ffi~f <lI' · VJ. J~ ~ll~ R..-.....I..........'..'... =l~ ,.... '"-+~ "~"! i . ' ,~~.~ ~. I rln !'jJ J ~ J'rf ~Il Itf!1 ~fi D.g ~. ~! 1 in$.. . "<81 Jlfl' ; ..' ~~.f.~ 11,11, ,. OR-r: It ~ ", . i< &. i '.llui ,Inl ,.- PROPOSED SIIt;:'~LAN;-:<,: "<'.'''''~ ,",- '-, '- -..... OCEAN PR~PERTfES._~LC- Agenda Itel:ri$;15,16,s~,t7' . ;P 10 . . ,- ""'. .~,. ::'~ , .->.., ..., ,-. "., PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV ATI'GNL.t< './ ' OCEAN PRE)'PERTIES,lLC Agenda Ite~s<15,16,~1.11 P~:E!',1.1 "".;' ~r~'?~;.f:' .....,",..-.., PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVAtION."5i::,~;.:.':.\ .,". . .-.'".,.-,..' '-. OCEAN PR(J)PERTIES1LC Agenda Ite~$15,16,.~,17. ,.",~?1~ Map B-3 Moo Not to Scole CUP - Multiple-family dwellings Approved Conditional Use Permit (gasoline Sales in conjunction with convenience and car -out food store Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales Rezoning (R-5R Resort Residential to Conditional A-24 A artment 1. 3/14/00 2. 2/25/03 3. 5/9/88 4. 11/9/04 .(<_:'.<::./; ,"'~", ZONINGfHI$tQI'l:f' NOIIV3nddV ffiIilS01313:ffiI1S l- :z UJ :E t::: ;5 rn UJ .0:: :::) m 9 o m a ;t'; w ~" ~;' _<Ii 08 ~ ~'iE ~~ : 'fRoa _~ Ii.s c:cc: :=~ .~; co > 11. 0. e-- 8 ~i~~ ::Iac::i 9~~J o~~,~ w_~= 6~ .~ ~:_j:lJ ~i~i~ 0 ~'~i.e~ Ii c...!'l;J t \,II <0 (1)= ~ ~ 1! eo.. i <oil '8 :si!= E :: ... is! < ~ < ~:; l:l':':' < <oil 8 'i I g g ~~1!m 'E .~ c:$=>- Xuw .:JI:. "0= cD 'iil~j' ~Cl._~ :i"~'g \........~~ .... !: = en =Vi\:C ~ I- Z w :E w ~ ?- m w cr ::::> (f) o ..J U co i5 I I f E :: r! -= 1: => E j ~ o (; IE !" ~ 1! ~ ~f! j ;:)0 co E ~.& '0 ~ de- t'lB go ~": ~! ~ !if i~ ~ c Ci >.. t: ~ ~.eo,"'::: r: ~ ~,=i~ I! Cl. .:~,g'S :2 <:8~.e~ i; l!!~~::i 0 f~!] j .. "'~l ~~~~ ~.:..- ii,g.! ~ i.!'Ji.e lL..~ -Q =o~ :g Ii oo~ c-o "'c:() ..c:B_ ~:l;<:: -$l Q.~ .x:g ,E l>>c:~ !:58 ~~~ *E....l s: "'''0 ~cc:. ~.i: cliO ~ u; c: 4> :!<'-l E .., . &:. . ","'51 :c;;~..; ..~~o .~ e. <? ~ti8~ l!!e.rm ~- .. lID .!!1!!.c:8 3!-i) .! (; ~ . :J ~.() ~ ~!~,.. ~'i5t~ ",r$. c: & 10 ::-,geoOi - l!!:::>! f~~ .!= _0 eo ;;, ... c: .. ~ i- ~ '>. "" C III '" '" OJ c: 'en '" .0 'g ~ ~~ .'" o ... .. -~& ~~ ~~ ~i !::: [~ 411.0,..; cC: ii~ ::&: "''' =.! !.; ~~ .5: Co ~:c ...'" c: "i:8 -co "'- ':-4: ....- I I I I l I 1 i I I i I ! I i I I I i , , i I , i I '" c'~ ~~~ (\t Q) ~ t) ~ ~- =.. ~'2.8,2 gt.. ....~~ iu:lO~~QC;!T~O:= ~~r56! e~~, ~8 :::i:~e.,!.di~o.B Ii gu :Cec!iiis:<lll!1<;~ "'<OS,!= lS=.e'"c j~ca-I\O:C:4Qiiic: !i~€~~.~ ~! :f~ ~ ; ~ ~C5~~ i~ ~~~ ~iit;J~~~:! i~=isi13~o!"" E~~iiii",~.a....!'g '",0';;;=.. c: 1< 9/-::. iiz ~!~'i'j~i ~s ~=';;; ~~'E ~'!(I) ]!'R-g~Z~~e..gm e~~o~.!!~8C5liCl)..: 1':0.,= e .!! '" 0 ..'5'.0 =:5c:l5C:~5 l't2'...... i~i g~ c> c as l!(!~ ....I:!.-l=~lo.c:<'i il!.ee.8S'<>> ~&Orm --,8.6c05 Q. :a;~ '" !!l ~.'~ 8 ~ E ~. jl>~ lID ~ c: '8 "'''ii'''lSCl",''''=oIU ! '~i. jQ ~:: 1<> ii~ '''''0 ",_c:..c:_", ... _ S2 $C:-i;.;;o~~ !~lf~!;!~~~J!l i g ~~~ 'g i !! ~ ~ f ~J<-",Suo.,..~.:;: !~ 5 'E ~;LE!~ !!~ (; vi .. <>> c: ';;; '" ... E .:: 0: ~ ~ .. ", 8 e ~ 8 .. 5e :;o:~ .l!!~ 1::6 ~~ ~j Ole ~e. 'e ~ Ol.- .::::C: ".'" " - ~~ Uc o !! 1: ;;; .~ .t:: E ~~ .; ~~ J w ~I ~ It: IHi'" ;:) g::> o~ S~~ ..~ d!!E-~.. I;Q .. "" CO". .. -lEci>iC:'" 0'8"'0"'" fr:-!Se==:e w..c,g~.. ~~.e", '= ~ ~ ll=l~ .>. .j!,2::::: ~,=g.!!o::i It: 4> "" Q._ w~!!!E~ii ~Q.&.8fi.2 1t:~8ec1: a.~"'~~2 ~':!-E~: ~ ~ ~~;s ~oC)~.e !i! ~J ell ~~!!!;t '" .. ~-- .;,z: Q.o - 4t) ~Clg:SS o,c -- o;~.,..: Ole> CJ:: .S 0 ,,3-:: F :i ~ -g.g .0 4>-....0. ~ 2tG2!ti. ~ :=..91 co.. ::l! 'cE~~-t5 ~e 'c~ct?! ~~ ~ltl~ ~~ ~-;;Ei.5 o&: ~,g~ ~& 8~ g;"'u c:....=~2 oO!:o.. ::-=1:tsS Ei~f~ 2~::F=o SCjQ.:- ~~l:S;~ i 8.1 a'E > ,.e::J::Jc;~ ,i.;ij ~ co '1:::=-6'0 go , 8~ "~~..J .. . -.l!li::>.!..j~ ~~~!j?j ~ _~..=~1:: ~ l;(=>,c0lQ. l1' u-: ~.5i - ~ ;:;:<ll""i€-a.. .. j:~lL>.~i ~ In 8 ~-gti lIt;.:.~ UtO~ce.Ot:Qf ~ 'c Cl .. .. ~ ';;; ::> D i i 5~ ..~ 6~ -~~ ~~ .g~ !'% c:.. <>>- i~ as';;'; ~B .as :.=: .r: "0. -0. 2'" -.. ....c: Cl- .".r::; O).~ C>~ ~,e. ",.c: ..... '" 'i:~ '03 .- '" ....~ I.' I; ,,; .!~ I e , II> c: 'l:: co Q. C o ~ ~ 8 '" ... o I ~.~ lGj ~a ~~ 1ii g,S IDa. ~8 -c: !J'c .,'" ""'. i5.! .!i) uo 10 .8 E '" ::; l~ ~fII 'z l~ 'Q. Ii ~ I: Ii ; i ~:!~ ~;i !h "'Oi.li. .; .. 'e ~ d:~ c:,8 8~ \O~ <'i ! I I I I ! I I I I N B~~ ~~.- ~-.. ;lJ 2 H '" f ~ 2 f c. ! '" .g 05 NOIIVJnddV ffiIilS01313:ffiI1S OCEAN PR~~ERTJE~iLC Agenda Iteq,~15,t6,,~17' .pgge14 ':.. <;:" -::,."'~""-:-:<':.~., . . I- Z UJ :E' w ~ ~ w c:: ::I. en 9 U. rJ) i5 t;---e ~-8 !!lB_ .:2 ec 'j~j' 5'5'g .~ ~ ~ !l-~ ~""i .,2 ~ 2' w~S"" !i 'j 'i.~ ~o'E~ 5!~i !!!:811 ~~]~ ~lij 0 a!]!~C c: ~~!li E I i fl= E ~ ~~!J! ~ <6 8'i:g g 1 e'!!ii= 't:> s: ~! e$ ~. , ~.i..iR Qil\.'!w - ~ 8 91 .lJ.E ~~.~~ .~"<.-g $ 0 QI QI ., (I}..ll: ..J__ 4ft - - ~ c ~:S_ 0'0 I;) c;:~ j@s s!~ $!O~ xlO ~ c.c 5~~ Q.ID .0 :;:00 ..e- j 2'8 co .- -' eil}i ."1\1 . ~s ~o.ca ''''''(is CD!e e.! 4> -0. va: (I) ~ .-. I t~i~ .!!! 2:- '? e~_~ ~- BN ,mE ..: 't:>l5~8 ] ....0 ::O""'C "'13 III . ,.:.!-~ i- 0 '" 't:> - .. c I~ SL.g . ~ l!! i 8.1- l=; o. S ~>.5 :! ~... '" .5 .g...~.~ > c" '<=="0' '" o~ J! <II,~ e o.~ .J:::. _ -0 a:t: :i: -IV II ;1Il;:~"" lilOl &;~.!!e~itlc'l& :S!~~o!!le:l~ge o _~=.c >-a- 4li r.ti..!!.!. ci~',2:.!! tt) ~- 0 C(i CI,)- c: :;: ;: E ~ 1i III ~ '.~ '$ ~::o ~Ql8!:S 1)J:l'-.=- g.; eo ;.: e :1 c Ql 'g -E .1<. '" C <=>,- 0 ~ o:S 0 9 'E .....'=";5.~1li 1:1- ~ s 0 ;; ~ 2-0 !.I.. il ~1l ~ Sl ~ ;f-~~ {IO 0 .q~ c~.;j 1::'6 c :i2.;it.!!!:=l5~:E ~';:'G ~ ..~... !.f i . cs;.<=IIl=]-~> o.o.._.;c...::>o~g :l:iilOclllli5:-ts=CJ !.._~_~~"2",o'R .Si!_c="oc.J!!g"'o 1i'flt~il os.~>--;;... -e~jf:I!E.2jj ~.. ~.s; 0 i ~ 0 ~ ~ ts S if 0; 2'l-llS l5 ts.i!~ =ij~.! !~.c 8! i ,~ .S ~ '5.:& !. ~ ~ .. III !!:! .s.S::> E.~ os,, ~ ....1: ~ I ~ ! ~ ri .-:: liil.!.'lo'O'!l!"'r/lClCO ...3i Illl_C=<Dlj!CGl;:;; e!fl "C-_4itioGl' :c ~ !i... ~ 'i_. ~:S~ Qj:S I ~ .. ~~ii~-8I~a<D> ~~~l!.3~;~ ~ 0. lS 0 E 8 ~ \InS 8..! 0 .siii ~.8~! g:; g'" '" J: - m ]CGlJ; Illa:s~ \II~. !.c sa~a .!! g.&~ ,S ,o"'O.=, !!:o~i S! ii Q>J: - =.$.1t "i -.$ 11> .~ -eo! == S~'82 S:..__ O() .g .2 cS:$~ .2~ J:l .. 8,' li '~>-. e .. ell S~ i;-! .Sg!!1i!. ~oi.l~ ' '1ia;.....-c: :,! :0 .~. ~~'~ '~l ~ ~..'_ ., 0 . % IV Q.'5 tl~.!e2-! -"!'u Co. . z~i5i.$ ,,; o. ! aJ:l.!,il F-5:>-"I:: g, -< -g -: ,2. ~. YS]=2'd: .. !!:: l! :l e'- 'c! I-Gl'io~i ~ ..I5}i"" So 8 B." ~ ".: ~ 'iji :i641 <' j i\'" ::EF- "'\. '~f- ~,.~ ~ :~p ..., -~ i! I-\i "0% 'h cC: i c ~~ a:~ !~ ....... I '8: .. ! ~) ~'ll <<=h~ !i" ~::!.. wlt S ~ i ~ 1 NOllV3nddV 9NINOZffiI 1VNOLUaROJ G c' ~ Z W ~ W ~ en w c:: ::I (/) o ..J U en is ~.; 'i ~ g ~ 8,,; ::E '~.8 ~ .~ i {; ~ E ~ () e ~ w: ~ ~ !5~ 'ii ~ 11)" - · oil 0 ::E 5 g i~ 2' a~- !; ~ I-~ 11>8 le ~f- ~~ :: y-€ ...J:l~ ~ -'~ci,~ ~ &:':l~~ <8ss~ ~ ~!~s. 0.- .... oJ gBcj -i !2c,tP ~ .. ~!Il.Cl ,,; .!.'Io'!! ti .. 1:;"'.&li .. 3cll1qj !. oa..g!; e g.!li~ ~j 'l!S::i! mE =~, 8lD :=0... O::E ~ 1:; o .. ., QI C .. .5 II i iE~ ell .. <5:; ~~~ .- C ~,~ i~ .:..~ e", !!!.. !~ m~ ~~ == J:Q. -Q. .... :S'" ..J: .- ...s:: tIl,<e::: =~ .~ ,g. il~ c 'ii,g -'" (D-- .- Gl ...J~ N ~ o <Ii .. o c .. ::> .c g "" ci 1: Ie \l> C 1:: "' Q. C -i 8- I~c ~.g .!!!1l _c ceo ,g~ ~~ 4i.! .<=0 ;e- ~8 ,>>,5 J:C ....'" I~ j~ 00 10 ~ ~ i E ;; "" i~ .,;. g ~ 8 Q._ 1:: ~~i ~ ~~~ o~ 0- ~ == 5@~"~i .,~ .g'-II> ~!tl~,;; ~i !2lri ~~i~jii Ooo.c>~g ~ l". ~11!S. 15 ~e E ~ ~ ~Q.~~..5! a::~8cc1: c.. >- .Si!" . 1:: 0= 1ii.~"'.9 O.,N Q c'-C - ,-.2 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ ., -go" ~~- ~Q. ! i~l:l :; -"00;" I- ~1s:.:lS a: 8;;g,..: j .; .., ~ a; ::l 4> C "iQ '" ..c i ~ 'i~ o~ ~ ~~ i~ ..0- :J'~ ..- 'E;'5 ~g ~~ I'll':'; ~'" ..~ .c."C.. _Ci. I'll'" ~~ :; .5 :[l'j: t:Qi. .~:2 .J:J! ~.,g -"' "'- ,.- Q/ ....;1- ~: ; 4> ,~ I' J:l ,g I~ ~ ~ 1:: '" Q. C o ~ci ~ g eo .... o ;:c ..0 ~i~ i ~'c j~", ~~ ..1:1 S ~~ S ~l5 ~. oe- <; =8 '; ~.s sr .....c a 4>:> ~1 j! 4>0 I! i3 l5 f" X L'" s ~ 8: "' i ~!!~ pi ~~, ..,..l: N ,.,........,. ',' ........,._. ,....._.'"c,:.,.... '"u OCEAN PRQ~ERTrES~LC Agenda IteQls15,t6,;.~,17' Pi!g~J.15 ,':: '",:::'_::;":':'-~'<:::; I- tie o Ql c:::'~ III j i.~ Z ~10~ iii sica: N_ W !.,a <<:1=_ .S .9- Gl ~ 0 > ~ .,$\. -ill ~~ 2i'O~ <ll.8~ ,U ~ -- c :E c ~ .c="'8-" 8 ~ 6--2 \w.:t:(6 C1 en &_ C ~'< f t W :€'@j" C 'E-- jg c .8 C <1>"" ~.9-< cG.!!-~ I- ~8'E - 3: "CI 0 01._ ".c ~ ~ II: 3:", G;:o~:g~~igg~ 'Oc.!.c a: ~ .o"C 3: ~ 0 " ~..i J! !.~ =.!g'.cis l!!E",.!.-e ~.:8 -.\,1 i'") ~ '0 .~ (/) ,,go i ':~=:::.c~~ i ~lh CO '" g'JS ~ c:4i.. ::s,Y.,_ = ~~!li ;~ E 0..- E?- ...- 0 .S! '" c: ,:=-atoQ.. W :~8 liaE :c ce e 7i i ~ ~3 ;= .!! i 8.] ~~~~ a:: III .~ .c.c. ~:8.!=.. ..o'l;lE2 ::> --> 'i~~i Gi~u=: ~ i 0.: ~~~ .2 .. 1lI - l!! ~ e: 4> .. i!: ~ I (/) e.!Ol l!!r.:-fE~_O,s",~c: --lll ~~ci~~ 9 =2-;~ "E- e--- QJ-I!!~-- ,0 !<<ia 'S;-C:_ .~ g'~ llI.B$o&f,& 8.ti l~ 'i .s.5 .. c!.eJ!.c€ u ~--c: E~~~ /L<(II)/L ;:) 'i "g is 1i-...I ~2!it:lJ~..:..~ (/) 85""8 ei~ ~~'fl2 6 ",o"C:-"'~kl -'~ ~ ~ lll.... ~~....$= 0 ..s 8~$.g t)nI-CD . ~.B ;;'!kilE2".!j~ !,!=g~ ! c tl'~~ Ii iij e.!S c: --,1! Q. 'E "';ii5 ij~ ~Gi 0"'-"2: ~Oi: .. oCt:) ~ClI 00- t ..J='s$ c:.!!,!=-i E]i ~ &~g,1Jg> ~ : g'- .Q.~~ ,g.!!? c:,SBSOl .!!?.... "";;: Ao ~ .. o=:-.l'H ci :c O'h i ~ 0-:: CI> i.8~.s!!'" E'O!~ ~ c: 1= ! 19 gi~~ .. ~ - II> i.c: -;, A.Je: !c: _. 5 -_1lIz:: c.: b2,s -'~"~E III 'O~j;s 0.. c: 'ibl!!;; ""-e: e:tIl,,- lllolD ~.5t~: ~ I e 11 ~~ i,e:=g'l~ i 0 l:i .-S i.g.~c.E .. ~.. CO Cii ...c!!= ..-ill) -~=>.U) .... ~:S 8:;' i!: 1:: c: i;.J ell g ~i!:g,!~ ~I.!~ __'EfO. . -s~. B i '8u" 1.) !=. E ~ ~~ 8 - Cae: g k C:.c:2 . : lS.fi CI) !!;S.e.8.l:~ ~ o~;., -~.l:1~0 . ~ ell ='fe: .c!!!1Il~Q) ~eJ! ^ Z...:S~E 8) jfi r:: j " CI' i~lllo a;:e.. 5": ;:!'O~ 1iS~.!!?<S'O~"'''lIlC:s;! o CIS a2i' ~ 0 i==~"- i~"lii~ 'E l!!'6..tf ~:s :~.5=;~61ll,? g:>!!.... ::> Jf:sl< :,=,g.i Is,s'OCii!~ c'Bs:,g ...ltti;,; ~quj .- .9) ~!].s 2'a. ,l'! .a.e -ii -.- N .:. j'c II co;S g r'" 'iij 11 .~~ "'0 .. j:Q)j6Ei co .. '.. e,-c .! ~Q)c ~;,.::>~ . --~c: tca~ =.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~i ~ 8..8 8 m ~ j. ~ 8 ;,;,1 .!/! 0 S 8~:S ....-.. II):E CJ_ ..",0=0 . .," <"C- I- Z .'W :E W I- ~ (f) W a:: ::> (f) o ...J U (/) 5 ~ ~ 8 c: c =' a; .c: is (; iii :!~ :;)- "lii SJ 0 rl Ii ~~ E~ ~: ...~ !!!l!l z... ~<Il <( i >>'= Q.e ;;,..o~ ..JClIc:j~ a. A'!j; - Cl. . l5 "5 c,g:g:e~ ~coQ)~ Q.,s~J iH.:.S! lilac,! .rt e.g 0 C 8 g;1i ~ r::.. . 15.:8 ~ S Q,~=.e :i~~ :a ~ 0"": .. Gl Q) .. s Iff .8 E Q) E e 8 ;g 01 c: i c: '" ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ j E '" :ii g> "g, c: .. :ii ~ .. ... .., 'S; '" o U ..; ..i ,.; '" 'E Q. e ~.8 ~H O~ I I.i j !l i5 g "" Ii E I! '" c 1;: g, r:: .s! e ~~ 8 .. 5': :t:8 .!!~ _c: e:", g~ A I iJ ,.!~ ;;e- 11 ~i ",;, 0- ~~ l~ 0 ~ e III .. .. Q) c 0; " '" J .!!! iE"8 ~:; 0... ~~; :g~ .gl! ..- -E~ Q)- ~s =,;,.; ~~ t'C= .co. - cQ, .... ,s., ..= .,- Ill&: :j ,5 a. ~~ c =0 c.o ''; -.. .. - "- Q) -'- N r[ .8 ~ i 1 E "eo 0 .~ (; S i= tg :! IIl.~ 'ii :;) E ~ '0;;::' fI.)~.c ,,' gee ;~ CJ~.sQ~~ ~!t:liSC., OiS'-~lD'= <<~!2 ig:5:: W,G:t~>."" ~~~li~ OO'7J!!~ ~ f.~ !:g s Iepj~~~ o~e- ...- a::~fn5e:.8 Q..~ =.0 _Ill~s- ~':'2 0 ~ ,g II> ~~ ~ ~~OCl>,? "'o-og... ~~.$! - 0.. :;::;Q,)t"OiQ.C1f ..! e 8.'~ ~ .!!! 0..5- III ~.! g!Ls (5~g~ 'E ~ J: ..i ~ .c II) oe >> l!! 'E o () ci e: .!!! <( ~ e :g <l) e: 'in :" ..0 i i E~ ..jij' S:2 ~~~ ,- l: i~ ~.~ ~i !:t:l !.~ oa:"; t5 oa= .cA -0.. Ill., ,se ...c Q)- ...c: gJj is. ;,.c ,D."' e: -=0 CD: ,_ OJ ..!! "i ....- Ii E .. !~ g" I I I I I i .~ , I I ! j I I j i i , I Ii ;;: i 1:: .. 0.. ~~ e ~ 8 .. "" o :t", .fl.9 ~~ ~'2 ol; ~o I.. ~~ I!! ~i Ii =8 .2 "" c I" e'c l_~ Cl " ; 45 Ii ".c !: ~'O !'" (.l 6 IN >< L" N ! ~ ~ & i~~ Iii Ui:l.a:; OCEAN PROPERTlESj[.LC Agenda Ite~s1s,i16, '.:' 17 :Pa 16 .~"~ ~~- ~~~ ill ~ .. ~ ~ ~ '" e -J: v. ~ ." .:J. ., . ~ S'-.\ ~ .~~~ >- ~~~.,j ~ ;~~! '~ z:. '1:::I: g'\IJ _ ~ ,:I:", ~i~~~ :9 z: _~.cZ ~~,!~~ O...l;IlWo.. S2~ t;c:_ " ,5 ,g..'!~ ~ ~ a.Gi ';;;~~Q.1i .:;. s; ." .8 ~ as ::l:;: <( loot,($6~ _~c>Oit). ",..",m:!2S",c>:~j ~~~i'2;E:.~~(j; o:~e.lll -0;.,:::; ~~;;; c :c c c !!! -.; ii ~!! =>- ;:;,= ""0&:5 -. eO e.,"'.:; .. J::I''U~:!l :l3!!"<=-~Slg~"'o,= !! C r;?}';: -,E fA - = ~ c iiO 'co -- u c>> _~... - 0 :i'&ifl:ilf'& &.~~ *~ ~ !~~..i ~ rh;:; ~ ..0 e-!ti>",~;;"E tP_S:...5i-ocee E;.i ~ i~~ ",!." 4> s.;-i:..c:-1h)~~ .t=",-",o..",.;e..,a.".!Cl .. ~-e!~o;."'i;;:O~ ~I'! !'tGlC:=!-.lIl(S -'j( SlieSc: -' s.o....<Jli....E !!-o e.:!=:e-g-15..!lj f~s~i~~~iiis .~l> ~!!15 to; o.!ii~ =: gij.! ~~ ~i" ~ ~ !...S C:occo.l:: ..l;I) !s.g.8.l:l~~l; ~" .D!.c",gS..8~i'Sl 'l:!c:-~<> 4>"!!...~$": s..e.!!!!;'O"''''....''<=> .!2<6 S ea......&-= '>> 0 ceDe;; Ie:! .lIli'l:!i.i:5Q:~ ':'~~~El!!:5-'l5c;"N .. T=-"&4>".l!j"" 1 g i ~i -g) !!l r:! .. .."'<ll",c:;:;'" ~ "8 :g,gse8.si!& 0 Q C''C ..9.l!! ?.o:;g' t$ ~ a"';. =.=~Z "g"',!':: ..:l3-.2: 8 .~~~~ ::c.,;;a. .~ g. &) .s c." =- 1!!:5i'i ~- - }! ~.~~ ;: _.!; 4) S'Es,s ,,5-8,2 8....... &.,2.g C-s Q. :l3c:&~cri ..,g"'''' 0> E5~:t>; ~5ii lt~.. ._1;... _... !!e:ll12 _~Cl1l!:5 ~ IDg,.-'ti.E .., =~ ~~! ~!!!'c 8,.2 iX' 8 c J e ~ 3~ - ~.2 Cl.ili ..i Z ..;:5 1-'" .; o! a'3~'! ~'O.2"o 9~i!g.J: .. i!:ii'3g:eii $-g!::R~ ..'! _::>..,51';;;; >- 0_","''' Cl I- Z W :z w ~ en w 0:; ::> en 9 () (/') is i'2! 0.= ..;:; .... ~~ili l(;jj "o"g .~ e '" ~....; :~.~ -'!o~ '5: Q. i It)e!~ wQ.o= c:=--c S~~~ ..I J~'" ~!~8 Q~'5f ;i;:: ~i.Sii -j-gg !:: ;:;"'- c:sS~~ ~a ~ i.! ..;o,.~ 8 lS'Clll~ !fB~ c: Q..G- 8:il-g iil! ~.2' ,,, ""~I'" - 8 :e~"a :!ls3: .. ;;1:5- __ 0 00_ cc.2 ;!!8'E 'i~O $ 8.~ .!-~ i ~ea ~:5. Q.~ ~." :Ce Cl .~ l?1 .i..-' ..",-0 "'CD" .."'Ill , ~.!! l!! Q.s =~(/) ~.." -0. -5 ~ :c !' )!,h; 1l! >>e;; e'fl tc:. c:-.~ N ",'0 III> >." C~t :!2-~ ..15 '3.;e.co ~i~~ CJ'- 0 ..-O~~ ~jl.. - ill - ~ go" g=J Sgs ~. IV I i !'g '8 ill: " ~ o 0.; ~ III ~ I i J ~ oe a'i 'E ~ ~qW ...11: ~ .. <( >- ~~~ If I l ....;:- I .;; $ "" .& c: I g .~ .. " I c '" .9- '" .s -g III ~ '" .; '" ! ~ 1:: i '" ,!II co. ,,; iii I c & <> .t= "" g> ~= I :I: - .. ~ ~a: .- ~ :i :lb:" I. g~ III -0 .... w t~ Q oe I :01:.", .. !::: .12 ,g .. I .r:: 8,:s. (;j15 '" ::l "'.:.: ~.~ :I: ~c i ~ ..~ I ~~ .. B ::i 8-~ .. U) 2'" J ~ _Cl ..'" "'= :8- I 1 ;= ,s8 .2 !li ~t: g, '" ...9- ~>;: It '" ",.c ~: t~ ;r s:;'" ~~ Ii c I "," :ag 0: " 3~ .!o .. r~ ~ u13 i) in N X QQ. ! I; I -,'.i i ::J Ii i ci :c e .~ iii c. e. j l!! &. 8 I ~ cO t :oI:.:l3 .!!~ -" ".. 8f? =0 g:~ ..e .:;g, !~ ~c "," g~ 8'ti o i t 8- s g . ~ j '" i I E ff i j E j ~ ":0 ~o !! i: i w <:l ~ 'iii ~~'!!l "O~ ~'::~ II\> c:H~..E; fj)~":gt~i Q ~ ~1! ~ ct. -,~ 1!.=: -:=_ ~ ~ ~-;~~. ~~ 1t;r~ >-;"''''ll'!E~ ....jOc.u....,;. ~~]ri] l1l>:Sc'~.! a.?:-.:l3 ~ u 15~!:l~li il}~f ,;~'i~~ SQ,leQ.ti ~ ~ ~~ j "'Q.S-'" ~,!,,!l,g a;g..; }- c '" ~ '" CD c ! ..Q .., ~ @~ ..t::' o! -~~ ~t: ..l>: fL~ tj !!.", &5- CIJ~ ~~ !15. ~i -~ !:e ~'j ~ g;~ ,g~ =.9 <:l_ ~! N . ~ <> '" c ';;, ~ ... ::: ~ ~ :!2 > .. o <..i ..i ..i ",' e 'E 8, e '::} toe 8e 0::1: I- Z W . ~ I- ~ w IX: ::> (/') g () (I) is v. _.c .Y OCEAN PR~J?ERTlESlLC Agenda Itelrts15,16,;!jt7 _P~'9!J~. .' 11 Ii e I- Z w .~ w ~ l- (/) w 0:: ::J Cf) o ...J (,) Cf) is I- Z w ~ W I- ~ Cf) w 0:: ::J (/) o ...J o en is tstii ..... a,'" ..ts .... ;~& Ii.! co '0 -g 8 <0 .~ ~.; ~~~ Glee: ~ :51 l')E -: g> w~o= a:=-e ;:)"'a:'" 0<;""8 g~.i~ 0..-... CI).::o8 iS~$'~ ..1=",,,, ~: g>..! 0:::0.5 -<D",g s-ig~-;;;: :)-1;1;.: ~~i.;! O:O~8 ~~~! ts 8.~lt:; ! es,;; c: "'J!!:= 8jllliS 5"1ii~ ~!e~ ]! .. q; 'ii \ll.!.~ --:1:1: :Ss~3l .,; J g sf .. J:) E l ~ '0 t ls 8 vi is ~lll 0 ~s -a; ~2 0 ag- :i-s: "'II: Ei;; is. .~~ ....9- <Il R z.c. :5a; -< ~ >0::: OC..J:):'!:; S! !,rl~ ~ e.s!.e'S 8~s~ ~..~~ e-:S l\l .. 8~.:~ ,,,'is.ClI;l ..E~.Q ~8~~ ~&"'e 'is.'-= ~ .. '" EO - e :<~~!ia ;5 ~~ Q. =:0_ ~ !!! ~ 8 c. C :0 o Ii ~ J ...J .. .., '8 E It> ~ ~ < .., & 8 "$ .~ .gqw .Il. E ic(~ ~~~ g> 0> co e <0 ::l: c:. Ci l- E ~ ~ ... '" .Q E Q ::E 0> c: "r c: '" ::l: ~ {!. :!2 > '" o o ..; ..; ,,; <l> € ... g- O:.. c.8 "'E 8.. O::l: '" <:>:5_ <=- 0 00_ e: C.~ "'8= i...a !l 8.~ .!o 5 S'g E ai ~ E =-~ 0. I!! 0 ~~~ .~ g>~ s':; !..c 'V.... ",.01) c ~ 8.:!!i OlIt>CI) ~~! I ,;C~ C4U'J :2: .. .,c C . a!,gc; 1i~!~ !ill u. ~=8'" ,!lI 'g .. ": r~~"8 :l.?:o2(.) fRt)'GJ . ~~~.~ 0'- 0 .... 1:) ......; ~~f~ ... ~ Q.'ii 8.g>e: ;.; ,- "'. ug:E 1;- c: '" .. co .. <= Iii '" .Q j .!lI IE"" llli 6~ -~i .!! ::: ~:: ~::: ..:.'5 is ig: tU'E ~,g .eo. -0. ..'" :50 ...c ..- VJ.c :l'~ ,~ ,9- ",.c ",'" t: =0 <<1= -l\l ~! ... .si. .c e € ftI 0. C a :;:::l ca ~ 8 l\l .... OC:: ~,g .!!~ _c: C::ca ~i? =0 1ial ca- ." !!! =~ ;8 G>.S .c.c:: ",,::> <> .. '. !~ ,Uo 10 a'll ~lii_ .: 5g.~'5 ~ > ~ ~ 7i;~8Q.tff -: ~ ." 1: g ""= ;;;c < Ii: o!:2i i~ ~ ~.~ =~.S:iig!E0!g! ': ,,-7; .."".;:.... :.;.!!!.!!! 0.""'<::'- "'", 0 e!l! l!! c:: :2 c E e Ci i c:.. ~ Q= ~::8~=..!z:fjs~ ,g"lIll-e:r:eGliii~,g ClS~=-iE~eO=Q)e~ Qi - ;.- U ii e ... ~ ~ 0 ,;j~~tfz !.i~ 8~ !!i~';~~:i~~ ;~:fG=~=tC::5:E c'='! a; 5~ II> "'~'S.. "0. ilii:S.. e='gCi c:: ii .- ~ '" 0 .. ca.?:o.j;! ... II> 0 ~:r:.Qc~_ii 0=_ a!l2='iiO'Ej~~~ 1i~ Cisz~.!!! g>~..;...J 15 Gl <l)~'" III J!!.8 'Es an!! ... ;;; .J:. = J!! iil E 0.= .. f~:; Ie~ls8~l:>.!!! <>>,g.-g> .!?it5'-.!!! ...c:: 2-- - t'i ",J!!CQ ;~.!!!e:g><ll~8.!il .5,gSc:ec o.~iS..(I) ~..9!"g.8_'~Gl OJ!!", '" ! .J:. III 8e "" E ~ ~,; al~~O..'i~!Illl!!="': .. '. c:J! 0"'0 CD ro co CD, cO E:e~:c:,5~f1~c:~ "".8 '-~1:Illll:-0.cN :t '" g>~= l!?=-'01i-;;... .. 2"5 c: &~ ~ jg' ~ € : CI1J c...I>l!",_'''':oo"" III l!!c:ollle'il=CIle",,-g ~ 8 5 E 8.5 i:5 !..! (.) .. o <Ji '" '" c .. '" &> g 0:: t!i 1: ~ .! 11'0 ~ 0 "" . ~~ w..~ !5 e.;;; iii (I).gj ~~ gl'~f "'~ oe-..E$l1 en (D loC:_ ~,'~ IS is il]9-';e CD == O::(IJ!~5~ ~i$~~i ~it~iii o -Sl ~~ j!::~a.!!!o~ ~ ~ ~ Ii 3 o Q,~ ...e a::'!:;gc'C! CLtGJ~!.9 ~.=.~ ~ ~ ,g 41 &i;' ~ * ~ <; g~ .~ ~ll Q. Q. :S8.e<ll~ ,*E;~;!! -a Co.gJi.i ~ E.!s..J.l:; 8;5~ e 8 is o :5 'e u:l <( "" C 1: '" .c ~ ~ .. .. c: o .., < '" e 'i "" ;;; :.:: .., = 's CI) :i Cl 0. o 15 c:: <l1 0.. ">0 :0:: c: "" '" '" ! 'jj; '" J:) :i .!!! IE~ ~55 0., -~8 .!!!~ ~:;: ~~ ~ii e~ ~s. ta';"; ~~ to-:.=: =0. _ 0. "'01 SCD ..-: ~.c:: !I ~~ "'~ :a,g .s ::;! N .si C '0. ~ *~. ;S.Q3 ~ 8 Xl g'''' cv...c:;.... m "CcCIJ:..c: ig~~ ~.~.d! --'Q..cn Q. .!!!i&j ,5"""':0 ~= ~i ~! g>n OS -'- fJ) s~~~ ~lHls 8"'.. 5$~! ""~.Q"q:t ga l~i' ,20:: Q.o~ .5'g;~ ~ G)C""'ctIo. e '0 .~ .; ;S caa-'lijs -:'8 ~i;'~ ,;, ~l!!'C:: ....2 . 8c~e-gq - g.~~ij ~~ii~'! j::5..:o_- ......,,2..0 "'C .!- ~ ~ j - goo.. . j:Gli5'E~ c ffi~iS_~~ 8 >. 0_.. ",,,,OlXl III I : ~f i"" !c:L i:E i e I€ 1& Ig i~ , <> !~ ! " I l\l is ,~c !i' co a -;;; I ~.~ ~g, ! i;' c ; 8.i I ~1 i!~ f e'c I~= ;~1! , !!:! Ci io~ t ;;; .Q E '" ::l: ""~ ,50 I..: ~~.:.t: Q) ~~'E :!! .",.-t::o ~~CI): ~, ::x: < .....8.2!~ ~~.e'==" :2:Z..~:z ~,~im,€ 0... a.. :.::'" g~8 _.~'O~ lt~;< ;1; . > c. Co = r:: " ~ ~ " x .. '" g ~ - S .. ~ ;< t! i l f i~~ ~'l>ii HI u...l '., ."'- ,.;.~- : .-~ "." , OCEAN PRfDPERTIES'ILC Agenda Item.... '.s."<.1. 5,.:t6,......8.')<.;.t.7 .. ... . ,PQ"; 1B ,:~_.::.e, ~'~,. Jj' Ii .- z UJ ~ UJ ~ .- en UJ a::: ::> en o ..J o en C ~e 0..'" rJg .s:EiS ':i~ j' .. "0 "2 8",01 ~a;0 ~~~ eel: :20.: e11 co m~o~ a::~-C: ~o!~ 9 ~~ ~ VOle'" ~=c:8 cOl-~ .,J5.sc ~: so! c::g'" E!!ol- g~.E.E ;e- <~~l! l!!~~~ ~ 8,S; !~SU 'E Q. c= 8j'ia i."- ~ i!!$ ~Ill :is:: (,.) a.: ! ! ~ ~ ! ~ <( <Ill t ~ ~(,.)w ,.;0.. ~ t~= 0:F:~ $I 1)"'_ c_ 0- ~~~ t>tUC i~g j2 8..S ,ti:iS ~ <!l.:;E -me .!.r:~ 0..;0 :.200 "'::- ~~g J! ':~ !~C: ",:g'" '", &o,Sl ~:~ E~: 3...0 .J::.... ~ i '" . .208(; Ifi~ ;e-.- ~ _!!l"2~: iiG'g i~to 'l'-lIIc ;:!o> !~-tf ~~i~ - GI 0.... (Sg>; eo..,Sl gg.5 ~j- ci ,S ,g..!th~ > lS~. i;~8Q.lS .r: .:; 1ll':; CI"" --- c( ::1ll~~.Q81\l~~i1i e"Cll",~"'a4>C;;;'" =.!c.::a'!E"-.g~ o ""Clll:l:- '" -<<Ill> ci~e.!!l" "". 0. ~ 1lt4i;: :.2 ;: ;: ." 16 i ; -.; E ;;: ~:8.!=..5.s~,5~ .2.....- f" c 4> ,,'"'.!.1 16lll~r,;rO!O';:",o'2 -.,S ;.eel' 'ii} i" - 3: 0 -~ -15"''' 1i.!~o (\\ .cli' u..Q :g II> ~ - "'l!!. 'e~oil. ~l\l~O~ C(SlI1cW-!!!"" "s"'E J1.... c: o~,=..l5 ~.lll E E-lllI-<=S.....!"'C> , c"']lIllll.l:-g_O;;:;o. 0.1. ... c: - 0 ii: Q :.2 ~'O="'~_..~Cl ~1i ~].5o..!1 ~~~ .2J!!!!- !!llll.lia....,!! 0 1ii x'aS.D 1::.0;.5.!. <<1-' -1Il -"',Sl.DEO-'" !!.J!.;:.e Ii En'; i li'5cgc;-sio<l> i&ig>I!!!~oo.i ..,s;: !:= ! ='0 c: .. -;; U> iJ..i~~.li~~.e! j ~ .9- 8 .::: g lI) ~ o..!! '.,; il;l ~ ~~i! I t.~..: - ..!! i.!!! Q'O lI) '" '" III. C 0 .!l!3! Ill_C';:GllDClll;:;j e.. ,!!C-_a;'=Olll. :ti g>b~I!.;:io;~.::: N Y"6""C4lll).~Cc>"", I~ :fl1:~:S ~J C> "'Sc Co<>",(l) 4> 01>'8 0. oEo.5lD';:0..Dt,) A.".. - . .- Z W ~ W ~ t; UJ a::: :::> en o ..J (.) en C I J '" 8. .s 8 'II ~ ,g :>E :; <II :5 E o E ~ ~ U4111 0 ~.5 'i <<l '" - o.E 0 rle I~'B !!!,s E.. Q. ~ ~ ...~ !8 ze _ c '6> '" c: '" :E ?: ~ :;;! > <\'l o U ....i ....i .,; co r <II 0. E Q..- c,! :ilE 001> 0:: 1:- 'C o .. ~ -.; 2 'i :i e"'" ",ie' ai -;e-g .!.!!<.: l:= ,,~ !-s c.. !:: !os.. \'D';"; <l>C ~~ = 0. _0. "'''' =c ..= e- ~..c lll~ ~,g. ,gi c 1i'~ -... .,- -Q .....M '" I ) , I I ! I I I \ I I I I ... o .,; .. <II '" 'i) ::I ;;;;. ~ ci :.2 Ii ~ " .2 ]j ~ 8 III ~.: <l:8 rat:] :::'2 "'Ill .~ ~ '5.", i',Sl IP! =~ ell 05 .::c ~:3 g~ 0:5 o '!I ,! E i E .,s i~i It:l ~ &!ii 1\ iol::,g 'O'B 9"=e =:! u e ..... E 11> q)~"":2'l!1'" 6't>~~C>~ ffi~;""=~ Z"i1';:~"" ~i..!1i!1:i OoQ.lI)~.\!! ~~~lj~ a::&]jE/i" ~~~~i~ a::l'::8Sic}l c.~ :l!S ~ . 8 :.~ i~ e-=iofi .g"'QI~a; lil~a8.i1 ';~'il e:g. S&.E~qi ,Sle~5~ ,!!Q.8-" ~!.5!i $ 8;3"': - .s! '5 o a: <IS c f ~ j E '" :::E Cll':-- c: ,- ,- ""- g" c~ lQ -... ::S" a;~ ;;~ ..... "0;2: .~s cD: siii-g l:! """" "" ~ ~ 6-~g c2! ~ '\:IC!':: i~-.S? c.~ "'25 s~~ a Sl i &oj ,541"0:> E.;:i"i c- -s ~~.~.. ~ _J: 4l ~S"Es= ilii I... c,E:"Sa. .- ~6:i~C> E ; €~~.gE i f . ;2 "" :to 0 ; ~ s ~ ~.~ ~ i .~ 'I: - '" ~t.>; > mi~~ ~j o 11 a.D' 1 ~ '-j\ ~ ~-M::I-:U ~/' i; <"';2"'.90. 5l' ~ ulii..;.!",e ':; :.? itdi~-;::o... ... ~ mlj~l ~~ ~q.i~ U=lb-.;gOlD :;,.~ Z:- ;: c .. '" ll> C -;; ,g ~ '" e~ 'teie' <s~ -;e- ~ s~ i= ~~ .:.."5 !~ :g.s. <<1';0,.; CD'" ~.~ .c:'5. -Q.. ~: == "'.:: ;~ -i..e. ,g~ =a~ _"l ::i--e N Ii '" c '" ";;; ,g g <:: Ii ~ e c 1:: '" Q.. ~ ($ rt: <IS~ i~ m€ :':1>. ~~~ t~~ ~-~ do; ,r~,~ $ ~ !l. I i ! i i I i I I ~ e g 8 '" .... o :1:", 0>0 ~~ ic oe- f'D,g , !. oll ; I e ~ Ii!. ;:5 ,.ti ~ ~ I2 ..- c e"c '1:" .::~ 1~ t30 Ix i~ ~c. Ii ~ 1; 11: ~., LIIO ~ ~ ~ ~ jz~ ~~~ ~&~ ct! .._,."-, '" ,.'" " , " '",--',.-,- ,," -'",,""", ',,'-,.;, ".;.-,:-..> OCEAN PR(!)J?ERTIES,ILC Agenda Itelri~it5,16,:~t7 Pa..>...~'19 . ,g........ . . . . I- Z w :E w l- t! rn w " ::> rn o ...J o en o I- Z W :e w I- ~ t/) w a:: ::> o o ...J () t/) (5 Q'! &3 <1>0 :!.'l!- .c:..cro j~j' "'-~ B~t4 '~!li <Ii Sl~8 ~ [~ '" .. :i!!~ a::--c: 8tJ~ .....~~~ 0..-.. !!!::gs ~~~l ~.I 1i -..-g~ d SjjJ ~ ~ ~:~"I: ~ .. >O'~ O/l <p::~ 'S!.~lO: ~ :E~.i .r; ~i!:;; <t ~~if :!i~ ;l'~'i: ::;~~i j i ! j ~ ~ e ~ ~ g .r; E '5 - ~ j &I,Iir,J 0 a; g.~ is ~ 8~ '0 :l 5~ ~~ go !! "" i ~ '0, cd Co> $ to-:2 ..~ ~ ~16 ;'c .. Ue....,"" ~ ::i i E'i:z ~ a. ':l~~ :; ~ j'ii< o~> -~.....~. ~ ~....~ ~= g.. q !H.:~ j =~~Jl ~8~.!:? e c:LQ) a e t4. 'as! .~ 0.. UJ - -c =.E1i:S ~ ~~-a. .~ 0- :l I <t O/l g 8 ~ ~ ~c..iw .,;Q.. E ..< J!1 ~~~ g> ~o :q:I <:: <Il ::E ~ ." to- E .! ~ tfJ~ .. :c III 0- e Q.~ iZ gg O::E .. <1>=_ c_ 0 00_ C:cg i8~ J!l X~ ..!loe )( It) ;CJ "cE (C~E =..~ .9-~~ ~E- ~ Ol~ .-i-' --."0 !!!c: <<SOl" ~ 8.! ~ :(;3 Eli! .s::.CI} ,9- :: !i~...- 06_0 'i'fc;:; - 15. ! e-N ~-8N .!!!~~':' iiCl-g ~fi~ c '0> !!" ..: ~!:;@~ ; '! 8.s ll; a>" a.c! g~~ '>. ;; c '" '" ~ 0; '" .Q -g .!! S~ ~: 0.. -~~ J!c: :2-~ ~~ -"5 e... !::: ~~ =i:@ ~lj !'a _c. ~~ =.. ~= "'5 ~'J ,= 0- ~~ c: 152 t;J! - III ....1_ N ~~... ti .E .g...u;~ > = t 'ii~~ec.'lf 1 = <l>e-_~._< ...; " ~ li .:. g :if;; :l'::: . ~Cfla~:2Sa~a~! =.!.=i5!E~EgE o:"",=",J:'.~_"'j'.$~ Q;.==--~'" tQ.~ 0 c: ~ c: ~ ~ c ~! i i -~:~ ~i5 c:",8""-,,,o~-.-ts ~. = as.=.~ ie (l) ~~= ~.=€lSUiii ~~ e ~ a ~!l '6<l1:l~.!l!jO .t!4.Q~.u....D :0 c ..~'E~.;iE"lll II> :; 0 GI~!!iij '" CO.!! CO e Cle:lo;;:;OI>oi!liE .E-;~j i~~~~3i ~ Q...~,,_.c:-eot5o ~~~~~~~;o€~ gJ9~='iO~E.'!I;:';~ ;~~,5S c!.~iGl'" e.! ~ ~~.i~ E ~~! f~.E ~: Cl ~J '" ~! ..e.o; ~!.J coo_(;3 jiji~fill~~ ::>.!!.9-<:S~~~8~~'. ~ !! ~ III 0 .. ... E at.!! il:'liloel;"!!=e~...- m:.mc:fO"!CD. .o~ ~~~.!lc.E=e~6Cl'? :t.g~~~l!~~'O~~~ ... ! 15 C CIl:! -8'; ~ 6 g <0> e-E;i~.g:5;2!!.g ~ 8 5 E S .5 i = !..! (.;) I 6 Ii 1 ~ j ,~ lE I . IE 1= 0: :2 !! .. € ! to ,g ~ 8 .. !-. i~ ,!!!~ _c a~ .g 0 "6."" i"s e! =8. !8 -0..5 .c:c ".= 1~ 00 o !Ii ! ~ i ~ E ~o I'i "'cs ~ l: ~ w"'l ;;; !lg o~ 0-' ..~ cj~~o~" !!~dci1!~ C1:>:2l<GlC ~ tl'). fj).&:S~- ~'iili~~ ~i'lij~-g'fi Ooc...~.s ~~~i15~ ffiff!fi3 ~Q.~':Gl.s o::o.::8cc:,8 G.~e:tlg~c 5 .!! ~ !Hi .;;...=5..- ~ :!1 &e is 'll~oo~-€ '" ,,-<<; .?J ~ m e 0- s !. mc, 0" s p ~~ j t;~~g 8~'g~ N>. ,'" C Cl '" .. ., c ... .5 j .. ~~ ~lll 0., -~~ Sc: :'2~ ~:?i !:s ~g &S. =.g ~. co 2~ _0- ca, a:I =Gl 0: !~ 4>3: i~ ~ .5~ '& ~g - ._ tI) ~ :Se ~ N j E ~'0 g>;~ -;;,~ i'~ ::E ... .'r( ~.... Iii. ~ 1-.. 'Oz "S;.- ",.5 00:: !!i~i !".8~ 0) ~. ::> c: ~ 0'} 00'; ~~ e: ""C2.::: ;,~-.,2 ID '" ~:o 2,~..s: = -a_a. .!i!i&j .:5: Q:l ''0 ::J != Iii ! = c>ii ",,5,5 ili !~,5 II> -'2""" ~~.g:e 88..2-8 ~ii~.; II E ~ c; ~ 2' . la Ji=io1'5 I .I~ ..s~o=:!. 1 )0: Cll g ~ ....!l l.. .. ~'O ij5 c.\I"V ~ 2:9.-:c~ rJj ,"! -~g>~'" "~ ~-'i!'~o .. 8J;;.!ei...!' - g..2 Q..;;...J z~:gi~" 21 eo",,,,,, .. ... ....-....::)- C ..... <(~.s",g ... I~ Os ~Ole ',) li:._j. -.'= 0.. ..'1!-..'~~ ;:: 0 i a '2 s ..~' ~ gi'g -5 j g ~ :>:1 0_ .. '" .. <5 lXl < \. ,Co ",' ., '" c '0; '" '" g t,: 0: :2 e ~ 'l:: to Q. to .2 I III ... o :2:c .11: ,g V~ ~i e~ !i J~ Eli! I~ :~ 18 I 50 Ii ~ ~ i~ , !c Il I G)::J ' , .c:.. I ~ 1i'S,E 15 a LJ 1 x j,1J(t '" '" g,~ -.. <tz c:- e.!! <0.. .#;8 i_~~ <*,n /f.. .~ ~ ~ ~ j I i t~ ~'l!a "::E 81~ OCEAN PRC):PERTIESlLC Agenda IteiPs15,t6,~17 P@~?O , ~ 6!', .b Ci .... z w :!: w .... ;5 en w a:: :::J en o ...J (,) w i5 O! Cl " Q.- ~~ 5~i ~aS! ;o-g .2edl 2: lI> ",- 3:~!J ClE2: :~::! (I) :~= ~ ~;=.9~ ::Jji'" enls=@ 9 ~~=. C)IlIC'" !2.&::c8 Q-:i.~ ...~.c~ ~ .. ~- ~~"g~ _~u..-. 8]~~i cCS!88 !! ~~ l! .siCl U~ft~ e ~S;;;. 1: Q.J!l = 8lS~ ~c='j~ ::1-- r::r _.. ..;a::QJI". =-88 ~~.~~ :S.s:3! w 0::: :::J (J) o ...J (,) (J) o d a: Cl~_ c_ 0 00_ e 'E^~ !q)~ 3~8 s c.._ cliO c: )(At)O <l>::E j.s~ - ,. c.,ClO :ECSC' :gE.. g 2'.9 si"O e Q) 'r;: (C, II) ft'$ '", 8..'!! fii",~ QlI!o E!!!e 'c., -;;cn :.c: cc. .. i: c ' 5i)gc; ;:. ",."... .!!~-.., !1~~ ~.'= 8 ('OJ ,!!! -g - "".~ ;2-CllW .-..c:"O .g ~g8 ,,:g.c c!o> !.~ .""- I'Oct!:e 9-,.gS. - oil 14- o ~; e.- li 8~~ o Q ~15_ <'Ii .:: ,.e.4J~ ~ > i 41 ,~;~~~1i S 5"0.<115."""'5:<:< ""Cl:lt;1f).o-';<<2COqjs 1t1' coQ<a32,!! i Q U) e 0 :5mc~5!E",!.ge o..c::IC,i: '~...t'O~ o:~e.!!..~l52!;"iic :c c 'E ! Iii i -g ,1; ;.~ ~:8~:5mo.t3'l5.s_ g.!! Ill:::::'. E;ci,!"'''S~ ,coe:e:=o~,O_CD~C 1!-;;:..;::.tlo;e'-<;j 0 .Cl~~~:.& !!~ ~~ ~ f!i~"l ~ l3.I<S ~ ..0 c.i?qs.._ <IlE ~-."ell;;,="O 4lE C:-=-~ cs 5= 0 '" 4>,!! Ql . jl:.twClI.t:"O:Sj> Q. 'is.-fII)c:-~O. :c:.- ,::J 0 = f1l~.a '-. :~ ..3:.QQlc"'.!!!"Oo - -i_;;.J::t;jQ-l#VJ, ~ ~~:5~ =>!I! liig.3P'/.9 s S: 0'-: ~:a- ~!-o !!1;j~ ~:5:;; ~ ~a.~ i ~:5S~iiS158i~.! i:it; 2'.i ~ 5 5 (;.!i55 i~ig~~i~jj! .;; l! Q. 5O,g sS.; ~ o..s. . .&.'-~5 ~::I" _.t= CD lS i) E ,i! ~.~; 0 _lS '" e III F;;..: -;..1:$0"00......,=0 =i2~Cll_=:.lll=O;; 51: .!!i;1;jc:5o.!..:. ~ =>2'bE !!:5,s'OCi-..,j .. ....-=1>... "_1:%,_ ':'151':1:>> 1>......I:i!l~' ;.l::41l!!~1lJ~~~Cl ;o1:~1ll=<SElIl41'O'B 0.80 E 8.5 ell: 0..cC) q; J ... g "0 .'!! e <> !?- g I: 'E ::I Gi :5 ~ ~ o 8 w:' ~ ~~ "ii CQ!l _ 0.5 0 dg ~~ en .l;: .. .. 50: c'"" !Z~ .!~ ~.~ ..~~ ::i 1i g>j: ~ t ':~ ~~ cc~~'5,$! ei:s- &_ E. -s2! 8.5! e.. I!l' o.!'l.::l .!! 58. "g" ~ 2tii e C- Q ~ 'ag.!Qi ~.~ i .e !;:::; [ - gt .. ::=:0- Cl S "" .. C III ~ ~ ~ .E .$ ~ .! E II) ~ C> C 's. '" e '" ~ ~ ~ :;:; > .. o o ...i ...i r.i .~ t:: ! <> Q:"", 1:.,8 "'5 8~ 1 E '" E ! oj$ c I ~ iii '8 ~ '" g g 'E ~ is 0' ll) .W .; Do: ~ !ca5 en::i:~ ~ "" I: .. .. '" !' >;; :) .Q 1 ~ e..... <Il~ o~ ~ 1;> ~15 .- <:: ~~ ~~ E~ ~::: !.S- 11$"" g!a mg 1:;14 -Q. .... :5i,! "'- ~= ~.~ ,~: .9- =.&; ..c'.tJ'l c: i2 ~~ ..l. N I ! I I j ! r: ~ . ~ f 'C ~ 'w ~ :::5 .c g "" Ii ~::c I ~ r~ I.' i ~ 'g. 8 ., ..... ~g e~ := 'c: em ~~ &"0 1llS! c :f! :5e- e8 os- .c:: ~;: ~; <J~ o i CD .::l is i .:5 E -:=0 i .-~ 0 8 ~; 15 W<lI!' _.. II: s: .- ::JQ~ 'O~ <cc'!]~ .....;so-os. II: 4. il g-- .. ~~~8~~ ~Jl::o.:~.! Q.~u,g:ev 8: ,;n '0 e,-CO(l)' S ~ g,~(j; al~O<D-2 ..o"Cg.<'J ~~~Q.': i ~ 8.~ i ~Q,8Hi2 E!.s.....- 8;5~ i u: Ii :: <> -. N Z E 4> :t .J:--. Q)~ ,S .t g>~ c " ~ ,~ :t ;; ~~ (S~ ....'" :;:;2 >- ~.,S QQ: ciC'O ';~.~ 5.0"3 ~ Ii ., <}'.- re ~, e: "0 :: <ll.c ~g=,~ Ql ~ l?:t3 5 ~~ S. .!!g. &. 1 ,; 0"0 "5 :o.cC"'O -'-CQ) ! :; O).c "C-5.s:i f?'O~i,! sirs c; ~_o_ ~....""' .. :0,.2 0 5 .s Jla ... 15~!e.8, ~"cl\lll/ .e ~ &~ ~ C;;;0MII# Gigi!'iiO~ ='OjJ:s :!:9.-:Ci.S -. CD 0) >. " .;!:o.2<::'CC:. 1:'~;!..2 ~~ B ~ <<> O<S~.., _ a.~Q.;-! :it ~lq~,5'" o ~ a$ ~ !:i;l!io~ 5:! s'i~~~... g !!: l!!:; <:: ~ 'l!", '~ ~ .g il ~ j ClI' ." W =>.;<.2l g oB >. "', U_i:S"'ClIll)<., 1:l >- ..e'. "':~ a:: 2 I::e ~& ~ 1: II> .. '" ~ ~e :> .c 'to .'!! ,:. s~ Illll) 0= -~~ .9 ;: :a:::. ~~ .:.:"5 ~,~ ~S Ill"" ~5 ~'a - Q. Ill. III ;, 9! 0= ;-~ 4l. 3: .~:.g. :;,.:= .0'" c: =0 <Il. "" -.. .. - ,- .. ..l. 11i '" 4> e .! .Q g "" 0: :c !! III e 'C .. c., C .2 .! g. 8 .. .... o :Z:"" ..f!.g :uE .~~~ ~;o ~i ~'! <:>g. :58 :':e !'c ..." S::.... ~! 115 05 Is I~ dil I'~ ~ d!. i~ '~ I ~ .0 iN L"" ~~~ "!~~ ~n -~-& . '" j( ~ ! i i .,,~ "'_l:! pa ~il .....: x '--'-, ., ---,',,' , , ',',', - ,. '. ,'. . "',',',--,,,'-. " OCEAN PR~PERTJES~LC Agenda Iteipst5,t6,,1.17.. PQg~>~1 Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 4 Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: The height of the building? Would you explain that again? Eddie Bourdon: Only on the eastern side of the building? Ronald Ripley: Next to Wawa? Eddie Bourdon: Next to Wawa, in this area, the peak of the roof is 63 feet. It is 35 feet within 100 feet of our west and 100 feet of Shore Drive. This is the section where the under-building parking exists, and that is the section where the roofliries are most complex. It is a beautiful elevation. You've seen it. That height is to create that attractive roofline. That is where you get a little bit more height. But it is 63 feet. That is certainly nothing spectacular. Three stories of residences with parking underneath. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you very much. Joseph strange: Speaking in support we have Judy... Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. The property owners are here in support. Would you all please stand? These are the people who own some of those homes on that street. I'm sorry Mr. Strange. Barry Knight: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Judy? I'm having trouble with this name. Judy Freitas: Penny Smith is going to speak for me. She is one of the homeowners. Eddie Bourdon: It is a property owner. The only property owner that is going to speak is Penny Smith. She should have put a card in there. Barry Knight: Thank you. We1come ma' am. Penny Smith: Thank you. Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record. Penny Smith: Good afternoon. My name is Penny Smith. Now I know what a hard job you have. I would like to address the Lake Bradford condominiums. I am one of the ten Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 5 25 years. I'm the oldie, and I was the newby. Some of us have had children or have children attending the Virginia Beach schools. You drive by and see our properties and one might think that ours is in the lost corridor. And it is on Shore Drive. Our homes no longer fit the area. Across Shore Drive is a commercial shopping center and there are about 20 stores there. There is a condominium next to us, and Wawa on the other side. Many of these establishments have made a tremendous improvement in our area but our single-family homes no longer fit. These houses were built some 60 years ago when things were a lot different. Shore Drive was a lot different when I moved here. Of nine houses, only four that are situated on Shore Drive have City water and sewer and I am not one of them. Also, the four houses on Shore Drive once had longer front yards, and have given that to the City to widen the road. But it reduces our ability to landscape and reduce SOme of the noise. Some of them are worried that it might affect the access to Chick's Beach. I rarely go that way because of the congestion from Pleasure House down to Great Neck. I go the other way. Anyone who lives on Shore Drive will tell you where the traffic is. Our 3 to 4 acres is a diamond in the rough. They will utilize Lake Bradford, which we have never been able to do. I couldn't afford to clean up back there and have the beauty of Lake Bradford, and the developer will be able to do that. We put up hedges and all for Wawa, but it is not enough and it is too costly. I think this will be a benefit to everyone involved. The new owners, Lake Bradford, Virginia Beach schools and the City's infrastructure. That is all that I have to say. Barry Knight: Thank you. Penny Smith: Are there any questions? Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am. Penny Smith: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Steve Kohler. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record. Steve Kohler: I'm Steve Kohler. I'm the President of the Chesapeake Beach Civic League. I was here back in January, which you probably all recall. I'll try to be as brief as possible. Basically, our residents in the neighborhood received a flyer in the January newsletter detailing this proposed project. At our January civic league general meeting, we presented an overview of this project based on information from the public presentation at the January 11,2006 Planning Commission meeting. So our residents are familiar with this project. After both these efforts to inform our membership of these issues, our civic league voted unanimously to oppose any rezoning of the property at Shore Drive and North Oliver Drive, and that still stands on our record, and has not changed. We also oppose this particular plan. In our opinion, this proposal has not changed significantly since that time. In addition, over 600 signatures have been Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 6 collected in opposition of this project so far. I'm not sure if you're aware of that? Our civic league opposes this project for several reasons, which will be presented by the following speakers today. One of the reasons we oppose this project is because of the approximately eight-fold increase in density for nine single-family homes to 77 or more units. I do not believe that this project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this Primary Residential Area. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan states simply on pages 95 and 96, "the recent history of development in the corridor is characterized by too high density on too small parcels of land", which I also saw was in the proposal, which you all have now. In addition, the ULI (the Urban Land Institute) Bayfront Study states on page 33 that, "many of the communities are made up of single-family homes and should be protected from intrusion of higher density development". There are single-family homes across the street on South Oliver Drive. It is not all just a shopping center. And directly behind the proposed development there are also single-family homes. The ULI study says, "the density of new development of this area should not overwhelm the community." Our community believes that the density of this project is still too high and will overwhelm the community. Further, based on the Comprehensive Plan technical data from 2000, the Bayfront area already has the highest density in the city at 9.4 people per acre with the next highest at 7 people per acre. Given that the proposed site is 3.5 acres and the average number of people per dwelling is 2.33 and the Bayfront area is almost lO-people per acre, would result in 15.5 volume, which is exactly what that current zoning of R-lO would produce. Ed Weeden: You have about 20 seconds. Steve Kohler: I'll tie this up as quickly as possible. Therefore, the current zoning already would allow the area to maintain the highest density in the city of almost 10 people per acre. Our civic league sees no valid reason for rezoning this property. We ask you not to encourage their support, and create an even higher discrepancy in density between the Bayfront area and other areas in the city by allowing this rezoning. I would just like to close with mentioning the following organizations that are officially opposed to this rezoning and the project. The Waters Point Condo Home Owners Association, The Baylake Pines Civic League, Ocean Park Civic League, Shore Drive Community Coalition, Cape Story by the Sea Civic League, and Lynnhaven Colony, which voted at the SDCC meeting to oppose this project. Are there any questions? Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Kohler? Thank you sir. Steve Kohler: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Mark Walker. Mark Walker: Thank you so much. My name is Mark Walker. I handed out a copy of what I'm about to say. I'm just going to read it word for word. I am going to try to be quick. There is a lot of stuff. Again, my name is Mark Walker. I'm a registered architect Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 7 and I've been in the industry for over 27 years. I'm a resident of Chesapeake Beach since 1979, and I'm opposed to this proposed project. Although I have great respect for the Planning Department and Planning Commission, I strongly feel that the 77 -unit condominium project as proposed in this rezoning request, is not in compliance with the ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning application identifies the proposed project as being within the Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site #1) and quotes from the page 89 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which was mentioned by Mr. Kohler, stating that land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on "persevering and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods." I fail to understand how this project can preserve and protect the overall character and aesthetic quality of the adjacentA-12 medium density nor the R-lO low-density neighborhoods. On the contrary, the project proposes high density, nearly comparable to an A-24 development with unlimited height restriction, showing a 70-foot tall building. I guess that should be amended to 63 or in that range as Mr. Bourdon mentioned. This development will be nearly twice the density of the A-12 property to the west and nearly six times the density of the current zoning and twice the height of any other structures within the immediate visible area. The Comprehensive Plan further states, on pages 95 & 96, "The recent history of development in the (Shore Drive) corridor has been characterized by too high density on too small parcels of land, and the Shore Drive Overlay District is intended in part, to restore the property balance." This proposed 77 unit condo project is precisely the type of development to which this previous statement is referring - too high density on too small parcels of land." It seems to me how could this be more clear? The major objectives of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan are stated on page 16 of the plan, "to protect and enhance the quality of residential communities in the corridor." This objective is further reinforced on page 8, "new development and redevelopment in the (Shore Drive) area should be oriented towards protection and enhancement of the character of existing residential neighborhoods." In the ULI Bayfront Study, on page 33, the study states, "many of the communities (along Shore Drive) are made up of single-family homes and should be protected from the intrusion of higher density development." In closing, none of the three documents I've referenced, the ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan support this proposed project and neither do I. This high density project will not improve the quality of life for citizens along the Shore Drive corridor, so please don't allow it. Thank you. Barry Knight: Any questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: I got a question. Mark Walker: Yes sir. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 8 Ronald Ripley: Not withstanding this use, what infrastructure on this road in this vicinity is lacking? What in your mind should be an infrastructure improvement in this area that would make it work better? Mark Walker: Why not leave it as it is? Ronald Ripley: Leave the road like it is? Mark Walker: You mean infrastructure in the road itself and not the development we're trying to replace? Ronald Ripley: Road. Sidewalks. Crosswalks. Mark Walker: Got you. I would say infrastructure-wise, sidewalks on both sides. I would widen the sidewalks from the proposed five feet to about eight feet so that people can pass with either cycling or walking. I think five feet is too narrow. Crosswalks are desperately needed in that area. The only place you can cross is at the intersection safely. If there is influx of people right in that proposed project, how are they going to get across safely? I mean there is no crosswalk plan. There are no light plans. If you do put a light in there, you're only going to be about 300 feet from the intersection of Shore Drive and Pleasure House, which there are so many problems now trying to go from Wawa and trying to go east on Shore Drive. First, you have to go west. You have to make a u-turn at Oliver Street to go east. Well, all of these people from Wawa are trying to go east are trying to adjust position in getting into the left lane to make that left turn into the eastbound lane. You're going to have another 178 potential cars trying to do the same thing. Frankly, I think it is a recipe for disaster. Ronald Ripley: Thank. you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Bernas. Mark W alker: Yes sir. Jay Bernas: You had mentioned that you don't like high density of it. What would you recommend that you leave it as R-lO? Mark Walker: That is exactly what I recommend. But the whole corridor in there is exploding to the point where traffic, I guess you've driven Shore Drive lately, but the traffic is getting impossible. Pedestrians are trying to cross. That is sort of a beach community, and there are a lot of people on foot through there, and it is very difficult in the Shore Drive corridor to do anything on foot because it is unsafe. I tried to ride my bike over there along Shore Drive about a year ago, and was nearly hit myself. I mean it is very, very tough. I would keep density as it is. I don't see any reason. I mean the neighborhood there and the houses are nice houses. I'm sure that those who are in favor Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 9 of this project like the idea that the developer is going to be giving them large money for their houses because he's got that built that into his project. Normally, the house values wouldn't be selling for as much. I'm sure the developer is offering them, but I don't know that for a fact, but I would assume that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Thank you sir. Mark Walker: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Todd Solomon. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Todd Solomon: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Solomon. I'm here representing the Shore Drive Community Coalition Organization of about 25 civic and condo associations on Shore Drive. I'm also representing Cape Story by the Sea, which is one of the residential districts along Shore Drive, which Mr. Bourdon forgot to mention in this area. I did pass out a previous letter that was sent to you as far as the Shore Drive Community Coalition, the last time this was visited. The Shore Drive Community Coalition, after that last meetfng, was met by the developer at our general meeting and since then nothing has changed as far as the Shore Drive Community Coalition's opinion goes on this project. The reduction in height and some of the other issues haven't changed enough for the Shore Drive Community Coalition to take a different stance on that issue. My topic of speech today was height. I thought it was going to be the easiest discussion; however, I've yet to determine exactly what the height of this project is. We have been told several different things. You see in the minutes from the January meeting that it could be 45 to 48 feet in height in the back, the high side. It could 35 to 40 in the front. When the developer came to our meeting he mentioned the highest point would be 70 feet. I'm hearing today that it is 63 feet, 35 foot on the front. I'm not exactly sure what section this elevation shows you. Is that the three-story or is that the four-story? That's Wawa section or not? I'm assuming it's the four-story section with parking underneath. But the three-story section obviously is going to be at least 12 foot levels. So you're talking at least 35 to 36 feet if you don't put a roof on it and some other things. So, I'm assuming that these numbers at some point should be justified. But this project would be the largest project west ofBayvista, which is next to the Lesner Bridge. That is the pictures that I've shown to you on that second page there. Everything west of that will be the tallest project, basically double the size of the surrounding residential and A-12 35-foot projects. If you could kind of picture that development roughly that size in that area, sticking out like sore thumb. Ed Weeden: Mr. Solomon, about 30 seconds. Todd Solomon: I see that. Thank you. The facility next to Kroger is taller than 35 feet, however it is kind of buffered by the fact that Northampton Boulevard is at an elevation __ Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 10 so it doesn't look quite as tall. That Bayvista project was also recommended by staff and it did not conclude with the height and bulk of a Conditional Use Permit at one point in time. I would suggest that this project also fall into that same category. Are there any questions? Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Solomon? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Todd, do you have more you need to say? Todd Solomon: I do have a quick deal about the density also to tie into what one of the other speakers mentioned. This project, as you all hopefully all know- that Bayfront area is the highest density in all of Virginia Beach at 9 Y2 people per acre; _ The average on this project would be a density of approximately 50 people per acre. If you put that many units on there, that is about 2Y2 people per home in that range. So it would be 50 people per acre. That is one thing that the Shore Drive Community Coalition and the rest of the civic groups to -- the increase in density. Weare seeing this as a trend sending precedent not only for height but also for density. We've noticed a lot, and you have already seen all the requests to change B-2s to B-4s to put multi-family dwellings along Shore Drive. This is even more so as a change in residential zoning to put in a B-4. Once this project is approved, if it is approved, it will open the doors also to more B-4 residential or B-2's abutting residential, which you may see on some of these B-2. They may want to change that over and get rid of the restaurant and build multi-family, you could acquire some residential behind it too. I'm sure coming here and requesting rezoning. That is our fear. That we're not only taking B-2s and changing them to B-4s as an increase in density, but we're also taking residential and increasing the zoning to increase the density. Barry Knight: Thanks. Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Todd, we all agree with what you do. I think you have been down here since I've been on Planning Commission on various issues, and thank you. What would you be happy with since a single-family home is probably out? Todd Solomon: I wouldn't mind seeing, and I know you can do 14, may be 15 if it is, if you did 7 or 8 duplex townhome type units, which has actually done a lot on the R-5R throughout our neighborhood. They can knock it down and put two homes on it. If you did 14 or 15 of those and kept them at 35-foot requirement, a three-story requirement at 35 foot, I think it would fit in nicely. Nobody in the Coalition is opposed to redeveloping that property. It is just the high density in the large scale and the height of it. I believe that some of the pine trees there are probably not 70 foot tall either. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Todd. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Solomon? Thank you. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 11 Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Daphne Atkins. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Daphne Atkins: Hi. Barry Knight: Please state your name please? Daphne Atkins: My name is Daphne Atkins, and I live in Chesapeake Beach. I'm the Vice President of the Shore Drive Community Coalition, and I was on the Shore Drive Safety Task Force. In addition to all of that, I actually work, and I thought taking a half hour or so today. I wish I had lunch before I came. Anyway, I understand you were waiting for the Task Force to make a decision about what to do on this property. And you can see the suggestions we came up with in our report. The Task Force was necessary because of the increase of fatalities on Shore Drive. It is already a high-risk road. Many of you might be familiar with the death sign on Shore Drive. It was created in 1977, and since 1977, there have been 89 deaths on Shore Drive. That averages out to 3.1 per year. Last year we had six. And five of those were pedestrians. The Task Force came up with many suggestions. Everything from sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and looking at the speed limit to having the Planning Department and City officials review the many studies. All the studies they quoted, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, the ULI Study, the Overlay District, those need to be looked at in light of density recommendations because density is what has created the problem on Shore Drive. I know some people think we can have high density, and we could have a lot of people high density and still make it safe, but Shore Drive passed that point 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, we are playing catch up on Shore Drive in trying to get it to be safe from what's there currently. B-4 zoning specially is what we're trying to avoid on Shore Drive, and that is why we want them to look at that and to reconsider. It is seems like when the public looks at that, and what we think that document says and what some times comes out of Planning or developers or other people think says are two different things. So, this is one reason that we feel like you should deny this change of zoning. A second reason is the five pedestrian deaths in one year, and only one of those incidents involved drinking. It had two people involved in it, but I know we hear a lot about DUI's and everybody is drunk on Shore Drive. Everybody walking is drunk. Everybody riding a bike is drunk. Everybody driving is drunk. That is absolutely not true. One incident with the two victims involved alcohol for part of the people walking across Shore Drive. But like I say, you build five condos around a bar, buy high-density condos around a bar, somebody is going to walk in and have a drink; so, the fact that this development would be mid-block, with overflow parking going across the street according to Mr. Bourdon, this project is an accident waiting to happen. We don't need these people crossing Shore Drive. Reason number three is traffic flow. I know Mr. Bourdon said that everybody coming out of here would be turning right and going down Independence. That is because you can't turn left. We already have a lot of u-turns on Shore Drive between people trying to get to the Wawa, going east and people coming out of the Wawa and trying to turn back around and go east. People would be Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 12 coming out of this street and trying to turn around and go back towards the Oceanfront, because the whole reason why Shore Drive is so popular is not because of what is to the right going towards Norfolk but because people want to live there because of what is to the left all the way down to the Oceanfront. So that is the third reason we think you should deny this. Reason number four is the Task Force recommendations evaluating access points and this creates another mid-block access point out onto Shore Drive with all the obvious problems that go on with that. I could continue going through the report. The problem with density is referenced on page 16. It is an 18-page report, but I don't think you want me to talk that long. I think these are stand-out reasons. And in conclusion the developer chose to go to Shore Drive in Virginia Beach to build his condo instead of Norfolk. Probably one of the reasons he did that was because Norfolk wouldn't approve it. Because one of the things they keep saying is they don't want to become another Shore Drive. And this section of Shore Drive is different than what's farther up towards the Lesner Bridge. This is more of a family, single-family type section of Shore Drive and some duplexes. So, we would really just like to have it stay that way, and not scatter the problems we already have. Barry Knight: Thank you ma' am. Daphne Atkins: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Ms. Atkins? Ronald Ripley: You mentioned access, how else would you access it? Because there is one access point to this property. You have to have access. So, how would you do it? Daphne Atkins: We realize you have to have access but what it is zoned for now you would have 15 houses zoned to access out onto Shore Drive versus 77 condos. That is just a lot more people. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You're talking about the number of cars? Okay. I'm sorry. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Ronda Morrison. Barry Knight: We1come ma' am. Ronda Morrison: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Ronda Morrison. I represent Ocean Park Civic League. I am here today to talk to you about traffic volume in that area. Our current traffic volume on Shore Drive, according to this report, is 22,516 average daily trips. With the capacity of 28,200 average daily trips. This will increase that by 505 I believe, was the exact total daily average trips. It would continue to do this with this development. In the next month, doing this development, we are very quickly going to Item #15,16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 13 surpass our 28,200 average daily trips very quickly. Also, of utmost importance is the vehicular ingress/egress to the property. There would no longer be a median break in front of North Oliver. People will have to make the left. They will have to make a u-turn to go east bound on Shore Drive. If someone is coming home from work from Norfolk, they will have to go down to Pleasure House Road, make the u-turn to come back into their property. So either way you are traveling you are going to have to make a u-turn on Shore Drive. We already have an issue at Pleasure House Point where people are having to make that u-turn if they're coming eastbound on Shore Drive to go into the Wawa. So that is just going to create a larger problem than what we already have. The traffic back- ups are already affecting the Fire Department and Rescue Squad that is located down off Pleasure House Road. This is going to increase the density in that area. They currently sometimes have to go down the wrong side of the road to get out to Shore Drive. This is going to make it much worse. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions for Ms. Morrison? Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Brian Camden. Barry Knight: We1come sir. Brian Camden: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Camden. I'm a 25 year resident of Chesapeake Beach. I'm also a civil engineer and a developer of almost 200 condos under construction currently. The civic league asked me to take a look at this property and to comment as a development. One thing that did jump up, and I heard earlier, they said there was no City water or sewer to this. I noticed here in staff s review of this that there is six-inch water main running into and down Oliver Drive. There is an existing eight- inch sanitary sewer and a 24-inch HRSD force main on Shore Drive. I don't know if it is existing or not, but apparently staff thinks it is. Faith Christie: They're at the intersection. Brian Camden: The project itself, and here again as a developer, I kind of disagree with some of my neighbors on this. I think the project should be developed. In its current zoning right now, you could put 15 custom homes in there. Fifteen custom homes right now would probably generate a profit of right around $1,530,000.00. At 77 units, and condos is what they want to change to, you could probably generate a profit of right around $5,544,000.00. As a developer, we're all out obviously to make as much money as we can on this. But the fact of the matter is that this property -- I don't know if you've been down there -- but this thing is full of beautiful sea oaks, a lot of pine trees, and stuff like that. The development that they currently got planned is a "strip mine" type of development, where they're going to bulldoze all these old trees and come in there and put in a big box type structure. If you develop it and kept it at its current zoning, and just put in 15 nice custom homes, you will be able to make a million or a million and a half in profit, and you would be able to keep a good deal of the existing trees that are out there. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 14 And finally, just let me say that this is a cul-de-sac that you're building. You're putting in 77 units in to a cul-de-sac. Nowhere in the city are you allowed to do that right now. That's it. Barry Knight: Mr. Camden thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Leslie Cornwell. Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am. Leslie Cornwell: Hi. Good afternoon. I am Leslie Cornwell, and I'ni representing the Bay1ake'Pines Civic League. On January 23,2006, our members voted to oppose this project on Ocean Properties and the rezoning from R-lO to B-4. The speakers before me have done a wonderful job explaining in detail the reasons why you should deny this development and the zoning change. Simply put, the Bayfront area is in trouble. High density and the types of construction that have been allowed to be built has had a devastating impact on the culture and the character that we once had. Our roads are becoming overwhelmed and we continue to compete for funding of the Shore Drive improvement projects. Our residents are being killed, because they lack the basic pedestrian safety infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike trails, and pedestrian crosswalks. Again, we are fighting to fund the recommendations of the Shore Drive Safety Task Force. Recommendations for public safety, because we can no longer wait for the improvement projects that are years away from ever being constructed, for our need for more police, fire, and EMS staffing. Our open space has been consumed by development, and in 2000, the Outdoors Plan stated that we needed 82 acres to adequately serve our existence, 82 more acres. Here we are six years later with even a greater population, and currently high-density developments are planned for the last few years of open space. No wonder the City of Norfolk is using the Bayfront as an example of what not to do. We all hold responsibility in what has happened to our community. The resident that can't resist an enormous offer for their property. The builder that focuses to much on profit and not enough on building a project that would enhance and blend with the surrounding community. And most of all the City. City Planning and this Board continually deviate from the consistent frame of the ULI and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Overlay, which were meant to preserve and protect the single-family homes and neighborhoods. We can no longer continue on this course. We need a vision that incorporates all of these studies and plans along with developers, and most of all, the residents, to come up with a redevelopment strategy that would retain what is left of the unique character of our community, and allow us to leave a legacy that we can all be proud of. A plan that includes more than guidelines, but is a power to ensure this vision is followed. We do not oppose redevelopment, but we must demand reasonable development that does not overpower a community, but blends and enhances. Until the Bayfront finally receives the funding for our overwhelmed infrastructure, and Phases I through IV are completed, we can no longer tolerate or even consider this type of high density development. We ask this Board to work with the City Planning Department and Council to reevaluate the Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 15 Shore Drive Corridor Plan and the Overlay. We are in desperate need for a plan that will finally protect and preserve our single-family neighborhoods. When you look at the whole picture and not just one single development, you finally can comprehend what is happening to Bayfront area. You have to understand that this development and this rezoning cannot be approved. The only other quick statement that I wanted to make is that it is kind of misconceiving when they make the comment that "Baylake Pines is the only the single-family on Shore Drive. "There are single families across the street, on Pleasure House Road. You have Chick's Beach. You have Bayville Park before you even get to Baylake Pines. Yes, I realize we are maybe the only ones that literally have a home on Shore Drive, there are a lot of single-family homes in this area and the impact is really, as you can see, not been good and very negative. We need to stop and look at what we have been doing. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Cornwell. Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am. Leslie Cornwell: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Robert Costello. Barry KnIght: Welcome sir. Robert Costello: Hi. I'm Robert Costello. I live on Bradpointe Lane off of Pleasure House Road. Commissioner Wood quoted earlier from the Virginian-Pilot article that stated that "residents have a good reason to be wary of developers and their project." It is unfortunate when a City Council and a Planning Commission places the City's residents in such a position that the residents are given a good reason to be wary of builders and their projects. Residents in Chesapeake Beach area and all along Shore Drive are painfully aware of the uncontrolled increase in density along Shore Drive and the absolute lack of added infrastructure in the face of that increased density. The lack of infrastructure and the uncontrolled rise in density have created an expediential increase in the safety hazards to the residences along the Shore Drive corridor. In the 19 years that I've owned my house in Chesapeake Beach, I have not seen any improvements on the infrastructure. I appreciate that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force and the Shore Drive Advisory Committee have made recommendations to improve the infrastructure along Shore Drive, but only when the changes to infrastructure are actually approved by Council and funded, then it will be seen that the City is doing something to improve the safety along Shore Drive. Until such a time, approving large-scale developments, which cause the multi-fold increase of population density, will give the appearance that the City is more interested in increasing the tax revenue base then they are in the safety of residents. Mr. Bourdon is fine at pointing out precedents that are established when the Commission and the City Council approve certain building projects. This project will be the first of its kind not just in Chesapeake Beach, but the first on Shore Drive, west of Albemarle. This will be a bad precedent. The City had a good reason when they originally designated this area as R-lO Residential. Don't second guess those City Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 16 administrators who did so. Leave it zoned the way it is as R-lO. Do not change the zoning to B-4. In his testimony in front of the Commission, Mr. Bourdon has stated that this project will provide economic revitalization to the area. That is a joke. This is not an area suffering from blight. Every available space in the Bayside Shopping Center across the street from this proposed project is leased. There are no empty commercial properties where they're looking for business. This is not a proposal that will alleviate blight. This is a redevelopment out of greed to maximize the amount of properties that can be stacked on top of any given area property. I request again that you oppose this proposal. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Costello. Are there any questions? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Patricia Costello. Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am. Patricia Costello: Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Patricia Costello. You have listened to people who are very educated and have been in the business and they're the best representatives of the residents of Chesapeake Beach that we could ask for and come and plead- our case in front of you. I'm very proud of them. I'm in here because I'm the emotional type, and I want to represent to you the hundreds of residents of Chesapeake Beach that feel as strongly as I do that this is not the right use for this property. It is actually a very good pleasant-looking building. It deserves to have some space around it, so that the people who live there have room to breathe. They won't have room to breathe if it is built right here on Shore Drive. I drive down that street every single day and sometimes multiple times a day, so I can attest to that. I hope that you will listen to people who have communicated with you, because each person who actually writes to you or sends you an emai1, is representing dozens, if not hundreds of people in our neighborhood who have signed petitions and who feel as passionately about this as I am speaking right now. I know that you have to make business decisions. And think about the tax revenue that you will collect from these propertie. But we firinly believe that leaving it as R-lO and putting in excellent quality single-family homes will bring in the property balance between what the community can sustain and what the City can receive as tax revenue. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? Joseph Strange: Those are all the speakers. Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Okay. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Knight. First of all, I do appreciate the comments of all the speakers who have spoken. I certainly don't intend to evolve into name calling and characterization. But I will say a couple of things regarding what is patently obvious, and Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 17 that is the land use pattern along Shore Drive in this section of Shore Drive is not single- family residential land use on Shore Drive. Clearly, the only, because there is no single- family zoned property on this section of Shore Drive across the street on South Oliver, as I think it was insinuated is zoned. Both sides of South Oliver on Shore Drive is zoned B- 2 commercial. Mr. Solomon is correct. I didn't talk about Cape Story by the Sea, which is east of Great Neck Road and is five miles from this property, and all of that property in that section of Shore Drive is single-family and that is exactly what the ULI Study was talking about. That section of Shore Drive, as well as Baylake Pines in the section of Shore Drive, are the only sections not already completely commercial and multi-family residential development. This is the only piece of property in this section of Shore Drive from Independence Boulevard on the west, and actually west of Independence Boulevard, all the way to Baylake Pines. Everything on both sides of Shore Drive is all commercial or multi-family residential. There is no single-family zoning or single-family land use. And that is a fact. There is a break behind this property. You got Wawa. You got the break of the Lake Bradford watershed. You got the multi-family and you got multi- family to our west. So, the ULI Study - it is disingenuous for Mark Walker or anyone else to suggest -- that study was saying that this little enclave the only single-families, is an island that everyone forgot, that it is intended to say we need to preserve that single- family. I'm sorry if any of you have been on that street, and can look at those 60 year old houses that do not have water and sewer. Water and sewer does not extend down or up North Oliver Drive. I'm sorry. That part is absolutely disingenuous. I absolutely do agree, and we do agree that infrastructure is needed in that area, but redevelopment doesn't happen the way the gentleman spoke of. His numbers don't make sense. Judy Freitas, who is a commercial realtor has asked that she be permitted to speak. I've explained to her that I don't know if you could allow someone to speak in rebuttal that did not speak initially. But, the City of Norfolk would love to have this project. It is a beautiful project. I'm also glad that Todd indicated correctly that the four-story building senior housing facility next to Kroger is right down the street and is viewable from this piece of property. It is similar in height. In fact, it is higher overall than this because it is that height entirely, but this just has one small section that is more than 35 to 45 feet. I'll be happy to answer your questions. Three minutes is not very long.! don't know whether or not you will allow Ms. Freitas to speak or not. Judy Freitas: I have some information. Barry Knight: Did she sign in? Joseph Strange: She signed in. I called her name and she didn't want to speak. Barry Knight: What is the information? Does anyone want to sponsor her?e Kathy Katsias: I'll sponsor her. Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am. Please identify yourself. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 18 Judy Freitas: Thank you very much. My name is Judy Freitas. I am a residential commercial, 22 years in real estate, and I'm a broker for Long and Foster. I also want you to know that I am a registered nurse. I also want you to know that I ran rescue for a year and a half at Station 14 at the Oceanfront. I'm about people. I'm all about health. I need to express, sitting there, and it was just jumping out of me. I appreciate the engineer, the developer and what they're saying. If you drive by this community, it is isolated. These are nine parcels completely surrounded by multi-family, commercial, and shopping centers. They're 60-year old properties. The only four that have City water and City sewage are the front ones facing Shore Drive. Two and half years ago, I know for a fact that Edie Hughes and her husband tried desperately to get City water and City sewage to go through the back. She is all the way to the back on Lake Bradford. 'People don't even know it exists back there because from that front of Shore Drive, when you drive by there, it is a site not for pleasant viewing. And from my 22 years of experience, I can tell you that this is not about money. You could rip down these 60 year old buildings, and you could attempt to put up single-family homes, and I couldn't tell you one person that would want to purchase a single-family residence among multi-family commercial and four lanes. This developer is going in there proposing sidewalks. He is proposing to maintain the beauty of Lake Bradford. It will be more accessible. This does not cut off in any way Chick's Beach. It doesn't affect Chick's Beach. It didn't in the beginning. It is far enough west on Shore Drive. The military base is basically the next gate up from after the multi-family. Ijust got a little confused sitting there. Some ofthe subdivisions that came up are not even remotely close to what we're referencing here. That is why I needed for you to understand I'm not coming here as a broker. I love people. I wouldn't have been a registered nurse. I would not have done rescue and devoted a lot of other things, and I don't want to get all into that. That is all that I wanted to say. I do appreciate you listening to me. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you. Ms. Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Do you live there ma'am? Judy Freitas: I live in Little Neck in Virginia Beach and a 22-year resident. Dorothy Wood: What is your connection with this property? Judy Freitas: I am the broker of Long and Foster representing the sellers and I've walked the property. I bought the parcel. I said that when I came up. I didn't try to hide my identity in any way, shape or form. Dorothy Wood: I didn't say that. Judy Freitas: I apologize. But I didn't want to hide my identity. I wasn't here for any other purpose. That is why I chose not to speak. But when I started hearing some of the Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 19 things that were mentioned. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: Has the developer considered -- and I think one of the recommendations was the lower density and making it duplex versus multi-family -- have they considered making it 17 duplexes? Judy Freitas: All that I am aware of, because I know Eddie Bourdon would have to address this, but I know he has brought down the noise decibel level according to the City Council and the second go around on his aesthetics only with shrubbeiy and bushes and trees and his preservation of Lake Bradford and keeping that natural environment as to the beauty as it should be. Kathy Katsias: That wasn't my question. I was lowering the density. Judy Freitas: The density. He did as requested, but I don't know if its gotten any lower than that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions for Me. Bourdon? Okay. Ms. Katsias. Mr. Bourdon. Kathy Katsias: My question to you is has the developer entertained the duplex? Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Katsias. Most of you certainly recognize the cost of redeveloping a site like this with the demolition costs and the asbestos removal cost in these older homes. It is really prohibitive. The idea that was put forth that someone could make a million and half dollars by redeveloping this property into some number of single-family homes. I've represented, as you all know, represented a lot of developers. Our firm does well. I don't want to insult anybody. It is absolutely not feasible. It would not be able to done. 1'11 simply say it that way. The numbers are numbers that will make this doable. You get down in that situation. It isn't doable. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, obviously you have a few people in opposition today. Did you know that? What could you see here that you could do perhaps with this property? It is a beautiful design. Could it be smaller? What could you do? I'm just asking a question. Eddie Bourdon: No. Ms. Wood, I certainly understand and appreciate that. I absolutely can assure you that your question has been asked of the developer and his architect long before today. Okay. The opposition does not come as a surprise to them nor to me. And, they have looked at every way to make this work, and make it feasible. The reality is if this project is not one that is approvable, they can't make the numbers work, and they will Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 20 not be able to do anything. Again, this didn't come as a surprise. Some of the comments maybe, but overall it isn't doable. It isn't feasible. This will more than likely, if this project or something of the same sort is not approved, and I would just point out that last summer in the heart of Ocean Park, the Colley Marine site zoned B-2 was rezoned B-4 for a similar high quality residential development without any opposition. It has been not even a year; so this developer is looking at this as a far better location than that, from a traffic standpoint and everything else. We believe this is consistent with the Shore Drive, ULI, and Corridor Study, which we all withdrew and which we approved that rezoning. Council approved the Colley Marine rezoning, and it wasn't even controversial. And this is less density than that was in terms of the per acre number of units now that we have reduced it. So, there are some inconsistencies here on part of the opposition. I do understand, and I can sympathize with, the fact that there is a perception, not an inaccurate one, that infrastructure improvements, sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian connection need to happen on Shore Drive. They absolutely have to. I was at the Council meeting last night, and the City actually got an award last night as the sixth best most walkable city in the country. I sat there and said, there is some merit to that, but I can tell you that there is a tremendous place that we can get number one, and that is what we need to do on Shore Drive plus when the Transition Area gets there with all those trails. Ten years from now, hoping sooner on Shore Drive, we'll be number one in that walkability thing, I can tell you that. The entire area of Shore Drive needs walkability. There is no disagreement about that whatsoever. Dorothy Wood: I don't mean to ask you the same question in a different way, but... Eddie Bourdon: That's okay. Dorothy Wood: What about the back buildings? The ones that people seem to have a problem with them being so high? Is there anything to bring them down? Eddie Bourdon: That would necessitate eliminating the under the building parking. Part of the attractiveness and appearance is that you don't have a sea of parking. Dorothy Wood: I know. I'm just trying to see what we can do. Eddie Bourdon: What you will see from Shore Drive is 35 feet. It's back behind it. Back behind the wall there would be portions that would be a little bit taller. A four-story senior housing facility next to the grocery store is actually a much larger building overall. Todd.'s point is not without merit that on the Northampton side, because of the on-ramp being elevated, it does, from that side, not have the same height appearance. But from the Shore Drive side, it does. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 21 Barry Knight: Okay Commissioners. I'll open it for discussion among us. Who would like to start? Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I think were beating this thing around. This is the second time around. I heard the same thing today that I heard back in January. I haven't heard anything different, except for the fact that the developer has redesigned his units. They seem to be conforming with the safety study as much as can be done, as far as what they're building and what they're putting in. The thing we heard, that we started off with, was wait until the Shore Drive Safety Council met. They've met. They've given their report. I don't see as to where it is really affected us this much. If anything, I think the developer has improved it to some extent. So, the purpose of the deferral has been met from my standpoint of view. So consequently, I see moving if forward. I'm going to support the application. Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Henley. Al Henley: I'm very familiar with the Chesapeake Beach area, and in particular Chick's Beach. As a matter of fact, I remember finally visiting my great aunt who lived behind Frankies on Lookout Road for many years. Those times have changed a great deal. Virginia Beach has changed a great deal. Who would visualize we would have 400,000 people living in our midst. Shore Drive is obviously one area that is of great concern and safety. I would say, Mr. Bourdon, that I think your client should be applauded by trying to work wi~h the community by lowering it with less units and also, on the traffic study, by eliminating the cut-through median and a left lane. I think that was absolutely a hazard. But, I guess what I'm summing up to, is that I will not be able to support this today primarily because of the density on the small piece of property. I can sympathize with both parties in opposition as well as in favor of this. If I lived there, I would want better conditions as well. But also, I am concerned with the residents that came in today in opposition to speak against this. They had some excellent points in here, and if I lived in that area, I would probably feel the same way. I do not. I live across the other end of town. But it is a beautiful complex. If it was on a different parcel of property, I think it would be absolutely gorgeous. It is a beachy unit, and it serves well because it's in the City of Virginia Beach. But, if you pack people in, I have a problem with that. And just to make a profit on it, and profit is not everything, and I realize because of the cost of construction, demolition, as Mr. Bourdon said and asbestos removal, you're talking about a lot of federal and state regulations that must be met, and they're extremely expensive. I feel very confident that (if the current developer is not interested in his property) there are going to be other opportunities for this property to be developed, and in a much better manner than what we are seeing here today. So based on that, without debating this any more, I will not be able to support this application. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments or discussion? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I'm glad that we deferred it. I thought the project is in my opinion, a better product because they have reduced the units and they addressed the traffic issue. I Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 22 understand what the neighbors concerns are and that Shore Drive is crowded, but so far as this developer and this site, I do believe this site is appropriate for multi-family use. R-lO just doesn't fit anymore. It has been isolated, and I can't believe they got all nine people to join together to sell the property. That doesn't happen again. I don't think it would flourish with single-family homes there. It has been eaten up. I think this is appropriate to do the multi-family. It is dense. They lowered it down, but I don't think it is too dense. I like it because of the quality. You might get less dense but not the high quality. They come hand in hand. You're going to have to have a little density to have the high quality that I think what we're looking for. But I think it is appropriate size. It does add some benefits. The maintaining of Lake Bradford that everybody has talked about and the sidewalks that connect to the Wawa. I believe the applicant has done what we have asked them. I would be in support. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: When we started on the Shore Drive plan back about nine years ago, I guess, we started with nothing, and I probably mentioned this before, with no funding at all. Nothing. We started with an idea of how to improve the corridor. The reason you've heard here are the reasons. The infrastructure is not there. That is a huge problem. There is movement on infrastructure. We do have the Shore Drive Plan. We have developed guidelines. This particular applicant has tried to meet those guidelines. A product of the plan is to say that if you're going to build in this corridor, we want it to have a look that fits in the corridor. That is part of the solution in some people's mind. We had a meeting the other day with Bob Scott, myself, Clay and we talked about this, and Kathy, about the frustration that we have as people who serve on the Committee, and I know the community has. And we're just extremely frustrated from the standpoint that we are not able to shake loose funding to complete the infrastructure that needs to happen down there. The Safety Task Force came back with about 30 million dollars, which would include all phasing of construction. There are four phasings, and the design of the last phase, which, when you put all the safety issues in place, put all the infrastructure in there, sO that the gentleman that got up and mentioned that he would like to ride his bike up on the road and he can't, that is a problem. The combination that the Committee envisioned, when it was started, was that by having a plan in place, as developments come along they would pay for part of the infrastructure because we had no money. That was part of the process. And as we talked the other day, Bob, Kathy, Clay, and myself, the development community has done that. The City is the one who has not done it. We've got a meeting next Tuesday, I think it is, where we're going to present kind of a "State of the Bayfront Area" to Council, and those points are going to be made very strongly. I can assure you, because what were asking from Council, and I understand that they agreed to fund a million of dollars for safety issues, but were going to ask for the balance of the funding over the next six years. I think there is a possibility of getting it. So, that's real, real important. You heard the same issues from several speakers that infrastructure is critical. You got to feel safe. You got to be able to move through this corridor. This plan will pay for part of that. That is small consolation I'm sure, but they Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 23 definitely will be doing that. I keep looking at the patterns too. I have a hard time seeing single-family in here. I think either it's a commercial use or it's a multi-family use. To be single-family, it doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it would make sense as a townhouse. I don't know, as Todd Solomon suggested. But I don't know the economics. On the Planning Commission, we don't get into that. We don't ask what you're paying. We're looking at land use patterns. I think Jan said it in a real good way, and that is, it just kind of says this is what it ought to be. I think you do have a good plan. With this particular plan, I think by going back and reducing the size of the number of units and changing the safety issues, I'm going to support it also. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Ripley. Is there any other discussion? . Eugene Crabtree: I'll make a motion that we approve the application as presented. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange seconds it. Is there any other discussion? We have a motion on the floor for agenda Item #15 with five proffers, Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Agenda Item #16, seven conditions and agenda Item #17 with six conditions. A motion made by Gene Crabtree and seconded by Joe Strange. I'll call for the question. AYE 9 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS CRABTREE AYE HENLEY LIVAS AYE KA TSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 2 ABSO ABSENT 0 NAY AYE Ed Weeden: Bya vote of 9-2, the application of Ocean Properties, L.L.c. has been approved. Barry Knight: If there is no other business before this body, we will stand adjourned. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN AS NORTH OLIVER DRIVE SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "EXHIBIT \ A' SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF N. OLIVER DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY (MB 21, PG 5) JUNE 10, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" 8 WHEREAS, Ocean Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited 9 liability company, applied to the Council of the City of 10 Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described 11 street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 12 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said 13 street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain 14 condition~ having been met on or before one (1) year from City 15 Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the 17 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: 18 SECTION I 19 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, 20 closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on 21 or before one (1) year from Ci ty Council's adoption of this 22, ordinance: 23 24 GPIN' S: 1479-37-6912, 1479-37-5863, 1479-37-5753, 1479-37-5680, 25 1479-37-7850, 1479-37-7750 AND 1479-37-7611 1 26 All that certain piece or parcel of land 27 situate, lying and being in the City of 28 Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and 29 described as "N. OLIVER DRIVE (30' R/W)" 30 shown as the hatched area on that certain 31 plat entitled: "EXHIBIT 'A' SHOWING STREET 32 CLOSURE OF N. OLIVER DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY (ME 33 21, PG 5) JUNE 10, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH, 34 VIRGINIA" Scale: 1"= 50', dated June 10, 35 2005, prepared by MSA, P.C., a copy of which 36 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 37 SECTION II 38 The following conditions must be met on or before one 39 (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 40 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final 41 determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The 42 purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined 43 according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest 44 In Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City 45 Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning 46 Departmen t . 47 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property 48 and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area 49 into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be 2 50 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street 51 closure approval. 52 3. The applicant shall provide an easement to the 53 City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works for the 54 continued maintenance of Lake Bradford. The actual size and 55 location of the easement shall be determined by the Department 56 of Public Works. 57 4. The applicant shall verify that no public 58 utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. 59 If public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the 60 utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach Departments 61 of Public Works or Public Utili ties shall be provided prior to 62 final plat approval. 63 5. The applicant shall verify that no private 64 utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. 65 Preliminary conrrnents from the utility companies indicate that 66 there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed 67 for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall 68 provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 69 6 . Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent 70 upon compliance with the above stated conditions within one (1) 71 year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above 72 are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 3 73 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this 74 approval will be considered null and void. 75 SECTION III 76 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on 77 or before June 12, 2007, this Ordinance will be deemed null and 78 void without further action by the City Council. 79 2. If all condi tions are met on or before June 12, 80 2007, the date of final closure is the date the street closure 81 ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 82 3. In the event the Ci ty of Virginia Beach has any 83 interest in the underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee - 84 is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that may be 85 requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are 86 approved by the City Attorney's Office. 87 SECTION IV 88 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed In 89 the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia 90 Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA 91 BEACH as "Grantor" and OCEAN PROPERTIES, LLC as "Grantee." 92 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 93 Virginia, on this day of , 2006. THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED TO COUNCIL. 4 CA-9710 :\::\OlD\REAL ESTATE\Strcct Ch)Slln:\Ol:C:ln PJ't)pcrtics CA971()\ORD.d{\L' R-l May 25, 2006 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~ '--'7- 0' Plann~ng Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~~ UJ~~) Clty Attorney 5 EXHIBIT "A" 556'.34'26"E 29.77' N7S'02'41"E I 32. 73\. ~ ~./" . 581'58' 5E~'.L-/ --70.?i' N/F -; STEVE &- EOITH M HUGHES g /479-37-6912 .- (iNST ;/200407210112456) (M8 21, PG 5) ----- ------- N/F ALAN 0 COROREY &- SHERI L HOWARD /479-37-5863 (083794, PG /159) (MB 21, PG 5) --- ------~ --- N/F PENELOPE H SMITH RLT 1479-37-5753 (iNST ;/200308050120507) (MB 21, PG 5) -- ----- N/F ANN ARGOOALE 1479-37-5680 (DB 4349. PG 802) (MB 21, PC 5) PIN(r) P7JDENOTES A PORTION OF k:::.LJ N. OLIVER DRIVE HEREBY CLOSED. AREA = 12,322 SF OR 0.283 AC . JOB #05052 ZONED: R10 L,4kt e s 6 . 'RA.Dt:Of? 87.~q9'42" D (O/Af 49.~ " "'~s. ~ '5<"$). C!o :26'.. '-t. f' N/F TEVEN R &- EDITH M HUGHES 1479-37-7850 (DB 4662, PC 1522) (Al821, PG 5) -- -- ..::: :I:~~ ~(j)0 Z:-\z ~y (j)<1 ~~ ~rn :I: ""0 1(3\ ~~ rnrn ~() o bO ~~ t!>z. 0) . ~~ ~rn ~ N/F PENELOPE H SMITH ET AL 1479-37-7750 (DB 2743, PC 1508) (Al821, PC 5) N/F KAREN S ROULLET 1479-37-7611 (083665, PC 1096) (Al8 21, PC 5) - DATE: 6/10/2005 SCALE: 1"=50' OWN BY: OSM 582'03'4-3"E 011-\ R/W) SHORE DRIVE (VARIABLE WI EXHIBIT 'A' SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF N. OUVER DRIVE RIGHT-Of-WAY (MB 21, PG 5) JUNE 10, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MSA, P.C. Landscape Architecture. Planning Surveying. Engineering Environmental Sciences 50JJ ROUSE DRIVE, VIRGL'lIA BEACH, VA 23462-3708 PHONE (757) 490-9264 . FAX (757) 490-0634 . ~ "- C:': " LO '-' o < o C:': w (/) :::> o :c w C:': :::> (/) < W -' Cl. Map B-3 Mo Not to Scole CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ocean Properties, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 . Background: <: a) Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for a Chanae of Zonina District Classification from R-10 (SO) Residential District to Conditional 8-4 (SO) Mixed Use District on property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209,2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 1479374693; 1479377611; 1479375680; 1479377588; 1479375753; 1479375863; 1479376912; 1479377850; 1479377750). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area - Shore Drive Corridor. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi-family dwellings. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE b) Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi- family dwellings on property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209,2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 14793746930000; 1479377611; 1479375680; 1479377588; 1479375753; 1479375863; 1479376912; 1479377850; 1479377750). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE . Considerations: The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the existing R-10 (SO) residential properties and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional B-4 (SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre. The applicant assembled all of the properties fronting North Oliver Drive, north of Shore Drive, and proposes to consolidate them into one site to be developed as a multi-family project. The submitted conceptual site and landscape plan depicts a 3 to 4 story building with 77 multi-family units centered on the site. Parking is located on the sides of the structure. The proposed building is three stories in height along Shore Drive and on the western side of the site. The building graduates to four-stories in height along the eastern and northern portions of the site. Parking is also located under the four-story sections of the building. Open space varying in width from 55-feet to 115-feet is provided in the rear of the site adjacent to Lake Bradford. The proposed storm water management facility is also Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 2 of 3 located in this area. Fifteen-foot landscape buffers are shown along the site frontage and along the western property line. The proposed density is within the guidelines of the City Zoning Ordinance for this size parcel in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. The regulations of this overlay district, which were adopted in 1998 based on recommendations of the 1997 ULI Study of the area, allocates density according to the size of the parcel. The subject parcel's size allows a density of 24 units per acre. The applicant's proposal is at 21 units per acre. The proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Shore Drive Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this corridor call for the protection of the existing stable residential neighborhoods from incompatible development, and call for any development that does occur, whether residential or non-residential, to be consistent with the vision established for the corridor. The applicant's proposal is rare in this corridor in that the applicant has been able to accumulate nine parcels of land for consolidation and development in accordance with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District and Design Guidelines. The proposed multi-family residential use and density are compatible with the adjacent multi-family and commercial development, and is less than the permitted density for a parcel of this size within the Shore Drive Corridor district. The development site is located on Shore Drive itself, within what is a commercial and multi-family residential corridor. It replaces a group of single- family homes that while at one time were appropriate at this location, are now stressed and under pressure by the market to redevelop to a use that is either more dense or more intense. The site is well buffered from the neighborhood to the north by an arm of Lake Bradford. This proposal, therefore, is appropriate in regard to land use, since the use is in keeping with well-accepted land use . standards by its location on a major arterial highway, buffered from the adjacent neighborhood by a natural environmental feature. If this use was located further north, within the neighborhood, it would likely not be in keeping with accepted land use standards, as it would represent an incompatible intrusion into a stable neighborhood. It is that intrusion that the ULI panel, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan discourage. Staff concludes, however, that this proposal is not an incompatible intrusion into a stable residential neighborhood; it is instead the redevelopment of a stressed and now inappropriately located group of single-family homes to a use that is more appropriate for a location immediately adjacent to Shore Drive. There was opposition to the requests. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve the requests as proffered and with the following conditions: Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 3 of 3 1. The applicant shall install a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Shore Drive and tie it into the existing sidewalk located to the east of the site. The applicant shall also provide landscaping in accordance with the Shore Drive Phase II Demonstration project within the right-of-way along the entire frontage of Shore Drive. 2. The applicant shall provide a sidewalk from the building to the required five- foot sidewalk at Shore Drive. The proposed sidewalk shall be constructed of either pavers or stamped concrete. 3. Fifty percent (50%) of the building exterior shall be constructed with hardi- plank siding. Synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick shall be used as accents and for architectural relief. All decks, handrails and columns shall be wrapped with vinyl. Doors and windows shall be vinyl clad wood, vinyl or aluminum. Roofing materials shall be standing seam metal, shake shingles, or architectural grade shingles. Building and roof colors shall be neutral or earth tones. 4. The proposed berm along Shore Drive shall be 3 to 4 feet in height and shall meander and undulate along the frontage. Plants listed in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan Appendices, Landscaping Guidelines, shall be used on the site. 5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City statt. All lighting on the site should be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society. 6. The applicant shall maintain a 3D-foot butter adjacent to Lake Bradford. The butter area shall be left in its' natural state and shall not be disturbed. 7. The applicant shall eliminate the straight /Ieft turn lane from the plans and shall close the median break on Shore Drive opposite the existing location of N. Oliver Drive. The applicant shall consult with Public Works Capital Improvement Program division and Traffic Engineering division regarding the method and materials to be used in closing the median. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ CftyManager: ~j k. ~6)It Staff Planner: Faith Christie OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. Agenda Items 15,16, & 17 May 10, 2006 Public Hearing REQUEST: 15) Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SO) Mixed Use District. 16) Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family dwellings 17) Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, and 4832 Shore Drive, and 2209, 2213, 2217,2216, and 2208 North Oliver Drive GPIN: 14793746930000; 14793776110000; 14793756800000; 14793775880000; 14793757530000; 14793758630000; 14793769120000; 14793778500000; 14793777500000. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 - BA YSIDE SITE SIZE: 3.58 acres APPLICATION HISTORY: On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission deferred these requests so the applicant could meet with the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and to allow residents of the area adequate time to consider the proposal. Concerns regarding the proposed density, school population, traffic and pedestrian safety were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. OCEAN PRE)~ERTIES~LC Agenda Itern~15,t6':~i17. .........:~~g~J On January 19, 2006, the applicant appeared before the Shore Drive Advisory Committee (SDAC). The applicant presented plans with a reduced density of 80 units and a reduced height. The SDAC was pleased with the changes, but offered the following suggestion for additional modifications: 1. The applicant should consider further reducing the density. 2. The applicant should evaluate the left turning traffic from the site for safety issues. On February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation for deferral of these requests until such time that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force completed its work and provided its recommendations regarding safety-oriented pedestrian and vehicular improvements to the corridor. On April 20, 2006, the Shore Drive Safety Task Force presented its findings to the Shore Drive Advisory Committee. The Task Force divided the recommendations into "regulatory" recommendations and "infrastructure" recommendations. A further break down of those recommendations included "short term", "mid term", and "long term" goals. The Task Force presented 31 recommendations to the SDAC. Some of the recommendations include installation of "yield to.pedestrian" signs, repairing damaged sidewalks, installation of sidewalks where none exist, evaluation of crosswalks at intersections, evaluation of lower speed limits along Shore Drive, and shoulder improvements. The applicant's plan is unaffected by the recommendations, as the primary recommendation of the Task Force applicable to the site is that a sidewalk be installed. The applicant's plan depicts the installation of a sidewalk along the frontage of the site. Installation of a crosswalk in front of this site was discussed at the January 11 hearing; however, the recommendations of the Task Force support improvement of the intersection at Pleasure House Road in order to provide a more safe and controlled location for crossing as opposed to a mid-block location. In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the Task Force, o The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre; o As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building has been reduced; o Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can turn right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S. Oliver Drive. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the existing R-10 (SO) residential properties and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional 8-4 (SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre. OCEAN PROPERTIESLLC Agenda Itei'ns}5, 16,. 17 .~@g~2 The applicant assembled all of the properties fronting North Oliver Drive, north of Shore Drive, and proposes to consolidate them into one site to be developed as a multi-family project. The submitted conceptual site and landscape plan depicts a 3 to 4 story building with 77 multi-family units centered on the site. Parking is located on the sides of the structure. The proposed building is three stories in height along Shore Drive and on the western side of the site. The building graduates to four-stories in height along the eastern and northern portions of the site. Parking is also located under the four-story sections of the building. Open space varying in width from 55-feet to 115-feet is provided in the rear of the site adjacent to Lake Bradford. The proposed storm water management facility is also located in this area. Fifteen-foot landscape buffers are shown along the site frontage and along the western property line. The submitted elevations depict a modified cottage style of building. Varying rooflines, porches and faux gazebos provide architectural relief to the building. Upon entrance to the site from Shore Drive the proposed building features an open area with covered colonnades above. The interior courtyard features recreational amenities such as a pool and landscaped areas for the residents. The applicant indicates the square footage of the units will range from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Nine single-family dwellings and North Oliver Drive currently occupy the proposed site. The current R-1 0 Residential zoning allows for nine single-family dwellings. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: . Lake Bradford . Shore Drive . Across Shore Drive is a shopping center I B-2 (SO) Community Business . WaWa I B-2 (SO) Community Business . Waters Point Townhomes I A-12 (SO) Apartment East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: To the rear of the site exists Lake Bradford. The site is located within the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance area. There are no cultural features associated with the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. . IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore Drive is a four lane divided minor suburban arterial in front of this site. The site is within the project limits ...,....... ,,", .- . . ",..' .,..... '.,' - . ,'.,' OCEAN PRC)PERTIESILC Agenda Items15,16'i~17 }~~g!3 of the Shore Drive Phase II demonstration project. This project, which is currently in the scope definition phase, will include intersection, pedestrian, and aesthetic improvements. A right-of-way reservation along the frontage of Shore Drive may be required during detailed site plan review. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Shore Drive 22,516 ADT 28,200 ADT'- Existing land Use ~ - 90 ADT Proposed land Use 3 - 505 ADT Average Dally Tnps 2 as defined by 9 single-family homes 3 as defined by 77 multi-family homes WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an existing eight-inch water main and a 16-inch transmission water main in Shore Drive, and a six-inch water main in North Oliver Drive. The existing sites will have several existing 5/8-inch water meters, one of which may be used or upgraded for the project. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer gravity main and a 24-inch HRSD force main existing in Shore Drive. Analysis of Pump Station #307 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: School. Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment Hermitage 552 672 6.2 4 Elementarv Great Neck Middle 1124 1032 2.7 1 Cox HiQh 2116 1854 3.9 2 " . " generation represents the number of students that the development will add to the school 2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Seven portable classrooms currently exist on both Great Neck Middle and Cox High sites. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being within the Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site 1). land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non- residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. OCEAN PROPERTIES..t.LC Agenda Ite.n~s15,16,Bt17 ,1?@9!4 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requests for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family dwellings, and Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford. The proffers and conditions are listed below. In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the Task Force, D The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre; D As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building has been reduced; D Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can turn right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S. Oliver Drive. The proposed density is within the guidelines for this size parcel in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. Additionally, based on the reduction of units, the School Board now calculates that the school population will be increased by only 4 elementary students, 1 middle school student, and 2 high school students. Based on the type of units proposed for this development, those numbers could be less, as these units are more commonly purchased by young, single professionals and empty-nesters. In regard to traffic volume, the new figure for daily trips corresponding to the reduction in units is 505. According to the City's Traffic Engineering office, this portion of Shore Drive has a capacity for 28,200 vehicle trips per day. Presently the volume is 22,516 trips per day. Thus, the addition of 505 trips is still well below the current capacity of the roadway. The character of the Shore Drive corridor is defined by the unique positive relationship between its residential and commercial components. This delicate balance is assisted by a set of design criteria, the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines, intended to make all these diverse structures physically compatible with one another and with their setting The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended to encourage sensitive and responsible development, balancing that need with respect for property rights of owners of undeveloped and underdeveloped land. Before the adoption of the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District the history of development in the corridor had been characterized by too high density on too smalLparcels of land. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended, in part, to restore the proper balance. The requirement for a conditional use permit for multi-family dwellings within the Shore Drive Corridor recognizes that certain uses which, by their nature, can have an undue impact upon or be incompatible with other uses of land within the immediate area. However, the proposed use may be allowed under the controls, limitations and regulations of a conditional use permit, as long as the proposed use is fundamentally compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff is charged with evaluating the impact and compatibility of the proposed use, and recommending conditions and restrictions that will assure the use as being compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located, both in terms of existing land uses and conditions, and in terms of development proposed or permitted by right in the area. ~:""'" OCEAN PR(g)PERTIESJ..LC Agenda Ite..ns15,16,117 .~~g!~ The Shore Drive Corridor is a unique resort residential community, which provides a wide mix of housing styles and types. This particular request is rare in the Corridor in that the applicant has been able to accumulate nine parcels of land for consolidation and development in accordance with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District and Design Guidelines. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed residential use and density are compatible with the surrounding land use pattern, and is less than the permitted density for a parcel of this size within the Shore Drive Corridor district. The submitted conceptual site layout and landscape plan depicts a coordinated development of the site in terms of design, parking layout, landscaping, and traffic control and circulation within the site. The submitted building elevations depict proposed buildings of three and four stories in height to be constructed of high quality building materials in a design complementary to the Shore Drive Corridor. Staff believes the submitted proffer agreement and conditions listed below will produce a quality project that is both compatible with the area and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Shore Drive Corridor. Thus, Staff recommends approval of the requests as proffered and conditioned below. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (g107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIMUS SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA." Dated 8/31/05, prepared by MSA, PC. which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. PROFFER 2: When the property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Shore Drive. PROFFER 3: The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick. PROFFER 4: OCEAN PR~PERTIES,~LC Agenda Itel1lsi15,t6,lc17 e~g~6 ,'-' ,".,'-'- ,'-, There will be no more than seventy-seven (77) residential units within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. PROFFER 5: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are acceptable. The proffer agreement insures the site is limited to 86- 77 units and developed in accordance with the submitted site layout and landscape plan, and the submitted building elevations. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated 9/14/05, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. CONDITIONS for the STREET CLOSURE 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall re-subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall provide an easement to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works for the continued maintenance of Lake Bradford. The actual size and location of the easement shall be determined by the Department of Public Works. 4. The applicant shall verify that no public utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach Departments of Public Works or Public Utilities shall be provided prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility . company must be provided. 6. . Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. OCEAN PRE)PERTfESIiLC Agenda Items15,t6,!~17 a~g\e7 ,-:..,,- ',':',-.,'-;., "~;W"':,:_ :"" CONDITIONS for the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. The applicant shall install a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Shore Drive and tie it into the existing sidewalk located to the east of the site. The applicant shall also provide landscaping in accordance with the Shore Drive Phase II Demonstration project within the right-of-way along the entire frontage of Shore Drive. 2. The applicant shall provide a sidewalk from the building to the required five-foot sidewalk at Shore Drive. The proposed sidewalk shall be constructed of either pavers or stamped concrete. 3. Fifty percent (50%) of the building exterior shall be constructed with hardi-plank siding. Synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick shall be used as accents and for architectural relief. All decks, handrails and columns shall be wrapped with vinyl. Doors and windows shall be vinyl clad wood, vinyl or aluminum. Roofing materials shall be standing seam metal, shake shingles, or architectural grade shingles. Building and roof colors shall be neutral or earth tones. 4. The proposed berm along Shore Drive shall be 3 to 4 feet in height and shall meander and undulate along the frontage. Plants listed in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan Appendices, landscaping Guidelines, shall be used on the site. 5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City staff. All lighting on the site should be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society. 6. The applicant shall maintain a 30-foot buffer adjacent to lake Bradford. The buffer area shall be left in its' natural state and shall not be disturbed. 7. The applicant shall eliminate the straight / left turn lane from the plans and shall close the median break on Shore Drive opposite the existing location of N. Oliver Drive. The applicant shall consult with Public Works Capital Improvement Program division and Traffic Engineering division regarding the method and materials to be used in closing the median. 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 aI/applicable City Codes. 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 (CPT ED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. ".-,.' ". ;".. ........ OCEAN PREl)PERTIES!.LC Agenda Itemsit5,16,<~.t7 '~~g~~ ../ iERTlES~LC OCEAN PR~~t5,1.6';~i17 Agenda Itel1l..............~~~~ 1.'6..... <fIlCl to""l/l J: ~ ~ "'0..... U^~f.l \J f"i '7 -'If to.. ~ ~- U"' 4'IJ flao:m" ..~cg,~ ~ ;,; nl ~g::l~$ ~ ~ :5....~\l)~... f G; ~ E ~ fil ! .. .. ftt 1:'" ::J'3E~~j oW 0::> . tru: ~ .. ... III ., N -g -g ~...", .. It .. 5- ~ C e lrl'~ QI c llG81~~~ is: < I: 0 1II ,:,t, C 1':1._ .- S ,,~ Q, i5.: ~~5-~ 5-3 1i -~yeE .VItI ~.41o 0 {l)1Il1iJc..o. c..!::!.Cli::'::'~... r- .ti .n U",..L< i~ ~g ~ ~Uli! ...."; ."" .. -i" ~ ~n"~ rJH~ ~ .:- ~.- If w.& ~.L':'cJ ','", -~.~, -..- '. .' :"",' - . - '. ~ - - - - ~,-,,-,"','-,~---"'-'-'-.' -.;. ell E :;, .- c: .- E o 0'"0 c: c: ~ 0 ~U !"C c i.. 3'0 s<S'+i- !;"'C ~ ,3t'U ~ .!l~ . jiiWol -5 'i 1'1\ ~ : i \loll "J: III S!-~ 0 ., ~ ~ ~ ~ u- ~:> f J a f .l din ',1 J - 1 f III !~, ~11t ~H Jill) ~r~ n.u l!5~;;1 Ii!;J ...<~~ Jlfl- :.~ih hi! ;B Ill, Ii ,flU $ U /'. -I " ~ '! . ~ -<. JJ ~ ~,;. ." ~ I I [ e <Ii ,. ~ .f. II ~f2 PROPOSED SITERLAN ,f OCEAN PRO'PERTIES:LLC Agenda Itelrl$15,16~~i1,7 P,g~JO PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIQ'N.", OCEAN PR~~ERTIES~LC Agenda Itel'r1$t5,t6'~i1,7 'J~~@,!I~JJ PROPOSED BUILDING ELE'lAllON OCEAN PR()PERTIESl.:.LC Agenda IterrlS15,16,~/t7 P@g~1..2 Map E-3 Mo Not to Scole CUP - Multiple-family dwellings 1 . 3/14/00 Conditional Use Permit (gasoline Sales in conjunction with convenience and car -out food store Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales Rezoning (R-5R Resort Residential to Conditional A-24 A artment Approved A roved A roved Approved 2. 2/25/03 3. 5/9/88 4. 11/9/04 ,- ,-- , ',' .'-'- ,;'-, ZONINGHIS"'()B~i . OCEAN PROPERTIES.iLC Agenda Itelp$(15,...16,~17 . .P~!J~E~~ NOI1YJIlddV tIlIflS01J ltIHlI1S I- Z w -:E w I- ~ (f) w cr ::l (J') o ..J o (f) B ~ ~.f :o::G'.... .~.~ ~ 8 e~ -- Q.- 1:., c: ., = ::: :.s ~ ~"O e:I ~~ t (1) Cig.\1 ~~:Si:: :::l~<:$ (1)0-- o""g-5 d~~tij fIJ=~rS C J!~ .~ -'-c:~ c(ut<-~cn Z::ci1:S Q~!l:., t:..~<l>C: g.E8.~~ <o2..!~ tI) Q,.= c o"iS!S gO;; tti< ~ ~.~ '; 0,,1:5 ~;;5l~ ~.se~ ~Si51C li~~1 _ ....c::"'. .!? ; ~ or:: -' .... ~ -m o a; ~ " ...; ..0 e ! <( g "8 'E ~ ~(.)w .Cl. E j<~ "~~.3: ., tl go~ ,,-0 4)io .c.u_ ~ ~ e l1! &~ .~'g E !g~ ~5~ ~e!'i ~oo ;1!E...; j ~~ ~,":: ~o_ fG- 0 c. ~ gin c: Q.. ~ :ie~ E ". >:~~c: :!:utg-= ~ie~ -'20&,,? j~8::: !g~lO> jij':iS 1! III '-.515'8 ~oiO .g2-'O~ ~~ ~I"'; ~"_ u -"" <( ~c::-Q.cb ?-,g go-;; - e'" e o~s ~J!~ "'_ 0 ., c:E l,g~ ~ ~ C>> g&S ,'_~o -.. 'l''8.c,- Ill" .,;..;.<- ~:g~~~~f5~:~~~ ~:.~-;;o-E';;~QO ci..~ e .!e i~ Q ~ ti ~ 0 :=-E'E <%)'i(E ~ <<:: <J1'tic ~:8~=:~=~:e ,2 q) CG = e m c: it" vi v) E :i ~ :=-~~.s ~! I'~ ~ ""'~ ""'~"'s;,,o ;.s.i-oa.,E 8.,1': i:<5C) '."Cl'E"; ''e!2c!O~ cg4>:S~S:Coft;o,$c ~~:iSi~~~o2...J E--r>> ci1i C)~ UL~~ *a.. ~ .i -= -~ e:= -e ~ :: c .- ~ :) 0 W i'O 2'-~ ~o cp 'lii~.c 0 ~- '; g',g.... C J! ai :6';j 0 ~ ':E Q.'SW ~.~~.5.E gse ~~ ~ !.! G (p~.s~ g (; =Q)...= ~&= ~e'~ ~:~ 0')"3l'.~ ~ M,E 0 cp t) 0 e 8 5r,!:! M Ca.-a"\i:QQiE-- . <l>-"c:a=5'Eo""'~ :2 '5 e =cu. "';e ~ ~ a ~ !l! 5 s g.o .~150 E 0 4><Q> ii:;.5 e~,5:~ :~=~ ;);;;.9-8<: E E~" c: c: 0 .c "'lii.. 8" "'''""ojU i~""o.. 'St.fJ:e=~ = '!ii.s:lI.!:! 0"0 cl 0 &.,> :.='t:Ji C!G_ c=- C< .Q .. i:] o~ i~$ u;-~ o,~o ~ ",g>~E S!.s..! 0 ;-t;~ N '9='EQ;l-C)C:J~=uC:-{i ~ ,g ..:? ~ -gie 'S,g ~ l\l5~.[ijg~12J!~~~ Q..ooEQ._~-fI)_,,,,,,_ ",,0 .s:: :; 0 'C "'- ~~~.g ~ - .... Q. ;J16.e~~ ;..s-S! ~~ 'c E~ ~ -n '~5 5~ ~ m 1ii 0.. ttJ.~ ~2.!';= ~~Em,5 :sg~~g 8~ g;~u t:--:-: O;;f .ggic.i t;-_~t)_S E2~~1! 0--9-,.0,-= - e ~ j. - fIO.s .- i Q. '" "'~o.cg> :5 c...... -;; 'n .~" ..['80" './ .c::: "" c 9. ('\ -.-.2>;;; ~..'8.. co , ..-.t:..c Cl ~'l..~\ i:;;g'8,sq',: U c J::; ic~,.;; \ - fJ; c: :3 Cl) -l ''';;' Z,oe ~ g"" .,;~~~.. .. J:>. -.2.9l "'!; o "0 .. ~ :is 1: 1" fi 3~~&M';'j\i. 1\ - c: c: "UJ """ ,. --::....., \II: ii:~.g;;~c.. .~. ~~g.&.~~ ~ w g g;~'5 8 >.& U........OCl< '" D E ., :; g> '" ~ ;;; :::; ~e .,,, ....; ~; Q:::: 0';: ~E '''' ;z :c n:::: iCi.. :,-, :'E ,<<I [,g ,"" ig. '2 L ;~ I~ !~ r; 1~ 1~ I-2\" Ie ,,, .~ ~ f ~ ~ i ~~? ~~.~ '"':!~ H, \0-')...1:. '" III ... U o .. .. <( ..0 I- Z W :::a w I- ~ (f) w cr ::l (J') o ..J C,) (J') is "0 '" e o l?- S ::: "c ::: ~ <> o .; ~~ :;1"- '" ~~. -0 d E- ~ '8 "'= ~ ~ c c'. ::: '" ~~ ~~ ct c; >.c C,)e".Q~ - 1: Cl1't- ~ ~,s i~ ~ c:"~,g~ g;2S== ::E4.l4tS E.: ~ ~ 8;;.:.2 t?;~i6~ =~~s c; Q.-e :'!c:""'<Ii =,2 ~.1S ~m=c: :'~:ii :6 ~~ Co ~ c...... .. :l ;; .5 .,; Iii .c E ~ 0' 8 :g g> '0, '" s ::!; >- ! E ~ ~ ~ c OJ ., <. '" ::: '~ 15 'C .. ~ ~~ ~ ,~ 0'11) - Q ~~ .~~ .g:; !~ g2l ~~ <<I:";' ~~ a:s:.::::: .c '" -'" "'''' :5~ ~~ i'J ,~.~ ","" -,,'" 'i,~ -.. ~~ "ii ...;~ (; <Ii .. .. c: ..;;; :J .tJ E- .;: c'. :2 .. ~ i: .. ... :::- ,2 15 8- (; " .. 13g :to::> tII~ :;:'2 e", J~ is o~ -5~ lEg "'- ""c: ~= '" ~ " Q;. t3~ rIi ;;; .c ~ E 15 -5 S3 0 rA $ o~ 8 LLI ~~ ~ 0::-.1: '" :::l a ~ o~ UJ.:: ..Q ~~ g" E U O~J;q~~ (1)~ . g' c: ~ 5'Sl'~ ",:::: a::.~ t'!g=~ ~~.s~~~ :>$i~~"''; oo[-~~ :>->.",$<0'= ....1:~a::g~ O::~"'E-" ~g8.8~~ ~';8c:"~Z Q.~~,~~s o .~,~ ~ 0 :::~cOQ) ,g ~ ~~ c ~ ~ 0 ~i l:'1~'82Q. :SOl~~t .$ ~~.s,g ~Q.o"'~ ~~g~~ 8 ;; '~ ~ ~ g t ::: ;;; ::: J:J '0 ., ~ ~~ 5~ -~~ ~; .!~ g1! i~ = ;;...' ~5 =:.:: ~o. _0- "'''' :;'" ~;; en.&: :j .5 0. ~.E .c~ 1i~ '" :J~ N ,0 <Ii .. '" " ';;; ::: .c c'. :2 e .. € '" ... '" .2 10 8. (; " '" i-- o :Z:'" .!!L2 ...;; ~.~ ~~ '" ~o 8.'8 0- ~'" "'0 "'E!- =0 '" c: c.'- ~c: c.::: ""~ ~J! ~o 00 ~~* ~~; ~Q.~ n & u -; .. j s .. ii' ~ ~ ~ ., L~ I.. i- NOI1YJI1ddV tIlIflS01J ltItIlI1S 15 .::> E '" :; g> '(1) '" e '" :: i- :;; .... :2 > ~ (.) ..... -' <Ii '" 'i: c. g. o:~ :::.8 2H \O::!; N o OCEAN PROPERTIES1LC Agenda Items15,16,~,.17 Pa<e14 ......!;I......,,,. I- Z w ::E w S C/) W 0::: :::l C/) g u C/) 5 (j= != ..n <II .Ql ~:21S j~j ""0"0 ~1Il 16 .~ 16 .. :n.~ e€,= ~:~ ft)e5.~ 1l.I~0'';::: !i1;S 1l)_~R oOe<> -'~=~ OtO-f4 !!:=gB ~~j~ ~ ~ g>~ o :g'- .. - iZI-g'~ !:CTIc.-. c"i& e ,'" "'" c""-='"' <~i,,;~ ~ ;..~ 8 ol:~! i1 8. : "= ..eSli c Cl.S"" 8J ~i ~"-:l:: ~e$ -><i.; ... 'iiii~~ ii)-~~ :::i.2 :I ~ ~ 0:5_ e_c 00_ I:c,2 08= i-5 $ 8.:: 1? 0 i ~..., E _cc "''''.Ii .::5 ,> c,ClO i:-~ (!) .ne- e: '" l'l .,g C ~ c-~ ~i~ i'G~C . ~s ~ Q. c .-CiS ~~I 'c. if (J) :E -.-~ .. s c . ]6-80 :i~~; ! -~ e-~ ~"" 8: .i! 1! ... ll> ~~~"8 .g 2:- g (.) -~ (0-' iE~-~ <1>'_ 0 ~'l;IG;tf :5~< $;::OV) ~ g;j e.g Gi 8!il.s 00 i:,",~ o:i .Sg. Ql 'i ~ > e'" .:::5"'11> . .. <II "',,'!ll0 o.C oS.. ~]1l] g'E ':;~~ Qi..g,i;;:l2!l;igc::;;; :5.!c::.:5eE......:2~ ~....=:.c >0... Sl fIi.!!!.!! Q.~'~'_ a>s Oc:: 0 GJ c:: :c 'E "c ~ ';C:Ql c: ':~ :e ~ = ....0..'" 3:"".~c::O c:.. Q.c-.!!( bJ:>c'--,' g:(Q::.~i)C-t>>co~~ .!!! c$;:-.I#~': C> ~ c:: (D.---........-u 0 ~.. - 0 ;; :!.~a~.5 !.~~:~ ;j"O~__.. _<<tOe ..!i~..i~:~u'" Co EJ1-.. .s:",e ;"....:Cl=~..~;:lIlS E~! Ci aiii.! ..~.~ 3! 'Cl.c>'iii.:..e-1!oco :;:.::""O;l"'i;,a....!Cl ! ~~.!!:o:l!i ~Q-8 _c-'" ~_ 9) -8....= c "" 8 '" ",g,- "'''o...ce-c>oe-' ~ 1Il 'lI t.!.9l~'ES!.,'E 'lii ;0 ~ .. .!! ill E Q,= CD ~=..!: () ~ ~ ls 8 g lsS lI>tlLr.!~ 5 ~ o.iII&S Il~~.!~~ ~ i.,g i .-_.Se"Oc !.",;e.1Il ~.!!l,g.8'::>'E 'l! (; O.!!!', .c41.c C::-CQe::>j "8, ~~: ~ ~:ll! ,,~="'o' 1ii"'c.flo"CIe"<li..c =:2,!:C_e:50ll>clll;;; S.fnQ"C"- .....s::.o4t. :c.gg>i~Ij~a'ii~~ " ~:a'c &~ i Sf lil Eo J "" Cl.::>41!":::>;e:::> ' 1Il -C:41<<lS{u'-1lf "8 ~8 a E <>,5 i_ 8..8u t5 "Q g t'-.. ::; ~~ 0.T' ~"~ ~ ~\ ..., C:::A ~, t-g 'QZ ~:s oc: .si ~ "8 ~.8,=:a S:gE =.:.... ~ Beoll"" 1lI:2:5 ,;1 " '~: o:s g~.~:~ fA' Q.O"O - .. Cl.;!2 .E. ,ct1 '0 ::I !!!=i]l .! j goii "t'_._U) .~ :e~ ! ~~:g:s O~_.... u &J:.2 ~g ~~: ' .. :2'w >o:g. E::gc,g", ~- 8.0 ~ s!$tG('l')tC1 O!... c.. ~c "'''' .... E ...- _.....llI.: .! :9. ": t1l .S -~O>~.. ~_.Q:j,g lI> g . 1:' (QQ.- 8~!e2-r : :g.~ ~~ ~. Z J'.J:) c'- '" o ~ a:o ., ,Ill ___.....::::=::51::: ~~.a...e u.."I;12""... !!;'!-s~~so.. ~ ",lI>1l 0 11. i .n ffi'E.:: c: B, ill" ~ u-= ~~1;lo~I1ddv ~NINOZffiI 1VNOIlIUNOJ . ..; ~ ;;; .s ,,; ii .D is EO i 1;; ~ c:: '2 "" e .c '0 ~ ~ ~ w"" 0 a:: ~ is ~, .!? 0.5 '0 <3 g- ~-e fIJ --= ,~., is ci. - ....- "' ~ z~ =i < (D >.""' 3~,~i~ t':~~:c; <~'5o~ ~;;~ c.:5i,. 8!;:j jll"Q.CQl 'e "'.0 ~8!~ ~c"'.,; 'is.. :2.! 0; g.,~ i -€ .!:s::;~ -2', ~o~ go 'Sl 01 C '" ::; r: ~ j ~ is .0 E .. ::E ~ '0. '" c '" ::: ~ ~ 32 > '" o u ..; ..J ,,; ~ ! e ll.~ ~~ QI E " "' 0::: ~ 'E OJ '" '" .. c ';; ;::l .c 'Q OJ :i s-e .t;l ~ a~ - ., ~g ~~ '" - ~.~ !i3 c", 41_ i~ a:;... ~~ tIJ=: s::.o. _0. ..'" :5! ;- ..J: =~ 5:0. ....- ::>J: .cO> ";5,g 7.0$ :.:i! '" I ~ ,iii l~ J 1.0; j j; II t i I ~ ! j g, 114 Ill. 1.!'2~ I)~ I' ~I &:.0 -Q. ,;8 " ~ c:: . ~'c l~i 10 ,,; ~ i) E 0; .c ~o e<s i~ !!! ~'" ~ ...... 16 ::). ~ o"B ~::~ fIJ~ ..l\:E ~'" U~~O>"'~ ~lE ci.,C:: C II> c'e:E~.!": a::: ,u, m - - v_ ~'~ i:g!,~ ii!:ii~'i'5 o Q ':.!!I~ ~~C;;J!...,s. << 1:1 ,2 C;.~ Q.~E~" ~Ke.~!.i~ a::"'=:oc:c.8 l\. _>- U .2" ~. d c::a:~ '_ o I1li N Q 15';:'2 wi t~ ~~<<; ~ ~ O!i ,"'.i!:''it e 0- ;;_"c._ ~ il~i -,~Q..R-U) ~!.53s 8~;,.-: <Ii ~ "" '0 ...., lil :s f- 0:: G> 4> ....J ~ ,~ G; .. .. 1Il S .. ::> .c 'it ~ S'B ~ ~ 0", -~~ :e~ 'a; :.:: .g~ 1'5 c:.. Cl_ i~ fC'~' C ~~ <tl= .:: c" _c" "'''' ~~ 51:5 :U .,. Q, "'.- ::l,c .c'" C :gg -'" .. - ,- II> ..,J... ; "Ii I~ ~ .~ !.Q I ef ~~ j .e. I~ jt Ii Ie- , 8 I~ ,0I:c: ~ ~v2 ~,~ jo~ In "'e- =8 e~ .,::> .c. ~1 ~o Bo s '" g ,go. I- t ~ ~! t'< l~ - Q. ~ '~ l W Jt!~ 3'0;0 ri ut~ : ~ N x "',:,:.::., " , ":::' OCEAN PRC>I?E:RTIES<~LC Agenda Ite~st5,t6,~/t7 .1?@~J5 IIlIh IJ)' ..". ~A ~ ti'"iS I.ll ~ 0...3 (/;,0 <>., -:=::::(ij .€'5~ ~..- "_->c SOC: ,_ ~ en 2:' QJ ,rti Ill-o Q "":;;.2 o!:!;;: :'2 0. III >11)'" en e-S ~ I/J~O"" a:=-c ::;)~-gg "'o""tl g~~,,: ~~gB ::~]~ ~~~~ o:l'6.~ -Q):;)C: a-rnl!F ~.6';-':~ .... 4oQ." 0 ~ ;'.1< 8 cP: ~ 1:! ti &. .,,'" ~~~i o~ ;;.r:. UQ)4)U 1=--'" ~:,"~ o::>:!?~ c r:r ... ..-;~ft)fI) 'i1j ;~~ -.;:5;;:;;: ::i.2:il5l (/) W fX: ::> (/) o ....I () (/) B ci a.: ~ '" Q) 2l .... '" "" 'g E :: .! oot oot "" e "C o 8 ~ :: ~<.iui .0. E ~'tti.m ~~.~ Q lU:5_ :s'O;: a;EJ5 .s::.lPc ~:<o .!! 8.~ .~ 0 a; ~~ e -..c :5=~ 0.00 ~ g~ c: ~ ~ .!2 g> 0 ~'2;~ ~I.lle;; "'..., ~g.! c: Q..s UlCO EOiji Ole. i '? :2 ~'" ~~r::p oogo ~~!!M e-g g,,,, ~'ii 8~ ~- c: ... II) ~~~"8 '!$2:>go ~t)ft)a:i e:!?'5> ~~l~ti \l-,g ~ ... a:, - S ~; e--;;; 80;:: >- ~E =: c..(U~o = .- '-,I::. fA.1>> > C :C3i-"'4.l ..: ! ~,'O fD 5 ~~ ~.~~ ::tIil'~m.Q=t'Gc5u)cfJ (UfIO -"Oil'GCqttiOC'ii .c:...g>~giUE..E.2ell 0-;=:.c;'1o.. ~ 0'!!.s "''''' e.- ";:; 0 c: SI !lie;; :c E E ! ti ij: ~ 'r;; = ~= ~:81=q,o.E~"s~ .QfhS,-!!O'}c:~g-t:~ ~ ~r::@:.9.~ 0: G;J ~'E CI)---C,Cf,lle,-- 0 ~~bo~..s8.~i~o:: " -;;.. , .en c:: ~~~~~]~;,~~~ :g~=i~~~5~CUE eo.., Cii g= 4) ..~.!l4> 'o.g'~:5 '" ~:5'go.~ ~ ..- += :J 0 ,tI) (0 2:~ ....:Cl.' C') ~ 3.D.G) ~-a;"Oo=- 51': 4i::'{j) oE.il'~ ~ 5 :; .1!?~c: ~ 8 s ~'~'-.3 ,S So': 4) ~B'E-..!2!"C l!! _ .. "'.: - ;;;J -c..! C ....:5 ~-.~ (f) !;;E-" ~~S!iG)5u:~o'; 4>Q,.-Q~G)c""O"~- _:2:~.i!5i~if)-a(/) q,flOCioC3'C'I"-oQGfCb- ~.~c:.l:~E 8.EED~ ";;ca:.S es c Eoti. ifii:;:u'5EE80>:;-> -g~i~~~=!~e~..: iiCGcl!lo'OG)a:~cco 5i~:c;;s~~~6:C? ~~ g>i-~i~:5'5..:5~ tv !=~ CPct)(DQi"coeiCD'.l e;; ~ Q) g>~ -g ,! !l 0 1 4) ~6~igg~~~Q)'~ 0. <> 0 E C._ <>> _ 0...0 0 I- Z W .;:;:: w I- ~ (/) W 0::: ::> (/) o ....I () en B -0 ui oS 4) .. OJ ~ -;;; e. 5 g rn t: c; C D ::> E ;; OJ .<:. E '0 ri 0. 8 r.Ji ::: ~~ 0 ::IE ~ ~~ 0 c3 E ~'B cn~ E~ o ~ ~ ~ ....90 .,~ z~ 5<b (3 ~ "l-'; - 't:: Oll- er co c: .!::? 11. c.:'~ o~ oot.g:g:g~ ~~~s. e;tI:I~ 8-a;;:.Q :~5~ ~8&il lH: ti Q..;::'::' Q) Q. m _ c:: :'~~i ;; ~~ a. ~ o~ 0) c: '0, '" " .. ::; ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ " CIJ III .. ell " 'fii ;;;J J;) -g ~ ='B ~~ 0.., .~~ ~~ .g~ !~ ~.s ~~ n:l~ ~~ C'C= .c 0.. _0. .... :; ,Q)- U)J::. ",- ...c: ;l.~ .~ ,g. ~~ 1ij.2 ~~ Qj D E III ::; '" e;; '0, '" c '" ::; ~ Cii ... -0 .;; '" Cl c.;i ...) ...) .,; '" ;: '" a. !:! ~.8 iH 0::; N o .,; .. OJ c: -~ .c if ~ Ii :;: ~ '" e;; 1: .. Co ef III D E Qj '" .c: E ~o 1li ~ ~ fj Q.~ ~ I/J 1t ~ ~ Eo; .. fl)J5.s '5'B o _ ~ ~ ca ..... :: E. E::l f.) l!!~6", III !l'~ e:,E c; g Cl'6'-~ell<:: a:,~~g=~ W\.o.42.g~~ ~i!~li >-. ~So:::: l:~6.s!=S a:~""c..e ~~~~.~~ 0,... . ,m CD r:r::o<O;8s::.o rL~ =4)0 o::.'l~-a; c::'- c. 0 - 11~fl ~~j _ 0. :5~~;U). -Se-&;S.e .Qo..~8-" 2o"'e;;:!l.s a;:<i; 0:::::3"-: '0 ;; ~ o = ..,j rii Ci.i OIl .. '" :e c u c:i ~ Cl J;) ~ " ::;'"' ","" !;....~ 0",,' ~~ ~ '''0 '>'"0 ::;"'!!!is ~.~~ ~ a;~u:X: ~ ~2!ci=~ ;;_c:<;;_ ~'e~.c:'E Cl 0.. oot If} '" ~ *''g :S.Q"5~ ~ '" 0";: a:~~~ ~.g~~ CD =0:0 :3-,!::!,;; :: ~ Q. 14Q. " Q. O"'C --tUQ.Q,> ..s0)~""5 e.:: .c:"C -- c; Q.) .! 2 got; "C_'- tI) ,~~j~ ~~i5.2 8~.sQ 5 S sQ. ~5,e~<Ii ",'- .. '" '" t::1ig.,,~ .E.::o..o {) c:::.: .IQ C"') {to - 0 '(1)_ Q,. CC""JA9'li =-E "'.- t. _ o~_s= ' ~:9-~<;.5 ~8 go~~ 1 __ Q'C ~ 0 ...... 1: ~'" .-.- 4>Cell u~~. Qo..c:-.2...J ::g.~~~~ z...:.Q~.-tA Q.se~s~ !C~.g:~ ..~ 9 ~]l:5 g>Q. ~ ~Gi-6a:~i '~. a: ~ 1ll e;; R 8 !j! ~~~~go~.f: ~ ~ e '" .. of> 1ll c: 'f2 .i$ "0 '" ,~ ~~ o ~ '~8 ~~ 'q; ::: .g .(.0) ~i ii.s ~~ to";": g! .~ (1S= .c: Q, _0. "'''' :5., :g= ..,:: ~ .~ .E 0. ~.:E .ol! ~.g ~~ N .,; .. ., c: .g; ::> .0 ~ '" :;: ~ '" c: 1:: '" 0. C o ~ 8- 8 '" .... o :tc: ,~.2 a! ~'2 o~ ~o "'." ~~ 0.0 "'0. =8 e;; e'c ell :; .c:~ ~il ~o 00 >< 1. I~ l-s i~ l.li l~ J! :i~ ~ G 1~ l~ ~ I.. eN~ 2,- J'~_ ~~i .!fa., ~ II '" 1\ ~ ~ 8 ;; ~ .i .~ ~~~ Joi ~;:~ S ~-; o.e..a:: .B .. o 0. 15 '" .. 55 :to::: {/)S .-c -'" ~~ ~~ ..~ :;0 -e. ..8 Q-E .cc: .x'" "'- .!.! 00 o OCEAN PROPERTIESlLC Agenda ItelTisi15,16, .....~...t7 .P@~J6 It< f.i II I- Z W ,~ W I- ~ CI) W 0::: ::> CI) o ..J (,) CI) a ut;; 8.] 1Q\,) e:(l) ~:E-a j~j' 110--0 floC 'iE ~: ~~~~ CDe?: ~ c.~ ooE~g> w~o~ ll:~-~ ~Q~@ g ~~ ": u~_..". !!2.egs o tii '$'z ;;!;~5i ~=,g~ E~-5i_ c~.s.~~ ~..a5:.;'" ~~<~ ~ ~8.:'; ~a~i o..,...e ~o).u ci'i;~ ~",f$. JZi..<ri -"Gl8 "ii e.Sl.~ l!;~(l) ...J_u}.1n! o 0.: ~ '" .... <6 E CD s;; <:: Gl i!~o 00_ __tJ ~8~ ~~o $ 8.~ J~c ~ ~'" E ;r ~ s J:J:Gl ~; ~ i:~" .~ g>~ S'~...J ",,,,.., C;(t1!C: c.:s9:CI 2110 g,g " a. '" g;U5 e"'" ~o. -5 ~ ';::'...", ~ c: C ' .~ ~go ~~!!;; '"' CD e.~ ~-s 8:;' ,- _C.....I# ~ .~ ~ -g .g.a:-gu ttl'lj '" . "Ee-~ _._ 0 11: "Qlooo -~ ~~~~ ::10 8..l! -j?'" L~ agE 0., ];;0_ '" E ,g.~~~ > c: a; tj)-:Q.z 1 c '" c ~= !:?2-<:: -",~a:..ag..=::l.;.. a\llO)=~~~f'~g-;; ~~~i5eE:~~~ c:~e.~ i ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ c s: c e ~a; t:: c: '0<-= ;= ~:::8jl=:g.El;E2 .2....""!? g; r:! g-"!oI ce ~efi,g =:: 0:_ = o~ i1 .- :.;..- to) ';t ~'A - ~ 0 :; ~~5:.5 !i:~~:: ....,~~,,;-g~:::"''tl1iS agCD~.!1i1O~'~nlE &e-:54t:.;:-="'OI:e>E E~~jglij?"..8~f '0. III .. _ '" - - -g '0 i: Q '-.f;::JOfl!m.~='....~C) -;; s.c!1' 4)_tS- 0:_ c~...-=;50::;:jCDO-~ .2 iL! c:!2 ~- ~ CJ):~ 0 ]1'~o':.:c ~-U;.5 ~e;; l!1-..8~..8...g~-a~r: ~5;; ! e 'S~ ~ i::; e.- c -0 0 eo ...2-;; j?9! 'l! c <1 i5--- .,J: e'-.ii:= 0 ...!lw 11. ~.!ellg>~~"'i~ "oc:-_._",-.1<1 \I) .-;:-eoe. S""'- ~S2-8.l::'~~gO~'.. .Q ! i as :8 1):= - ~ o.$? , i~-o li.~!..e5- -;;=Q)~!t1~"O:c)<<I"RlCO ~,;;;t :s = _ ~ J::. qJ - cD - 2'" ",e._=_i1c:<<>'1 ....Q .- 4>1;1 ."'1!= ".eN ~iilg'~El!!;S-'O!eN << .:..='E&Q)4)q;O~j"" ieQ~~'5~!8g '" -'Eo"<:'o""<<>- "8 ~8 5 E 8.,= ~= !..8u 1 '" s I- Z W ~ W .... ~ CI) w 0::: ::> (/) g (,) CI) a i 0; ~ 8 4ff .S as C D '" E ~ III .c: E '0 e : ~ ll! ~ 'S ~'lil iO. O.E Q dEf~ 6~ ~-~ l-it '" 8 z't; ='" (H~~ i ~ ~11 ~ ~~~ji3 <,2s~g e ltl G2:5. e.= ~" 8.!=~ tUt=j .!le~<.i c ,f~ &:c; m. :c' co ~ ig1~ c.!'i-e : 'ELi i ...r;;:m-JQ.. -~. ::::0- g' '& '" c: ... :; ?:- ~ E .!! ~ j E III :; "" r: 's, .. r: .. :; ~ ~ :2 > '" o <.i ...i ...i iii .$ r ~ E ~j B~ O::E '" .. co 'g .. .. <: oa g g ~ ~ &ll..'ici fliD.:~ ~~~ l/;l:;S: '}: ~ '" .. .. '" r: 'ijj :: J::l 'tl ~ .!! ~'B o~ ~ '" _i~ ~~ ~] ~~ ~,.s ii~ =..... ~5 =-~ ..co. -Q. .... =e dJ,c ",- ...r:;; ~i ,~ 'Q. != .0" r: 'a2 -.. "'- -- Cl: ....- N 5 .,; ., '" c: 'in :: .0 If ~ Ii i: ., ! 'C .. Q. C .2 ~ e. 8 .. Sg :i!:-;; ,~ .fi ci ,g~ t~ tDE! =& ;8 ~-~ ....=> 0- ",,,, 5E fb j E ~ :;; .r:;; ~o f!' 80 ('l 1: ~ ~ ~.~ CD ~~E o"B g'es :et ()e""c,~:g !2~o:,EC~ ~;~~~~ Bj'i ~:e ~~ ~.~ [~i~ ~~gs~$. ~ II ii ~ ~~OC~~ CL~~.,gG1u a.!lii~1P s:..clS.. .2",'",.." ~ i e''t:! ~ a~ ~i '~~~a': ;S!o..8~ "' e e.- S -=0.8-" ~~ r:::ls 8;'g~ ~ ill ~ r: .. '" .0 j .S! rti ~"B ~ CD:Q: g 0 ~ ::: ~~g ~ !~ ~ ~~ '" i:1j = ~:: ~ :i~ ~ .... :r ~~ e ..,g .. J: a. Q) 1ii' ~ 54) ~ ;= ",J: ~'J '~2- ::;>':: .<l~ 1ijg -0; ;;S"~ J! .~ 1) c: .. .., r: to .0 ... .E '" .. J: 0> :> ::: !i c ., > ., Cii .::~'C !!;~*!? g ~ ;;.." c.ce~ 'g '" Ill.:: <<: ~2:5 _t.1 '" '8 ""::5 : 2=~:: _Q.lI.lQ. ,!Ii Ii 8..i " - _,_ e~ =', E=~i "'- - J: .. g'v al =-- '" ~!: :e"~ ~ ~~~E Q~....- " :s.-.S .ii! g-.sQ. :; .~ ~ ~ & E35i>~ ~ E ~~, ~ ,- 0.1%)...... Q. e~-<fJ.~ :e~~.i~ ~~-:.=,S -B;g>"'''' ,j;' ..." 'I: g 1: -.. ~'.o:; 2la..8E? - g. ~~ 0.10 Z ..;25 ts.5 o ~ a~ ~ 1=--"- <~:J2:.e 2g1= ~&: u..~::= C'- ;:::-8-6o'E; e Ii <=..8" 8 8 .~.. u~~-~:io:~< N ~ Co! -. "'....., ~ ..JL '" >;, ;!'>5 > 'a~,-i :: ~~'~ .f/t~ ~ .~~~ ~ ~""::: gew ;r, t-!i::: " .....~c~~ 'O%~.::z ~ C -~ ~r; o&$UJet I !~ I i2 , I&: I !i I ia; i !~ \i ;'S ,:...~j "'l;. g ~ <in :: .0 g "" Ii i: '" :;; c:: 'I: 0; C. C .9 co g, 8 .. '"" o ;,:, C .!!! .2 ....'7V ~ .~ ~:s ~~ gi E1i a.o ea. =8 "'c ....;: ~5 J:~ ~~ "0 t3~ If Ii I~ ~ ;~~ ~n~ '~~~ "'.n W-i; i " ~ fi ~ " ~ l ?' S !;:!~ '!,,1l ~....::~ di "..'" o x .--.-...., " ",.. .,'., OCEAN PREDPERTIES'I..LC Agenda Itel)1s15,t6,i~t7 Pag!;17 't)"E .. ~ 0..2 en< '" ..<> ~:~~ j~.!l UJ.'-' "'C Q) 0 l;: ,2 !! '" ~ll><Ii 4) 'Q q> 0'~,9 Clle~ ~ ~51 VJe=~ W~o:;:: o::"--C::: :>~-gg (#)0""8 9~~~ <.:I"'-dl ~=g8 3~:g~ ~ ~ g>~ o::l:;;.!!l E~-5~_ lr~ ,~.g ~ 4(.QQ).;W o!lB~ '" >._ 0 .'t:~'" ~ &1; ~ K~i o"OZ.s:. >UQ):II)t.l i7i2,;~ o~!$ c::: r::r ... ..::.::epMrn 16 ~.~~ ;;.;;~~ ,- 0" .. -1_",410 o a.: ~ .. .. CD ..J Cii <<S 'u I: g ~ ~ <: .., c " o g ~ .~ ~~uJ .:1. E ~.(.~ $~~ IV <l>';;~ c:._ 0 00_ C:cg ~ ~I'E ~ _ 0 2! ~~ .~g i II) c::: E ~5~ - > c.:0;I 0 :EOO "'e- c::: 0> ~ gc:~ e"ii ...... c;rn"O ;;!!fii ~g,.s c::: .!!l ""'Il) ~~g RCL '5 (J) :2rh Ie tile c: . 5~~C; = 0"- rc-.i!:--(l') -- 0.1 ! g e~ ~~ 8:;' :0.5 Ii> C) '00';;'8 ..g2'go ~ ti I>> . C :e-~ ~._ 0 ..."C .....: ~ g ~~ '" :.; 0 ~ ..... ra 0.- 15 g>! 0...- 1V o'Oc 0>_ 0<11 ~<a_ '" _ g.o'5~ > c: - .=';; '" '" .,.; :0 ~ ~Q..tPoc.(.) .c 3= ".8 0 Cl;;:: :; :E <: ::"'0'0) =~'Eott).Cl') G>tnO)fti32~CCfDft>t:U; =~C.cg~E0~gfl! o =:-=~~~rh'!::.s ,g.~g.; ~~ os;.~ i!!.s ~ ~ 5 CD ~ Q,l i ~ ~ ~o =~U--CQO.Qu~- .2~-=-=~.:gc4)C'Co~ ~~g:~~.~ ~.~ e ~ g ~ ~ >,o~.5 ~-i~ ~u ".0::::" (f)ch.2'E o Q}C.~",'i ~ ~ I () IV ::gll>-c.s!1O<e_'sIlIE g_:lQ>15~..ot::"'E E;'q)"'C~G)rnQ)V)Q;: 'I c:..5.! C) 'm..s-gS^~ ~ ~~'~o=i~.2~~O ~ ~.~J!.~O~j ~o1; ~.i~'; ~ ~ ~ Q~^e ($ = )('0-.1::) :;-.5 >--4l..J '$=OQ;"$~E.5!Q;'"g - - _ ~.r:. '" ~ <= Q..c ~~= -'x(,t)-S::E-CU :C-",5: ti4)o8co~ <II,s;!.;; g>.!~ c: 0 0 in(i,j ~~ ~'6.8~~ g :g'1J III -2-~ C:::CDE<>,Q'" '~1;;~~e:5 ~E~ lii~ il'$-;::ucEE8ell3; 'i~16~';~!i!$~ 1itOc9!O"OCft:l4ncaCO =15~m_C=4)COc::C1;:; is'00.thi'--~=oC I ~.g g>~E]g='O'$~~ ~ ,~:s E ~,-8 ~ :g :g 2 ~ em i=ctJ~';)'g;;:)g~Q) ;V 51!!!! ::g<>'E Q> c;'S"8 Q. <> 0 t: .5 <II .;; c..l:I () l- ~ f/) UJ 0:: ::l f/) o ...J Q f/) Ci "0 <Ii ., <I) 10 <I) ~ ;; 0. ..s 8 <Ii .~ .8 - E 4) (U .:::. E '0 !2" o = 0" ~ ~:g 0 ~~ "i.ij OE 0 d E- ~B U)c cac:::' ~ i5 ci .. ~:E "'8 Z ~ :; ~ -<< lU >-, S:2.eo.Q::; ... '" c: i,~ Do o..jt 3::::: ~ 8^g g-g :=S2:::: eQ)Q)~ 8.= ~.. 8~':~ maCe;) .!!gg~ E u ~"i ~ c'" . =,2 <I) ~ ~== t: : .~ i ai :; ~~ a. :::: 0-- 0> :: '0 '" c '" ::E ;& i5 r- E ~ ~ ~ c Ql <Il '" Ql c::: 'i .is ~ ,g! ;s~ 10 .~ o~ .. '" ~~ ~~ (J)'- ~~ -E~ <V- is. m... ~8 <'C':.:::: ::;c. -"'- "'''' .;;'" ...c 4>- ",.c ~'j '0.9- ;:>.c .0'" " =0 (g:.= ]I.!!l ~!! <.; ,Q c: i5 ::E 0> <:: .~ :: '" ::E ;& Q; r- :2 > '" o U -' ,..j ,,; <:> ';p i5 0. C 0:. i! 8g O::E '" I ! II ]1 I J ! \ I i i I o ,,; '" '" " '00 ;:l .Q ~ .~ .r:. Ie ~ 1: III 0. r::: .2 10 ~ 8 '" Sg :;:~ "''' :='2 c::: '" g~ ~j 4.1 f! ';;0 _Eo =g Q;.S .c" .x::l l ~~ l.c.- !~O <Ii j E 1 E ~e ! uO 8 ~:i ~ UJco~ 1i 0:: E'w _ ~.gil o~ g;;E :g:Jl <.:Ie-=0>~8 ~~ ci.C c:.. Q'5:E~":: 0::.'" e=';;"'" ~~~.g~i ~~~~-gii OoQ.",3:~ ~~gjg~ <<. Cb= a.S ~ ~i~ ~~ o ~. '" ., 0::"'" 8 g =~ CL-€tO~~.9 ~.=,~ ~: ~ ~ ~~, ~~~8.~ .!!!~$~o. :5~~Ql~ ~ e ~:S ~ -!Q.8~~ g~.~~'::: u===.,.: 'E {J) <( '" c::: S .c 10 :.: '" ~ dl = c::: o -, <( ., .!: :;; .;; III :.: .., .;; E (f) .... l:> Q. o 0; " OIl a.. Q; J:> E 0> ~.'" st. ~~~ a1 ..'~ E g ~~cn -: <:,PJ: <: ;;;~~g? ~ ttlO';::.~ ~~~~~ l!ia:cf~& ~g-g ~~-5 ~ g2 ~.~ "Cc4)~ ;.2:u e '3 ~:5 S'a,;; a .!!! g. 8. 'Sl .54>"0:; lV-.t:. c"O "'-COlD ~~ ~n '0 _._ l:/) E ~~~-~ ~~.g~ Om"-.... ~~;.~ ~~;e~~ EBg~! -E ~ ~g g .- 0 4) _ Q. G)C-""cn =o'i';~ ~ :g. -: 10 .5 -!l1 g>~l! 7, ~!'ia lI>.5! .' .,CQlc.uq oo.cE2....J :: ~g~~~ Z....;.D. 4)'- It) Q~ ~:g~'~ ~..,,g"o <.:1",,<1>- _,5 CD= ~Q" ~~~5'Eiii ~\ \'~ ffig ~ g, 8 8 :>. ~ - ! 0 <.:I _ III Vi '" 0 co <:0:: ~ g '" VI OIl " 'jj; ::> .c -g ~ E'B ~ m 0", - '" ~g ~~ .g~ .!'5 ::", ~::: "'<t 0.- (0..... ~ ~ ce;.;::: .r:.c. -Q. "'.. .;;., ~= g;.::: ~n .so. Ut -- ::>.c J:>" ~~ -.. .!! "ii ...I~ "," '" ., c::: 'w ::l ,Q g '" 0: :2 t? OIl " 1: '" Q. r::: .2 'E o c. 8 III ..... o :!:c .ga-9 "''i !.!'i ~~ ~o i~ ~il 12 2~ - c.l:; l~ ell"- _ = 8 oS S!~ i .!: : u~ ~ ~o .. <.:I 0 J,.: I.. x .. .~~~ 0",_ ~~; ?~ ~ t;.~ 4l> $ ~ '" i " 5 v ! I ~ ~~ ~ It:_~ pi> ..::! gf~ t.)~':: '" OCEAN PROPERTIES.L.LC Agenda Iterris1S,16,.8t.17 P~g~'1~ l- Z LU :E LU ~ l- (J'J LU a::: ::> (J'J o .....I o (J'J B -g~ a.. a ",0 ~<l.> ~!E e ~~'j "'0 ~ .?! ~.", 2: 'Q) .'Ii ~~.~ 11>21: ~::i: tI) ~= gr W_o"'" a::'j;-C: ::I_iS .~ ~~~ ... >= - ~2g8 o 1; '5 -.~ ...J:5.a41- ~ ;Ii!'~ o:.=.l!l -",Bg !::C(JftI_ g~~~ ~ <.D41",... .....0'" O:lu~ e~'~~ ~ 8.=~ ~~!~ 8'0 'i'fi -s - C'Gi ~. :l'i~ 0:1<..._ ~ i Iii,; 1i j.~ 8 -;;- c:i:. ::::i.S1 :l 51 u c.: ~ ., ~ .~ all 'g " .. Ii 0 .c <( <( all .: 1( .g is :; ,:: ~(.)w ~Q..R~ ~.<= ~.~~ S! :OJ-=:_ t:_ 0 00 ig~ j(:5 J!l!~ ,!? oii ~ IOE ft;ie ~=~ o..GlO :;: 15" ~r:- c-tI S goj .!!7i-c !;c <:I.... ~8.3! c:..,S ~Cll(l) Eii~ ~9~0 ..t::. DI'J ~ . .. s c: ' .~ o8~ ]i ..a-~ '? eg e~ ~.l:: 8:;' ~~4iC> '= 0='& .g..a-gu ~i~~ ll.l'- 0 ...."....J d:5~~ .:: ~ &.$ ogo:l e.'",,]j Sg.s C ll.l !~o tci ,5 ,90 if' ~,..~ > ;;; ~; :g 8 '0. ti :; ;;"O~5O'JE::E'< ,-t=:l~4)""'::;::tGCOifJ:~ f>>:9) a=~..!: i C) ~ ~o; = Ill".::; 5 ~ E .. -... ~ 0':::'; "'..'::2:-_ ~ ",]is ci.,~ e ,- fI':l ;,;;. 0 C 0: t) e ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ i .~ ~ .~:a c.,u~-,(tJ:o.Qu:.;:_ .2 ~ 'tQ == f.~' c cu t'Gi......2 ]i ~ -;,!ES <~ g= Gl ~'E o---..--(J' ~.... '~ti 0 -~>.o<ll:::lGlS,c~(,,) ,=.0"", .u..c Cl.:g '"S!E ..c>c:2:-...-g~":llUGl c 5 ., ~ .91,;' cu' ~ os: IS E ;_=G:5-=tQo~~E E~~; ~li~~:G'~ ~ :~!~~a:: ii-g e 0(3 i3..cC)~-1O;O=m aJ!l:G=-.;o'E..!!!~~u .- ,".J::: c: "'. J1 '". 0> C>'~ 0 (6'XO'-'c:C- C ><t)-l: ~~.! !~Bl~l~j~ ,. -:t ';("0=- ~ ~ ,E ~ i ~l 6 ~ .4) 0 S iCl.-Cll!l>~c:..O'.S :E~.5~~oo. .!!lI) :::"-=ZClle"~::lc> .~g~~o~. 8.~lE-e~ !!It,9-8::e ~ 8g~'.. J3 - i .. ~ ~ <oE ell.!!! "'~-o<:tc;..:!!!",e=..: ~.!lI~o!'Jo"041" ....c:~ \:0.:2 l!l_e';;4lIll_Gl.., =~!!~;;tsQ)';;O.!N :c ~ ~?:E. !-:5="Ci"ii-N N ~ ~ ;;:: 4J.cp 4) .. .~ 2 i ~ c:g al g'il "0 ~:::l i ~ ll) ; 5 ~; '5-5~'41 c;.~"8 c. <.> " E <> ..5 <II = Q..c (.) l- Z LU :E LU ~ l- rJ'J LU c::: ::> en o .....I () (J'J o 'i ,,; i E 6 <II = E o ~ Q ~ vi w'" 0 ~.~ a tll" - oil .;; c:3 E ~B .. fn~ g.~ Cia: c:., I'-:E ~~ ~ i >-':: Uc:".o_ :; i!jgo", Yl Q.o.'~~-:: ~ c:'==~ g"g,s;: E Q .os. ~i ~ ~ o Q-._ -"! : ~~ . E8~~ l?j"'OIl . ag.!~ 0.. to -.= :~~i = 2>~ c. =o~ go :;, .. ~ ;:: i:- lii r- E .$ ~ l.: .! c: .. :E Ii!' '5> '" c: .. ;:: ~ C> I'- ", 'j; III o d ...i -t '" .2 't: 8- e ~~ ~E u<l> 0:: ~ 'E e '" .... C> " .;;; ::> n 'i i ~a~ Q~ -~ f5 ~~ c;~ ~.ii ~~ !:::: !S- :'E i;g &: 0- _0. .... So ...r: :~ :rri ,S: Co ~i c 1ig -'" ~E '" <; oi fA ., " ';; .5 .Ii .8 E lii ., J: E -::'0 w ~o B 'a,,; s W ~~ 0 ~~'~ 7e tllol::.o 0'8 g~g ~! ~~~.'~~~ O~~~ "''::: a::.,e-=- "'~ ~li' ~.:;;. ZQ;JC-c-':::: ~ii="8ti OQQ..,:t:~ >- ::"eal.2- I'- 1:: .2 1>.:E ~ a:: t~ E " ~~28~~ 0.... i: - '" 113 a::'-gfi:':.c Q.~;:..o a:;Spi ~ ':"-20 (/1- ~ ~ 2>~ ~ Ql:1:0=i: .; ~'i E"[ ,c'l:eCl.- ;8.o~$ ~ 2' 0.__ -o.~';)~ ~ .! .~ :::J S 8;g..; E '5 o a:: en " E <tl :.:: a; .t::> " :$ ::i: Q'J ~..., c :--., 'g>~ S ~ ;:::, z:.~ ~ ~- .. ,,% "S; - 8~ ,g="O ",-g2 ~-;;'~.~ g~ !~ "0 c:!!!,c S~=.9 g .~ .~:g ::= 0...;; Q. 11.1 o...O"Q - = 0.2 .5 -~"Q, :) e.cc"t:l - - <G III .! i g>5 "0_._ w ~~~!.s E~'8g 81.2.2 a~..!!! Ci. . ~ 5a ~~\ l: .- .. <II "" =~a"C" ,g""o.o'ti r:;' ""C'? <C v_O~_Q. O'c;....'COm =o~;;s ~:g.-:'5S i ~8,~~~ i -- CD .... G)O ~~_\l '8;: l ~~~:m'^1 -~.E;:~-' 0% of ~ .~; .~~,.... · ,c _.J:>.c: 'l: a j::--"-'-.:. ,,'/ <OO.S!"'oo. .!I' !:d~ -g.! ~a: ~ !: e '"5 ~~ 'c .~ 1'-c>'00_", ~,,: a:: 1! ll.l e 0 ~ ....'. W :> '5.2' 1$ " ;;. ~\'" u_.,.. ..OCD<" e , $I \~~ \.:. '::'0 ......11 ^' ..... l a; '" '" III C "Jj; ::> D a: .~ i;~ ";~ l5~ ~ 8 ~q) .- ::: ~~ ~~ i;b !~ !~ .."" ~~ "'= .J::: Q. _0. 11l<; =<> :&O..c.: ..- ~:€ tll3: vE c.. B~ " 'iij,g -~ ~.- -(,} ....... .; '" '" c: ";;; E g 0;:: a: :E .. ~ " t '" Q. e- .9 "$ 8- 8 <\l ... ~c: .~.2 ...,ii ~~. ;;:" ;e, to ~j ~ ! i~ ;~ ~'e ",:l ,c~ ~l ro 06 !."" :'iI '0 I! i.l! i& im .'" ;.- ;)0( ,., :.. I~ 1(1) r-- l.a. ,.. j '5 <> a:: .Q Cl>E i~ c;.g :.::'" ~!.::';l; ~~s l\)o.- ".. ~~i '!~;: '9 ~ " 0: I " ~ t.i :E e? '" c: t:: ! r::' .2 '! ~ 8 '" ~c ~~ ..... :: 'c eo ,g~ 0..'10 ~~ Q! =8- E 8 ~LE ,cc; x:J g~ Do o '" x IE I~ " c. .. " .. :; ~ ~ j ? ~ ~ i~~ n~ ~::~ s " ,,: ~~ 6J:.~ OCEAN PRE),PERTIESILC Agenda Itelrists,16,!17 .'Pf:i.g....e,u19 . ,:::.'.:, ,'"":'.:--~"::--"~:. .", . (:C"CC " ~,-,. I- Z W ~ W I- ~ (/') w cr ::> (J) o ...J Q (/') B ~~ c,.2 <>>u !S_ ,.- ftI. €'@ i 3..- ttJ.-'C ltlOC Olol)t;: '~~ e ~i.~ (jP~ .:g a. Q) > '" O'J e~ g> IIJ;O 'S 0::'- - - ;:) ~i g ~ 0"'" 8 ..J ~,g '" ()'CO-tn !!?.cgS Q1ii-'~ ...J~5~ -= ~ '" g>~ o !~,,!! Ehl~~ g"!~.a ~ <""0 ... ~ ~.~ 5 ~'t:2:ll> th.~~ C:ce- ~ C. Cj ::! 8i~fi C;;ii' ~8e$ ~g- .; t,i _'-.0(1) ~1J~'~ :i$ :u d 0.: " fD -=_ c::_ 0 00_ =c,g i!s'E ;;: _ 0 .. &0 .~o~ ~~:E (0 ~:E ;::-~ a.!? 0 :<:00 ~Elii o o:U -- C. 0 ~':~ !~c:: .."''' '", :g S! C c.", cnccCi5 ~~~ tQ. -g en ';;;: G) f' '0 c c:: . g~go -;.;:i4'Q .. <<i2':-'loo.(\") '!g .~~ ~<6 8 : ,- ,c:: :t,.. 4) .-a~ ~ '8 .g~g (,) !g~>.. r::....o e'ti _...; ecIct'o f'-,g l;<.!!l - cuc, o g> ~ 0.,_ t 00- u,."S 0", ;e - ,,5 v9-;iO ~ :: () .;;~q;5""; E ~"O]J 6 &~ :s~~ ....~o!:,o~~f!o"'~ ! = = ~ '3 'S ot4J ~ 5 .~ ~.~@:~ ~~: :-~2 Q.c~e,,- "'",., ~ '" "'c ~: ~ '5 * 15 i .~ .~ ~ ~i5 s:: cJJ U.s:::. :5 - ~.Q:z.: - .2 fJ) {U - :~ ; c CD t; ~ -~ ~,,~€t!~.~ .~~ e ~g -~ '-":::&..!!l.:g~(,) .=,.Qz~u...J:J, i0~C ",~c~...i~~~"" :; 0 Go' e .~ 1ii m '- .- m E Cllc'-: lidS".;:'" 0 ~ E e';"l!G;~'li~{l~~~ > jC'-'='lflI-:'Oc:.:O ~ ~othi2:-;:)_Q)<:) ~ ~ -e ~ .~ 15 ~ i ~ ~ B ;~il~! B i"&:~,g C)( o-J:J c<;;J: >Q) ! ~ .!- CD ..! ! .gE i~ 'g "'"'-!;--"'!;e-'" :t$St:~C~lo"..lS$'-~ i <i::: Ol: <II ~ - (5 ~ g .. :c. ~,3 ~ ;So ~ ..'~ lh ~g.!:g~~~o~~2 _"".5 c 0 c o..E'\e.lh !is o..fP"",..;: O!!'. ,Q!::C1llS;~~8~::>j i2:-leo~4l",~..l$"; 16.t!~J!~",=,cCD.t'lcS ~1l ~ :;:_S~ e,! c:'7 <:.0 ...--!l1i ",!=~;S"! :f ~l:~El.-.=-Oln'CN ~ ~=1;~C>>>~OEQ)cm ct!<Il",:!2-g..!!"'O!!1<l> ~cl.l>e'~<:l$:>~2i'8 ~8 5 ~ 8.5:5~ &]Ju .,; '" '" 0; E ..... Z W ~ W I- ~ en w cr ::> en o -l Q (J) 5 "" <II 1ii 8- l5 " c: C ::> l5 &:; '0 .,; ~ j ~ ~ '0 i'i Q oil '0 ti@ ~'8 0"" g~ Cd c~ .....2 5~ :if'! c; u ~._ 1;'"" ~ ~g>i~ o.c!~'S oc(g:2l!~ f:<DO~ 8.;S~ .. 8~':~ :t;~ ::8~.2 c: 0. ctt 5 cC . '5.:2.! ~ a. to _ 'C: ~'E~S ;::: CD....J Co =0> -~ 0"': .,; Q; D e '" E Q; ~ '" ::;: ~ -a, $ ;;; ::;: ~ ~ "" -s; ... Cl d ...; ...i of '" C Cll Q. e 0.", c,:;: ~E '" '" 0::;' ~ c:.' ....I "" C e ~ '" '" 1ii .~ '" <: "" c~ 't) o 8 ~ ~ d:<.lW .. 0.. e ~<:l! $'~~ -0> c: '0 '" c '" ::E ~ .. l- E ~ ~ ~ E .. '" .. '" r::; 0; ::> "" '0 '" g ~~ ~., 0., - & ~., -- <:: "'- '0'-- r~ ~-'5 c:'" E:: "''<t Q.~ Q;": ~e !II"" .co.. -Q. "'''' :54:< (R: ~-~ '" :: ,E Q. ;:c .e'" '" iE:2 ';).5 .- .. ...J~ N 5 .,; ., E ':r. .5 f '" ~ 1: Q as .J::; E ~o ~ ~o Q: -it ~ w ,Q _~- o::e-.. to ~..gil '0'8 g'i:E !l~ ue.!; 0. E .. tI)~ ~ c: ~:g Sij~~ !:: ffi~~ ~~='~ z'" ",-1;',,- ~~~~i'fi 0~,:S!~~ ~t~-!'5~ ~ II~i~ o_-.!!!" 0::"- 8 '" ::: l'i Q.~", ~!!!.!:i a>:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a; ~il:?;8..f ~~ie! :c: 't: - 0. . -8.!!2~ S! E ~= S .!!! 0.. 8;;; ~ ~! ,,:::;.5 8;'g~ <:> is ~ <: C c <: siai-g ;]'50': 8 gg'i"E ;~;j ; .2 .:; .0 o m ~:3 2.1<.5' '" _'E.-;;Q. .!e g 8.j J; Q)'''O :J ~= fi''g .c '" O>~ -c: '-"--',' '~-E~~ ~~~s 8"'-- g,~.Q g-~ Q. ~ 5B!e..~ EBg~l ~ t5 ig ~ -QO_o. ~C:-'"0 :SogJ~ ~- :e. -: 'i ,!:: ~g-~~g t:.....~Itl; 8 ~~~!:l ::~.g;-~ z..;J:>",-- o ~ a:s- 1 i=<;.g~~ c <ll- (J &"C.:; a !!; ! ~ -; .5 "{~" ~.gaJO~S wc.=Cg --'" " :> ".S!' 0 ~ '" \ __u}fh~'_<' h ~ e <:> '" '" '" C 'iii " .0 s: 9 ~e o~ -2:- fl .S! ~ ~~ .g~ w_ ~~ !.~ =.:..: ~ 3 01= .co. _0. "" .. =4) ~= :#a ",'I; ji.o. li ~~ ~ ., :S"! '" <; .0 E Q,i. ~, ~ < &~ ~j~ ~ -.. ~A ~F '" "'Cz .~:-g 00:: 1.i '" ., '" 'aD " .::;; @ <.: ci :E. ., e .5 {;; Q. .9 E f ., ... o :z:- ,!? g -., ~ ,~ '?;c o~ ~o .."" 00., e'S Q.~ ..~ =8 :!:Or::; e-.- _ c. <:>::> .J::;_ ~o ".r: rs u a. ~- I! is l~ !! ~! l~ !g I~ r- 1t1O' '" " 2)., o>e -., <Cz c- ~,~ ~~B ~':\h !i"~.' t:0 rl.~ ~ .~ a; - e: j ~ :J -'!- '?; a; .5 a r:. :2 l'l ~ 8 .. Be :z::2 .~~ _c c:... Ji ~ Q.- i! C)! ;S8. !lt8 Q.~S: .c'" .:..:':J ~.~ (,)0 o x 5 E J ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Hli. ~;:i 8l~ OCEAN PR0PERTIES..l..LC Agenda Items 15, t6,~17 P@g~g() LIJ ~ LIJ !- ~ (IJ LIJ 0:: ::> (IJ o ...J Q (IJ 5 '"5"; (U ..... 0..3 "'<J 0'" ~~1i j~~ ;o'g :'-' cc= ee.; "''' '" "">.:~ ~~~ > !Ii '" cn.:?~~ 1IJ ~o;; ~~';5 Cl)o~s O.,E= ...i:>= .. ~~ggj is'l;''5~ ;t;.Q1J5 :z l:l g>- o ,~:o~ E~-fi i._ g~~.s ti <.00";'" ls~8; .. ,..- ... o<=~! 'lS9!",~ ell o.n- i c.5~ 0'''0 iotJ.c c"eoO e--,'~ ~I=~ Q::l__ ~:r.;.. =~8e ~~.~.~ :is:~ u c..: '" Q:=- 1:_ 0 00_ e __.u (tiC';: -"'I: ~!:!o .!l!~ ,~o S S~ E 25~ - :> Q,QO :cot!) ""Et; J g.g =A_-J ii~ ftl; !l" .~ :..~s c: Q.~ ~0U; ~~t 'Q. "'ii (I). 1: V) I ~ ,i~~ ~bii~ .l!~-C') ! ~ e,N ~:5 8;;' .-. c .... 4): ~~~& .g 2:0 g () ~i~~ ",._ 0 -"Q ........: ~5~:t :;:: 0 Q) .. a;;; ~:!S OJ; 8~E 00 ~..- .. .5 ,g..~~; > t: (t) ~-~8 ri ~ C :Q) c:- (1),_ ......1;;<{ ~ m ~ i .Q g ~~ 5 ~ J9 l:Jq)OJ;~,~~Q~aU) :5~C:~oeE0""'=~ o2:0=",J::~~~...l!B ,:9-';;:; g 'f; ~ -~ 0 ,S,i .;!?.E {; i gt: Gi ~ 0 i ~:~ ~o c0' s;.-rtto.Qt5<-- g:~;;5~g,g..-g~ ~.5 ;:;"o'~ ~:: ! :~ g ~ ~~o:.a ~ii~ ~':: ~ .0.: . I/J..Q :: ",:g~~..i~:g:i<.l'" mOVJi~~~o'~:~ E'Z~ - e= 4) t4 QJ~ ai 'Q.i~~: ~=g~ ~ ~ ;c i ,:, 0 Ii f!t) ~2 .... ~-C) ~UJ~~~o~i~oi g,]j~';;;~~1io.i$~ ~'so';:~c>~~o!-o ~_.. o~..::u;:s ~Q.~ '" >"'= -'-11>5<1:-'" ~=.5 i~()~G10S ,~,g:~ ~~ ~ coo ~"'.f1 {t},~ !=.c:;.- ~ c QI)';SV'" gjcsellg>li;oll/<<lg c.2 C--,- Q,ES.o", '~ti'Q.gC: e.E E 0 ~.4: .E'(p'- ;:E~Ql!!;;" - '&;a2 0 ~ III U E. Qt, ~ i ~~o ~ii:n! to!? j;...: 'l;"'~.!!!o't>iI>llI"",,,,o ;$::2 ~ :'c~5= e1 c:~ :;:~ '.-'l:l'l;G>-O.cN :r.'::~~E ~==Q"i~N N .!=~&"lDt4Q)Eg@ iE 4) ~~'-g$ ~ ~~ 4l ;S:~:g51l'E!!!<<;0"8 Q.l:$ 0 _ u.= III = Cl..Q 0 n -0 vi 0 1i S ~ g g ~ 'c 15 '" E 4> 4) ~ ~ o a; .,; ~ ~ i 0 ~'ill 'l;; o..c '0 ....;1_ ~~ U e E'" U)~ ~~ is ci ..... - (J) ~ ~'i =c < a; ""c t,)C:,..Q~ ::;i~i~ t: ....3: t; :: < 5~~= g =..e~:: !1bQ)~ &:E H "'s ~ ~ 3.!!-_ eo. Q" c;: ~ ~~g: 'E u ~~ ~ c: '" "" :ag,gQi :Q.t1S-e :'E!i s ~~ Q. ~'o__ C> = '63 .. <: '" ::E ~ a; I- ,EO ~ ~ ~ E '" ::E '" c '0, '" c III ::E ~ ~ :2 > .. o U ...i ...i <A '! <l> Q, 2 o..~ c,,8 "'E 8~ !- Z .W ':i: LIJ !- ~ rIi LIJ 0:: ::> CI) o ...J Q fJ') 5 ! <I:l c .Qi ~ .. ell iii '., <:I '" ~ <I:l C 1( ~ ~ s '" . CXl~W .; II: i 1~= ~::E~ ~ C 41 .. '" G> c "! .5 'i ~ lS~ ~ .~ o~ -~s Ill'" "i~ .g~ ..- Eg 0_ [~ ","-' ~ 8 m= .=. Q. -Q. "'.. €Cl> 0= OJ _ i~ .50. ~.;:: ]~ ~g .;~ ....... N ~ .,; !l t: "t; " .0 ~ <i :E ". ~ '" 'C = Q. .: .2 E <:I Q, <5 <.l '" ~c: :t! J!,~ 'Ea g~ 8:1 "0_ ae .&:0 -Q, illS :;,E ::.c .:Jt,' .::J 11 015 o .; a; .Cl E '" E <; .r::. ~o ui .g ~ 8 ~': ~ ~;:,~ 15 ~~~ ~~ g<Ie ..:JJ I.) E:!", c;,~ ~ ~~ci,EC'Q) ~~ ~.~~,;; ~.~ ~s~~ ~.:::~.~'Q~ o~Q.;~~ ~~g~15S 0: Q,) .-.0;._ w Cl. 'l; E!1 " 1L~&8E~ ~"'ls.:l!ll 1L~~~!2 ~!!!.!:!3:" -,,-CO"; Q~"'~(j; g~~GI.f "'0-08''' 1~~Q.C: ......=_oe0 ~ 15- &€ ~ .eo.o t; q; ~~>'E~.5 8;:g.,.; -g, o u:. Ii c o .., j '" <; :i: .~''''' .0) , c ~ 'i'~ c ... ~ ~ ~~~ (j;~ 1-.. :2'" :>~ tj~ 2a;'i 5~"5 en gIll".,$; ~~.! ~ -g5,~..c :~.;~ .$~~ a .!! g. &. ~ J=o~:; ;).cC"O ! i :-5 i~..~. : ::"Om.t= ~j~:9 o GI)........ uooo g a::;'a, .- C:.Q q)]1;'. -;~Q"~:.& j,~ E e 8. 'l::l : 1& ~~~~~ j~ --oQ_Q. 1~ :CD c ..... . U) ]:; =~.i~~ h: !~-:ii'.S ~~ - II '" ~ .. ,1!;; ~!H~~ . . 5."" I;. ~ c: ~ 8-'g c.j~ I~ _ 8.'~ a ;; ~ ~~li ~ i.t~i ft;< J:>;'I! i=;5~of ,~ ~ii""~"" ~ u::..j- . '. ,0 - - :>c: .,,,'i~ ~~1l.~8l'J;\ '",.~ w :> "5 .!2' U 08 '" "''. '1'0 1.)._ "'''' '" CXl"" '. 0:, ~ c: (,"I- fIl .. '" c 'iii ::;" "Q " .s ,.~ fE~ Q. ... 0' ~ -~ f; "" <Il ~:~ ~.~ ~"5 4J~ i~ <;1- ~ i ~,g .&:0. _0. ftJ,('D =;l "'= '" - "'- ..,: ~. ~ .'5: c. :If.l';:: .E$ ij,g ~~ ........ I. i . ~iti :::l "Q I.: Q. :~ e llJ c 'C ., Q. r: ,2 'l; 8- 8 '" ~ o :t c: ,!!, 9 ~ii C>~ ~a I, ~~ IV" , C. IV i e ii I 0. ,""" !f 1 rg 'I.. ~~ . t3 (5. Ix I., l~ ;,S ;j I,} ~*' ,''' !:? l~ i! ;-.0. ;.. .' -0 >- .2.. ....e .", a::z C'.c o.~ """),Q,. ~~~ ~ 1i ~~ ~~~ ~.~; ~- :., H ~ ~ - 'i ? J N s J t ~t'~ ~'5ii "-'2 ~;'t o l(.. i..:u\.~ OCEAN PR~J!?ERTIES~LC Agenda ItetnS15,.16,i~17 . ..J?QQ!?l ue ~ - 0.'= o "' .,'" ~:5" ~ ~l ,,_ T.Z IV ('; 'r;. .~ ~ ~ '2: a; .,; ~n,~ ~ [~ > 0 0E~g> Ill~O'" !S~;g tn""'.sO OOE" ...J ~= ~ OOl-0 !!!:;g~ o Ol - .2: ..I=..5~ :! ;: 2'- o :~,~ E~-5:i,> g1~~m <I(~~-= ~ ;.,~ ~ O':"~~ tl8.5:~ ~ K~!? 8-g~13 i=t;~ O,,~S ~ ~ g'; ~ ~2: .~ :i3:~ c;j 0.: ~ !i .... .!!! ~ g ~ ~ <0( oll (5 1$ ~ ~ S<.;!ui enD: ~ ~<o(o: ~~.~ ., (t=_ c:_ 0 00_ ~C~ ,.t:55 ~""(j 2l 8._ .~O i ~"" E aiie =-5~ 0."0 :coO ~E.. g g>~ m- -I 'ii=-g ;;:g", '", ~.s - -.. m:5a; E .. ~ . J::0 0.'" :.c 0', to c:: C ' 5,~go ~~eM ~~ ~N 2:-.= 0'" Ci~(,)<D'> .- c; ~ III i:'~"O .J:tOOO ::J~c:O ~~~,~ ",._ 0 ..."Q'lo...."..: ~a~~ ~ ;. 0.-0 ,- m: 0.- o 2'! ~~~~ c.>"'::: g e ~t'Q.... 0 ,,;: .g.1J.'I~O > ~,~, i5;:Sc.t:3 .::: ~"O.8 a 8,~ ~:c< -:=oCtJ. -=mCOUl0 Q1' U) CD(;J2~'; Q)' $ Ceo =-~t:~5!EItJ'!.g~ 0;'= "'..: >o~~. .,iE!!Z =i:= e.!! fJJ. S 0 c ~ 1U t: :E C C ~ ti i ~ ~. ~~ ~:a ~: 8~=., o.o~~=_ .QfIJ<<I-~~,c4:tt'll'~~ j ~;;-iE.2^5 0;5 q) ~c C)' ,- -,- 0 d} ~ ", ii' 0 .~~~O~~.& ~i~ ~~ "'91;:~.;al~g;~u" ~6:~~j=o:'~~g --.. -is -- e;~ w ~ =,1~~"~ ~ ~g. ~ .~ ~ = ~::~, 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3;.c e;l ~o-a; o'~1S g~Cii:'0 ,~'~;!~<.> ~,,~=,= = 8 ~ ~Q)"""....o <Qi x 0 .- - t: -.... >- l;t E~C)Q;~2.gE~.!~ >- ~ ':5 ~ - ,~ w E E- t.s :g=..5o~~c84>l)~ C> 0.- Ol ~ Cll' r:::: ... 0: . ~- :;: '" .5 2J::; 0 0 .!!? (/) : ",l!!'5" Ole! c: g::;lCb ~~~.:~5 8.E~.Q~ ~G"o. g,g ,5 " ~ oS'o "~'-"c;EE !I?::>" ..o-{;1lI0QjCll ego!!! "g2:-c;0<.l1il"'i!:",~'$""; ~,e~~o"C!=(i)cei~ ::.:2 ~,tr.tc,s:-~! c: c)("") =,0 A~'c>,,=ltl'_O.r:;~ ~ .g ~,b E ! = :; '0 (6 ~ eN N!=~&m4Jti/S)g4)"" ::e""'~-g~~o9!.. ~c~ig~~Qi~"8 0.80 E ..,.=..: c..cU !- Z w :E w f- ~ (/) w a:: ::l (/) "0 .. ~ o 0. o o :: .= ::> ",' ~ '" g '" Q; .D E $I :: j "5 fIi o 8 III ~ :g ',!S ~ .. 8~ 0 ~.~'~f c~ ~~ ~'~, s~ c i>> >0- tJ c: ~...c~ ::j'~ g'--o ,t;; ~o.'~~"" :: c;-.2.2 ii .g:gs~ !Q)tU~ 8.= g.. 8~'::~ c;ai~ .!!! !5,g ti 'E 0 ~"i ~c<J:.; : ,,2 fP Q) :~'i= c <<J.!::! U; 't: 1;::J ! - :9' . -o~ 0> C "S, '" c '" :; ?: ~ E ~ ~ }; ;: .. '" '" " c; .;;; '" .Q j .~ e~ ..~ o~ ~ .. ~15 ,- :: :2lt:;- .g:~ !"5 c;", ~:t: ..-q: 0.- ..""' :: ~g J::o. _a. '" 10 ;.s =~ .. ;;: ;5 a. ~~ ..0 :0 c: ~g -10 'II - .- \tl ....- Ii; ~ ~ :; CI'> c 'f c: CIl :; ~ 4; I- :2 ,. <II o c;j ..i ..i .; " 'E II> 0. e- a.- c;Z 5g 0:; N c .. '" II> c; '.. '" .t:> E .;; <i .:2: l!! ~ 't: .. C. e .2 ;;; ~ 8 co 8c ~g "'~ :: 'c c: CIl ~g' ~~ ..! ':::0 -0. ';8 j.g ..." " ~ '" '" .c:.t:: Uo o ",' .& Oi g J:: E ~o vi ,~o g -.:t.. IE wg.~ 0 a::e;E 'ii ~~] 'O'B o Q')r; <=C "'''' 5l!!l:E~ ~~ ~.g>~ g 0'6'-;;"'" !I!(I)';;'.2..s~ ~.~~~~! ~si~"O';; OoQ.-~~ .tDo- ~~cj=~ 0:: & ~c...e ': ~~o~~~ ~"" $C:'~] Q.'t~~~2 O.!!.!:!3:" ~_t:.O,tA 11~2>~! ~~~8.~ .~ ~~ 2 Q. :6Q~:~ s8-&=~ S!i3.8~-" ~~c::S.5 8;;;"~~ .. " ;::. e> c 'S :J Q :0 '" g > Q) c:: :; 'e rJ') Q) 0. o ~ Q) Q" III f3. '0 $ .. '" ;::. ~ 'g <J) III 0. o <is c; III a. , t:i ~5~ .c ~.8'5~ ~ ~ g ~ g'.:: ::.,~ u; m.~l-..a'3 a'1-2 ~ c Ill.<: co..; ca S :; .g ~~.~ ~ ~ .:~ .~:g ~ ~~ E ~a'!ii Q. :Ei fI) .!l ft &. i ~~} == .E4>'t'S .!e ~::;~al '''' ~ ~ g>13 ~ ~ i :::>2_ ~ ~ <<;:"'O~~ 0,,- ~iii \_ -I i.~ '~~.~" ,~ ~ E~g ~ ~ .. g> !a te 0..0 (,) .'S ~S-o.~~~ ::J o C looo Ct,I ~ =oij;s?~ 23--:.16- -l'lg>~'" ~!'i Ill~ 8g.!~2 :: g-g ~~ Z ,.J ,052 ~ ':- O~a..:i5'"~ ;::-....~'- <C(~$:-g 2S~:;:~ ~ f!! :; ,'C'- ~~alo'E ffic:;c;8 O-=~'~~ 8.~ 0" 15% ~:s a.a Z. E Q '" .. Q c: '0; '" .::. al i ~~ -", 0., -2:'g "'- ~~ i~ "'-'5 2~ ~s. e- g18 "'= ..c: Q. _0. ..'" =<>> ..J:: Q- ",J:: 8l'i ,;;; c.. "'.- "'.<: .0'" c ~.g -'" .. - -4> ....~ "f '" III :: 'iii :0 .0 ~ Ii .:E l!! '" c 't: '" Co C .12 ~ <> 0. 8 '" .... o C:.:; .!L2 t! ~'c 0::;' ~o (I)~ 0. III 0.. ~8. =0 '" .- c: ~'= ",,,, J::_ ~~ ,!o Uo >< ,. .. :!: ~ I~ ~It >t .. r; .. .. <I) '" i~~ ~~? ~&i t'"~--~ . . ~ ;J: '" & i '-' I ." ~ .l!' ~ ; ~~~ 1i-oi. h~ !~> . . .." N OCEAN PRC)PERTIESI..LC Agenda Ite~s15,16,~t7 Pag~.?2 Item #15, 16 & 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Change of Zoning District Classification from R-1O (SD) Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive 2209,2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Drive District 4 Bayside May 10, 2006 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next items are Items #15, 16 & 17, Ocean Properties, L.L.c. An Ordinance Upon Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.c. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-1O (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District on property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209,2213,2217, 2216,2208 North Oliver Road with five proffers; an Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings on property located 4856, 4840, 4848,4832 Shore Drive and 2209,2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Road, District 4, Bayside with seven conditions; and an Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.c. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford, District 4, Bayside with six conditions. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon, we're going to give you five minutes because were going to take a five minutes recess. We will reconvene in five minutes right at 3:00 o'clock. LATER Barry Knight: I'd like to call the Virginia Beach Planning Commission meeting out of recess and back to order. Mr. Secretary. Joseph Strange: We already read Items #15, 16, and 17. Would the applicant please step forward? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I apologize for having that up there (presentation board), as it is so large. I think it is the only way it could actually be seen. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney, and I come before you this afternoon representing Ocean Properties on this conditional rezoning application for the proposed Lake Bradford condominium. This proposal represents an assemblage of nine parcels of property, four of which abut Shore Drive, and two of which have driveways out on Shore Drive. The other two have driveways onto North Oliver. You all heard this application back in January 2006. I promise that I will Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 2 not exceed the ten minutes because you all heard this already before. Certainly, we agree with your staff evaluation with regard to this application. Back in January, however, we heard from some opposition, some of which we had an opportunity to speak with in brief. And a lot of it had to do, in my estimation, with heightened feelings along the Shore Drive corridor with regard to pedestrian fatalities that have been suffered in the summer and fall, and to those issues relating to improvements to Shore Drive to make it more pedestrian friendly, to include curbing and things of that nature. We were fortunately able to obtain contract extensions with all the parties, many of them who are here today, to permit the Shore Drive Safety Task Force to complete their task. In the meantime, after meeting with the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, and my clients having met with the Shore Drive Coalition, we have made some changes to the plan, which are outlined in your staff evaluation. We have reduced the number of units from 86 to 77 units. We have also reduced the height. That height has been reduced to 35 feet in height within 100 feet of Shore Drive and our western property line. The eastern portion of the property features a four-story section, with parking being the first floor, and three floors of residences above. The maximum height to the peak of the roof on that side is 63 feet. While we have reduced the number of units from 86 to 77, we remain constant with 178 parking spaces. The Code would only require 141 parking spaces. The plan that is in your packages didn't change the parking space requirement even though the number of units went" down. So that is an inaccuracy in there. The number of parking spaces required for 77 units is 141. We provided a 178. That is 37 more than is required. That was one of the concerns that I heard at the Shore Drive Advisory Committee. We certainly far, far exceed the requirements as far as parking is concerned. You know there is a nice pool inside the courtyard of the proposed structure. The building involves condominiums that would have two bedroom, and some three bedroom, but they only will have a market in the professional non-family sector. That is why you see the school generation numbers as they are, and that is why there is basically no change. We agreed to do what the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and staff have asked us to do with regard to closing the existing entrance to the North Oliver Drive from Shore Drive. We will eliminate the left-in and the left-out on Shore Drive. As you are all aware, we think this is a very good mixed-use redevelopment opportunity. And mostimportantly -- and this is why I put this up here -- Shore Drive from Independence Boulevard on the west, actually a little bit beyond Independence Boulevard on the west, all the way to Great Neck Road and slightly beyond North Great Neck Road on the east. Within that well over 4% mile section of Shore Drive, the only single-family residential zoning and land use that exists on Shore Drive, other than this subject site is Baylake Pines and Bayville Farm, and Bayville Park. Everything else is multi-family or commercial. There isn't any other single-family zoning and land use in place except Baylake Pines and Bayville Farm across from it. By contrast, Baylake Pines and Bayville Farms are clearly segregated by Lake Joyce on the west, Baylake Crab Creek on the east. And you call it a wonderful area and section of Shore Drive. This piece of property, this assemblage of parcels are on the east adjoined by Conditional B-2 zoning with a Wawa, with a Conditional Use Permit, and on the west by multi-family development, which continues on down to the west. There is a piece in between that has R -10 zoning but it is all wetland plus it is a portion of Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 3 the Lake Bradford drainage system. It is not developable. Now we recognize and agree with the perception that pedestrian improvements and other improvements along Shore Drive are overdue especially east of Northampton Boulevard. We also know in full faith that Councilman Jones, Councilman Wood share that belief and have for quite some time. We have agreed to do everything that is applicable to this particular site by making improvements on this site. Again, we are not in the heavily traveled area, even with the development of this property. We are still well under the traffic counts for maximum capacity of this section of Shore Drive. Weare sitting here with a shopping center across the street, commercial next to us, all unconditional, and multi-family. We're just seeking to be treated under the Shore Drive Overlay with density now less than that allowed under B-4 forthis size parcel as called for the Shore Drive Overlay. In order to have the type of redevelopment that we certainly seek and should seek in this area to create that mixed use interaction and to help this commercial across the street, we think this is absolutely the best use of this property. I also have an exhibit that shows Pleasure House Road. And Pleasure House Road, while it is not certainly Shore Drive, it is not the major four-lane arterial highway that Shore Drive is, but as you head north on Pleasure House Road from this site (and I'll pass this around) again the majority of the land use in that area is multi- family. There is a little bit more single-family on Pleasure House Road, but recognize that Pleasl!re House Road is a residential collector, not a major arterial. I'll pass this around. This just reiterates what the staff has recommended with regard to this particular parcel of assembled properties. We have property owners here that understand that there is a need for improvements to Shore Drive. We also know that Council is moving to do that, but sometimes government does move or seems to move slowly. It's not the lack of desire or lack of effort. It just takes time for these projects, because of the different bureaucracies and plans that have to be approved and come forward. But I know they are coming forward. They will take place. We're doing our part. We've agreed to put a crosswalk in front of our property, but that is not something that is desired. It's not the appropriate location. It needs to be at the intersection of Pleasure House. The property owner I'm representing, as well as the developer, they understand the shortcomings with regard to infrastructure. In fact, the homes, these homes that front on Shore Drive, don't have City water or City sewer. It doesn't exist there. The residents have been living there all these years with septic and well because there is no City water or City sewer service available to those homes. They recognize, and certainly understand, that there is a need for infrastructure. And the infrastructure will be provided with this redevelopment, with no cost to the taxpayers, to this particular piece of property. Again, as your staff has recommended, and as I think many of you recognize this is a great opportunity for a very much needed redevelopment on this site, on this location, which will help foster the mixed use and the vitality of the commercial center across the street from this piece of property. It is certainly not treating this property in a unique or different fashion. Again, because of its location, this does not face the same issues that exist with regard to the section between Northampton Boulevard and Great Neck Road, where we recognize that there are greater traffic issues involved. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I have the yellow light not the red light. I didn't mean to try to keep you all from seeing the lights but this (display board) just shows the zoning that is not single-family along Shore Drive. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 4 Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: The height of the building? Would you explain that again? Eddie Bourdon: Only on the eastern side of the building? Ronald Ripley: Next to Wawa? Eddie Bourdon: Next to Wawa, in this area, the peak of the roof is 63 feet. It is 35 feet within 100 feet of our west and 100 feet of Shore Drive. This is the section where the under-building parking exists, and that is the section where the rooflines are most complex:" It is a beautiful elevation. You've seen it. That height is to create that attractive roofline. That is where you get a little bit more height. But it is 63 feet. That is certainly nothing spectacular. Three stories of residences with parking underneath. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you very much. Joseph Strange: Speaking in support we have Judy... Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. The property owners are here in support. Would you all please stand? These are the people who own some of those homes on that street. I'm sorry Mr. Strange. Barry Knight: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Judy? I'm having trouble with this name. Judy Freitas: Penny Smith is going to speak for me. She is one of the homeowners. Eddie Bourdon: It is a property owner. The only property owner that is going to speak is Penny Smith. She should have put a card in there. Barry Knight: Thank you. Welcome ma'am. Penny Smith: Thank you. Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record. Penny Smith: Good afternoon. My name is Penny Smith. Now I know what a hard job you have. I would like to address the Lake Bradford condominiums. I am one of the ten deeded owners of the nine single-family units. Very rarely do you get nine people to agree. We have owned and resided in this home that was built in the '40s between 3 and Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 5 25 years. I'm the oldie, and I was the newby. Some of us have had children or have children attending the Virginia Beach schools. You drive by and see our properties and one might think that ours is in the lost corridor. And it is on Shore Drive. Our homes no longer fit the area. Across Shore Drive is a commercial shopping center and there are about 20 stores there. There is a condominium next to us, and Wawa on the other side. Many of these establishments have made a tremendous improvement in our area but our single-family homes no longer fit. These houses were built some 60 years ago when things were a lot different. Shore Drive was a lot different when I moved here. Of nine houses, only four that are situated on Shore Drive have City water and sewer and I am not one of them. Also, the four houses on Shore Drive once had longer front yards, and have given that to the City to widen the road. But it reduces our ability to landscape and reduce some of the noise. Some of them are worried that it might affect the access to Chick's Beach. I rarely go that way because of the congestion from Pleasure House down to Great Neck. I go the other way. Anyone who lives on Shore Drive will tell you where the traffic is. Our 3 to 4 acres is a diamond in the rough. They will utilize Lake Bradford, which we have never been able to do. I couldn't afford to clean up back there and have the beauty of Lake Bradford, and the developer will be able to do that. We put up hedges and all for Wawa, but it is not enough and it is too costly. I think this will be a benefit to _everyone involved. The new owners, Lake Bradford, Virginia Beach schools and the City's infrastructure. That is all that I have to say. Barry Knight: Thank you. Penny Smith: Are there any questions? Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am. Penny Smith: Thank you. Joseph ~trange: Speaking in opposition we have Steve Kohler. Barry Knight: We1come sir. Please state your name for the record. Steve Kohler: I'm Steve Kohler. I'm the President of the Chesapeake Beach Civic League. I was here back in January, which you probably all recall. I'll try to be as brief as possible. Basically, our residents in the neighborhood received a flyer in the January newsletter detailing this proposed project. At our January civic league general meeting, we presented an overview of this project based on information from the public presentation at the January 11,2006 Planning Commission meeting. So our residents are familiar with this project. After both these efforts to inform our membership of these issues, our civic league voted unanimously to oppose any rezoning of the property at Shore Drive and North Oliver Drive, and that still stands on our record, and has not changed. We also oppose this particular plan. In our opinion, this proposal has not changed significantly since that time. In addition, over 600 signatures have been Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 6 collected in opposition of this project so far. I'm not sure if you're aware of that? Our civic league opposes this project for several reasons, which will be presented by the following speakers today. One of the reasons we oppose this project is because of the approximately eight-fold increase in density for nine single-family homes to 77 or more units. I do not believe that this project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this Primary Residential Area. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan states simply on pages 95 and 96, "the recent history of development in the corridor is characterized by too high density on too small parcels of land", which I also saw was in the proposal, which you all have now. In addition, the ULI (the Urban Land Institute) Bayfront Study states on page 33 that, "many of the communities are made up of single-family homes and should be protected from intrusion of higher density development". There are single-family homes across the street on South Oliver Drive. It is not all just a shopping center. And directly behind the proposed development there are also single-family homes. The ULI study says, "the density of new development of this area should not overwhelm the community." Our community believes that the density of this project is still too high and will overwhelm the community. Further, based on the Comprehensive Plan technical data from 2000, the Bayfront area already has the highest density in the city at 9.4 people per acre with the next highest at 7 people per acre. Given that the proposed site is 3.5 acres and !he average number of people per dwelling is 2.33 and the Bayfront area is almost 10 people per acre, would result in 15.5 volume, which is exactly what that current zoning of R-lO would produce. Ed Weeden: You have about 20 seconds. Steve Kohler: I'll tie this up as quickly as possible. Therefore, the current zoning already would allow the area to maintain the highest density in the city of almost 10 people per acre. Our civic league sees no valid reason for rezoning this property. We ask you not to encourage their support, and create an even higher discrepancy in density between the Bayfront area and other areas in the city by allowing this rezoning. I would just like to close with mentioning the following organizations that are officially opposed to this rezoning and the project. The Waters Point Condo Home Owners Association, The Baylake Pines Civic League, Ocean Park Civic League, Shore Drive Community Coalition, Cape Story by the Sea Civic League, and Lynnhaven Colony, which voted at the SDCC meeting to oppose this project. Are there any questions? Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Kohler? Thank you sir. Steve Kohler: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Mark Walker. Mark Walker: Thank you so much. My name is Mark Walker. I handed out a copy of what I'm about to say. I'm just going to read it word for word. I am going to try to be quick. There is a lot of stuff. Again, my name is Mark Walker. I'm a registered architect Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 7 and I've been in the industry for over 27 years. I'm a resident of Chesapeake Beach since 1979, and I'm opposed to this proposed project. Although I have great respect for the Planning Department and Planning Commission, I strongly feel that the 77-unit condominium project as proposed in this rezoning request, is not in compliance with the ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning application identifies the proposed project as being within the Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site #1) and quotes from the page 89 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which was mentioned by Mr. Kohler, stating that land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on "persevering and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods." I fail to understand how this project can preserve and proteCt the overall character and aesthetic quality of the adjacent A-12 medium density nor the R-lO low-density neighborhoods. On the contrary, the project proposes high density, nearly comparable to an A-24 development with unlimited height restriction, showing a 70- foot tall building. I guess that should be amended to 63 or in that range as Mr. Bourdon mentioned. This development will be nearly twice the density of the A-12 property to the west and nearly six times the density of the current zoning and twice the height of any other structures within the immediate visible area. The Comprehensive Plan further states, on pages 95 & 96, "The recent history of development in the (Shore Drive) corridor has been characterized by too high density on too small parcels of land, and the Shore Drive Overlay District is intended in part, to restore the property balance." This proposed 77 unit condo project is precisely the type of development to which this previous statement is referring - too high density on too small parcels of land." It seems to me how could this be more clear? The major objectives of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan are stated on page 16 of the plan, "to protect and enhance the quality of residential communities in the corridor." This objective is further reinforced on page 8, "new development and redevelopment in the (Shore Drive) area should be oriented towards protection and enhancement of the character of existing residential neighborhoods." In the ULI Bayfront Study, on page 33, the study states, "many of the communities (along Shore Drive) are made up of single-family homes and should be protected from the intrusion of higher density development." In closing, none of the three documents I've referenced, the ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan support this proposed project and neither do I. This high density project will not improve the quality of life for citizens along the Shore Drive corridor, so please don't allow it. Thank you. Barry Knight: Any questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: I got a question. Mark W alker: Yes sir. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 8 Ronald Ripley: Not withstanding this use, what infrastructure on this road in this vicinity is lacking? What in your mind should be an infrastructure improvement in this area that would make it work better? Mark Walker: Why not leave it as it is? Ronald Ripley: Leave the road like it is? Mark Walker: You mean infrastructure in the road itself and not the development we're trying to replace? Ronald Ripley: Road. Sidewalks. Crosswalks. Mark Walker: Got you. I would say infrastructure-wise, sidewalks on both sides. I would widen the sidewalks from the proposed five feet to about eight feet so that people can pass with either cycling or walking. I think five feet is too narrow. Crosswalks are desperately needed in that area. The only place you can cross is at the intersection safely. If there is influx of people right in that proposed project, how are they going to get across safely? I mean there is no crosswalk plan. There are no light plans. If you do put a light in there, you're only going to be about 300 feet from the intersection of Shore Drive and Pleasure House, which there are so many problems now trying to go from Wawa and trying to go east on Shore Drive. First, you have to go west. You have to make a u-turn at Oliver Street to go east. Well, all of these people from Wawa are trying to go east are trying to adjust position in getting into the left lane to make that left turn into the eastbound lane. You're going to have another 178 potential cars trying to do the same thing. Frankly, I think it is a recipe for disaster. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Bernas. Mark Walker: Yes sir. Jay Bernas: You had mentioned that you don't like high density of it. What would you recommend that you leave it as R-lO? Mark Walker: That is exactly what I recommend. But the whole corridor in there is exploding to the point where traffic, I guess you've driven Shore Drive lately, but the traffic is getting impossible. Pedestrians are trying to cross. That is sort of a beach community, and there are a lot of people on foot through there, and it is very difficult in the Shore Drive corridor to do anything on foot because it is unsafe. I tried to ride my bike over there along Shore Drive about a year ago, and was nearly hit myself. I mean it is very, very tough. I would keep density as it is. I don't see any reason. I mean the neighborhood there and the houses are nice houses. I'm sure that those who are in favor Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 9 of this project like the idea that the developer is going to be giving them large money for their houses because he's got that built that into his project. Normally, the house values wouldn't be selling for as much. I'm sure the developer is offering them, but I don't know that for a fact, but I would assume that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Thank you sir. Mark Walker: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Todd Solomon. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Todd Solomon: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Solomon. I'm here representing the Shore Drive Community Coalition Organization of about 25 civic and condo associations on Shore Drive. I'm also representing Cape Story by the Sea, which is one of the residential districts along Shore Drive, which Mr. Bourdon forgot to mention in this area. I did pass out a previous letter that was sent to you as far as the Shore Drive Community Coalition, _the last time this was visited. The Shore Drive Community Coalition, after that last meeting, was met by the developer at our general meeting and since then nothing has changed as far as the Shore Drive Community Coalition's opinion goes on this project. The reduction in height and some of the other issues haven't changed enough for the Shore Drive Community Coalition to take a different stance on that issue. My topic of speech today was height. I thought it was going to be the easiest discussion; however, I've yet to determine exactly what the height of this project is. We have been told several different things. You see in the minutes from the January meeting that it could be 45 to 48 feet in height in the back, the high side. It could 35 to 40 in the front. When the developer came to our meeting he mentioned the highest point would be 70 feet. I'm hearing today that it is 63 feet, 35 foot on the front. I'm not exactly sure what section this elevation shows you. Is that the three-story or is that the four-story? That's Wawa section or not? I'm assuming it's the four-story section with parking underneath. But the three-story section obviously is going to be at least 12 foot levels. So you're talking at least 35. to 36 feet if you don't put a roof on it and some other things. So, I'm assuming that these numbers at some point should be justified. But this project would be the largest project west of Bayvista, which is next to the Lesner Bridge. That is the pictures that I've shown to you on that second page there. Everything west of that will be the tallest project, basically double the size ofthe surrounding residential and A-12 35-foot projects. If you could kind of picture that development roughly that size in that area, sticking out like sore thumb. Ed Weeden: Mr. Solomon, about 30 seconds. Todd Solomon: I see that. Thank you. The facility next to Kroger is taller than 35 feet, however it is kind of buffered by the fact that Northampton Boulevard is at an elevation -- Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 10 so it doesn't look quite as tall. That Bayvista project was also recommended by staff and it did not conclude with the height and bulk of a Conditional Use Permit at one point in time. I would suggest that this project also fall into that same category. Are there any questions? Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Solomon? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Todd, do you have more you need to say? Todd Solomon: I do have a quick deal about the density also to tie into what one of the other speakers mentioned. This project, as you all hopefully all know that Bayfront area is the highest density in all of Virginia Beach at 9 Y2 people per acre. - The average on this project would be a density of approximately 50 people per acre. If you put that many units on there, that is about 21/2 people per home in that range. So it would be 50 people per acre. That is one thing that the Shore Drive Community Coalition and the rest of the civic groups to -- the increase in density. We are seeing this as a trend sending precedent not only for height but also for density. We've noticed a lot, and you have already seen all the requests to change B-2s to B-4s to put multi-family dwellings along Shore Drive. This is ev~n more so as a change in residential zoning to put in a B-4. Once this project is approved, if it is approved, it will open the doors also to more B-4 residential or B-2' s abutting residential, which you may see on some of these B-2. They may want to change that over and get rid of the restaurant and build multi-family, you could acquire some residential behind it too. I'm sure coming here and requesting rezoning. That is our fear. That we're not only taking B-2s and changing them to B-4s as an increase in density, but we're also taking residential and increasing the zoning to increase the density. Barry Knight: Thanks. Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Todd, we all agree with what you do. I think you have been down here since I've been on Planning Commission on various issues, and thank you. What would you be happy with since a single-family home is probably out? Todd Solomon: I wouldn't mind seeing, and I know you can do 14, may be 15 if it is, if you did 7 or 8 duplex townhome type units, which has actually done a lot on the R-5R throughout our neighborhood. They can knock it down and put two homes on it. If you did 14 or 15 of those and kept them at 35-foot requirement, a three-story requirement at 35 foot, I think it would fit in nicely. Nobody in the Coalition is opposed to redeveloping that property. It is just the high density in the large scale and the height of it. I believe that some of the pine trees there are probably not 70 foot tall either. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Todd. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Solomon? Thank you. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 11 Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Daphne Atkins. Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am. Daphne Atkins: Hi. Barry Knight: Please state your name please? Daphne Atkins: My name is Daphne Atkins, and I live in Chesapeake Beach. I'm the Vice President of the Shore Drive Community Coalition, and I was on the Shore Drive Safety Task Force. In addition to all of that, I actually work, and I thought taking a half hour or so today. I wish I had lunch before I came. Anyway, I understand you were waiting for the Task Force to make a decision about what to do on this property. And you can see the suggestions we came up with in our report. The Task Force was necessary because of the increase of fatalities on Shore Drive. It is already a high-risk road. Many of you might be familiar with the death sign on Shore Drive. It was created in 1977, and since 1977, there have been 89 deaths on Shore Drive. That averages out to 3.1 per year. Last year we had six. And five of those were pedestrians. The Task Force came up with many sug~estions. Everything from sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and looking at the speed limit to having the Planning Department and City officials review the many studies. All the studies they quoted, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, the ULI Study, the Overlay District, those need to be looked at in light of density recommendations because density is what has created the problem on Shore Drive. I know some people think we can have high density, and we could have a lot of people high density and still make it safe, but Shore Drive passed that point 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, we are playing catch up on Shore Drive in trying to get it to be safe from what's there currently. B-4 zoning specially is what we're trying to avoid on Shore Drive, and that is why we want them to look at that and to reconsider. It is seems like when the public looks at that, and what we think that document says and what some times comes out of Planning or developers or other people think says are two different things. So, this is one reason that we feel like you should deny this change of zoning. A second reason is the five pedestrian deaths in one year, and only one of those incidents involved drinking. It had two people involved in it, but I know we hear a lot about DUI's and everybody is drunk on Shore Drive. Everybody walking is drunk. Everybody riding a bike is drunk. Everybody driving is drunk. That is absolutely not true. One incident with the two victims involved alcohol for part of the people walking across Shore Drive. But like I say, you build five condos around a bar, buy high-density condos around a bar, somebody is going to walk in and have a drink; so, the fact that this development would be mid-block, with overflow parking going across the street according to Mr. Bourdon, this project is an accident waiting to happen. We don't need these people crossing Shore Drive. Reason number three is traffic flow. I know Mr. Bourdon said that everybody coming out of here would be turning right and going down Independence. That is because you can't turn left. We already have a lot of u-turns on Shore Drive between people trying to get to the Wawa, going east and people coming out of the Wawa and trying to turn back around and go east. People would be Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 12 coming out of this street and trying to turn around and go back towards the Oceanfront, because the whole reason why Shore Drive is so popular is not because of what is to the right going towards Norfolk but because people want to live there because of what is to the left all the way down to the Oceanfront. So that is the third reason we think you should deny this. Reason number four is the Task Force recommendations evaluating access points and this creates another mid-block access point out onto Shore Drive with all the obvious problems that go on with that. I could continue going through the report. The problem with density is referenced on page 16. It is an 18-page report, but I don't think you want me to talk that long. I think these are stand-out reasons. And in conclusion the developer chose to go to Shore Drive in Virginia Beach to build his condo instead of Norfolk. Probably one of the reasons he did that was because Norfolk wouldn't-approve it. Because one ofthe things they keep saying is they don't want to become another Shore Drive. And this section of Shore Drive is different than what's farther up towards the Lesner Bridge. This is more of a family, single-family type section of Shore Drive and some duplexes. So, we would really just like to have it stay that way, and not scatter the problems we already have. Barry Knight: Thank you ma' am. Daphne Atkins: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Ms. Atkins? Ronald Ripley: You mentioned access, how else would you access it? Because there is one access point to this property. You have to have access. So, how would you do it? Daphne Atkins: We realize you have to have access but what it is zoned for now you would have 15 houses zoned to access out onto Shore Drive versus 77 condos. That is just a lot more people. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You're talking about the number of cars? Okay. I'm sorry. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Ronda Morrison. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Ronda Morrison: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Ronda Morrison. I represent Ocean Park Civic League. I am here today to talk to you about traffic volume in that area. Our current traffic volume on Shore Drive, according to this report, is 22,516 average daily trips. With the capacity of 28,200 average daily trips. This will increase that by 505 I believe, was the exact total daily average trips. It would continue to do this with this development. In the next month, doing this development, we are very quickly going to Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 13 surpass our 28,200 average daily trips very quickly. Also, of utmost importance is the vehicular ingress/egress to the property. There would no longer be a median break in front of North Oliver. People will have to make the left. They will have to make a u-turn to go east bound on Shore Drive. If someone is coming home from work from Norfolk, they will have to go down to Pleasure House Road, make the u-turn to come back into their property. So either way you are traveling you are going to have to make a u-turn on Shore Drive. We already have an issue at Pleasure House Point where people are having to make that u-turn if they're coming eastbound on Shore Drive to go into the Wawa. So that is just going to create a larger problem than what we already have. The traffic back- ups are already affecting the Fire Department and Rescue Squad that is located down off Pleasure House Road. This is going to increase the density in that area. They currently sometimes have to go down the wrong side of the road to get out to Shore Drive. This is going to make it much worse. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions for Ms. Morrison? Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Brian Camden. Barry Kni~ht: Welcome sir. Brian Camden: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Camden. I'm a 25 year resident of Chesapeake Beach. I'm also a civil engineer and a developer of almost 200 condos under construction currently. The civic league asked me to take a look at this property and to comment as a development. One thing that did jump up, and I heard earlier, they said there was no City water or sewer to this. I noticed here in staff s review of this that there is six-inch water main running into and down Oliver Drive. There is an existing eight- inch sanitary sewer and a 24-inch HRSD force main on Shore Drive. I don't know if it is existing or not, but apparently staff thinks it is. Faith Christie: They're at the intersection. Brian Camden: The project itself, and here again as a developer, I kind of disagree with some of my neighbors on this. I think the project should be developed. In its current zoning right now, you could put 15 custom homes in there. Fifteen custom homes right now would probably generate a profit of right around $1,530,000.00. At 77 units, and condos is what they want to change to, you could probably generate a profit of right around $5,544,000.00. As a developer, we're all out obviously to make as much money as we can on this. But the fact of the matter is that this property -- I don't know if you've been down there -- but this thing is full of beautiful sea oaks, a lot of pine trees, and stuff like that. The development that they currently got planned is a "strip mine" type of development, where they're going to bulldoze all these old trees and come in there and put in a big box type structure. If you develop it and kept it at its current zoning, and just put in 15 nice custom homes, you will be able to make a million or a million and a half in profit, and you would be able to keep a good deal of the existing trees that are out there. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 14 And finally, just let me say that this is a cul-de-sac that you're building. You're putting in 77 units in to a cul-de-sac. Nowhere in the city are you allowed to do that right now. That's it. Barry Knight: Mr. Camden thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Leslie Cornwell. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Leslie Cornwell: Hi. Good afternoon. I am Leslie Cornwell, and I'm representing the Baylake Pines Civic League. On January 23, 2006, our members voted to oppose this project on Ocean Properties and the rezoning from R-IO to B-4. The speakers before me have done a wonderful job explaining in detail the reasons why you should deny this development and the zoning change. Simply put, the Bayfront area is in trouble. High density and the types of construction that have been allowed to be built has had a devastating impact on the culture and the character that we once had. Our roads are becoming overwhelmed and we continue to compete for funding of the Shore Drive improve~ent projects. Our residents are being killed, because they lack the basic pedestrian safety infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike trails, and pedestrian crosswalks. Again, we are fighting to fund the recommendations of the Shore Drive Safety Task Force. Recommendations for public safety, because we can no longer wait for the improvement projects that are years away from ever being constructed, for our need for more police, fire, and EMS staffing. Our open space has been consumed by development, and in 2000, the Outdoors Plan stated that we needed 82 acres to adequately serve our existence, 82 more acres. Here we are six years later with even a greater population, and currently high-density developments are planned for the last few years of open space. No wonder the City of Norfolk is using the Bayfront as an example of what not to do. We all hold responsibility in what has happened to our community. The resident that can't resist an enormous offer for their property. The builder that focuses to much on profit and not enough on building a project that would enhance and blend with the' surrounding community. And most of all the City. City Planning and this Board continually deviate from the consistent frame of the ULI and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Overlay, which were meant to preserve and protect the single-family homes and neighborhoods. We can no longer continue on this course. We need a vision that incorporates all of these studies and plans along with developers, and most of all, the residents, to come up with a redevelopment strategy that would retain what is left of the unique character of our community, and allow us to leave a legacy that we can all be proud of. A plan that includes more than guidelines, but is a power to ensure this vision is followed. We do not oppose redevelopment, but we must demand reasonable development that does not overpower a community, but blends and enhances. Until the Bayfront finally receives the funding for our overwhelmed infrastructure, and Phases I through IV are completed, we can no longer tolerate or even consider this type of high density development. We ask this Board to work with the City Planning Department and Council to reevaluate the Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 15 Shore Drive Corridor Plan and the Overlay. We are in desperate need for a plan that will finally protect and preserve our single-family neighborhoods. When you look at the whole picture and not just one single development, you finally can comprehend what is happening to Bayfront area. You have to understand that this development and this rezoning cannot be approved. The only other quick statement that I wanted to make is that it is kind of misconceiving when they make the comment that "Baylake Pines is the only the single-family on Shore Drive. "There are single families across the street, on Pleasure House Road. You have Chick's Beach. You have Bayville Park before you even get to Baylake Pines. Yes, I realize we are maybe the only ones that literally have a home on Shore Drive, there are a lot of single-family homes in this area andthe impact is really, as you can see, not been good and very negative. We need to stop and look at what we have been doing. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Cornwell. Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am. Leslie Cornwell: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Robert Costello. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Robert Costello: Hi. I'm Robert Costello. I live on Bradpointe Lane off of Pleasure House Road. Commissioner Wood quoted earlier from the Virginian-Pilot article that stated that "residents have a good reason to be wary of developers and their project." It is unfortunate when a City Council and a Planning Commission places the City's residents in such a position that the residents are given a good reason to be wary of builders and their projects. Residents in Chesapeake Beach area and all along Shore Drive are painfully aware of the uncontrolled increase in density along Shore Drive and the absolute lack of added infrastructure in the face of that increased density. The lack of infrastru?ture and the uncontrolled rise in density have created an expediential increase in the safety hazards to the residences along the Shore Drive corridor. In the 19 years that I've owned my house in Chesapeake Beach, I have not seen any improvements on the infrastructure. I appreciate that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force and the Shore Drive Advisory Committee have made recommendations to improve the infrastructure along Shore Drive, but only when the changes to infrastructure are actually approved by Council and funded, then it will be seen that the City is doing something to improve the safety along Shore Drive. Until such a time, approving large-scale developments, which cause the multi-fold increase of population density, will give the appearance that the City is more interested in increasing the tax revenue base then they are in the safety of residents. Mr. Bourdon is fine at pointing out precedents that are established when the Commission and the City Council approve certain building projects. This project will be the first of its kind not just in Chesapeake Beach, but the first on Shore Drive, west of Albemarle. This will be a bad precedent. The City had a good reason when they originally designated this area as R-lO Residential. Don't second guess those City Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 16 administrators who did so. Leave it zoned the way it is as R-lO. Do not change the zoning to B-4. In his testimony in front of the Commission, Mr. Bourdon has stated that this project will provide economic revitalization to the area. That is a joke. This is not an area suffering from blight. Every available space in the Bayside Shopping Center across the street from this proposed project is leased. There are no empty commercial properties where they're looking for business. This is not a proposal that will alleviate blight. This is a redevelopment out of greed to maximize the amount of properties that can be stacked on top of any given area property. I request again that you oppose this proposal. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Costello. Are there any questions? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Patricia Costello. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Patricia Costello: Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Patricia Costello. You have listened to people who are very educated and have been in the business and they're the best repre~entatives of the residents of Chesapeake Beach that we could ask for and come and plead our case in front of you. I'm very proud ofthem. I'm in here because I'm the emotional type, and I want to represent to you the hundreds of residents of Chesapeake Beach that feel as strongly as I do that this is not the right use for this property. It is actually a very good pleasant-looking building. It deserves to have some space around it, so that the people who live there have room to breathe. They won't have room to breathe if it is built right here on Shore Drive. I drive down that street every single day and sometimes multiple times a day, so I can attest to that. I hope that you will listen to people who have communicated with you, because each person who actually writes to you or sends you an email, is representing dozens, if not hundreds of people in our neighborhood who have signed petitions and who feel as passionately about this as I am speaking right now. I know that you have to make business decisions. And think about the tax revenue that you will collect from these propertie. But we fiiIDly believe that leaving it as R-lO and putting in excellent quality single-family homes will bring in the property balance between what the community can sustain and what the City can receive as tax revenue. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? Joseph Strange: Those are all the speakers. Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Okay. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Knight. First of all, I do appreciate the comments of all the speakers who have spoken. I certainly don't intend to evolve into name calling and characterization. But I will say a couple of things regarding what is patently obvious, and Item #15, 16,17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 17 that is the land use pattern along Shore Drive in this section of Shore Drive is not single- family residential land use on Shore Drive. Clearly, the only, because there is no single- family zoned property on this section of Shore Drive across the street on South Oliver, as I think it was insinuated is zoned. Both sides of South Oliver on Shore Drive is zoned B- 2 commercial. Mr. Solomon is correct. I didn't talk about Cape Story by the Sea, which is east of Great Neck Road and is five miles from this property, and all of that property in that section of Shore Drive is single-family and that is exactly what the ULI Study was talking about. That section of Shore Drive, as well as Baylake Pines in the section of Shore Drive, are the only sections not already completely commercial and multi-family residential development. This is the only piece of property in this section of Shore Drive from Independence Boulevard on the west, and actually west of Independence Boulevard, all the way to Baylake Pines. Everything on both sides of Shore Drive is all commercial or multi-family residential. There is no single-family zoning or single-family land use. And that is a fact. There is a break behind this property. You got W awa. You got the break of the Lake Bradford watershed. You got the multi-family and you got multi- family to our west. So, the ULI Study - it is disingenuous for Mark Walker or anyone else to suggest -- that study was saying that this little enclave the only single-families, is an island that everyone forgot, that it is intended to say we need to preserve that single- family. I'~ sorry if any of you have been on that street, and can look at those 60 year old houses that do not have water and sewer. Water and sewer does not extend down or up North Oliver Drive. I'm sorry. That part is absolutely disingenuous. I absolutely do agree, and we do agree that infrastructure is needed in that area,. but redevelopment doesn't happen the way the gentleman spoke of. His numbers don't make sense. Judy Freitas, who is a commercial realtor has asked that she be permitted to speak. I've explained to her that I don't know if you could allow someone to speak in rebuttal that did not speak initially. But, the City of Norfolk would love to have this project. It is a beautiful project. I'm also glad that Todd indicated correctly that the four-story building senior housing facility next to Kroger is right down the street and is viewable from this piece of property. It is similar in height. In fact, it is higher overall than this because it is that height entirely, but this just has one small section that is more than 35 to 45 feet. I'll be happy to answer your questions. Three minutes is not very long. .} don't know whether or not you will allow Ms. Freitas to speak or not. Judy Freitas: I have some information. Barry Knight: Did she sign in? Joseph Strange: She signed in. I called her name and she didn't want to speak. Barry Knight: What is the information? Does anyone want to sponsor her? Kathy Katsias: I'll sponsor her. Barry Knight: We1come ma' am. Please identify yourself. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 18 Judy Freitas: Thank you very much. My name is Judy Freitas. I am a residential commercial, 22 years in real estate, and I'm a broker for Long and Foster. I also want you to know that I am a registered nurse. I also want you to know that I ran rescue for a year and a half at Station 14 at the Oceanfront. I'm about people. I'm all about health. I need to express, sitting there, and it was just jumping out of me. I appreciate the engineer, the developer and what they're saying. If you drive by this community, it is isolated. These are nine parcels completely surrounded by multi-family, commercial, and shopping centers. They're 60-year old properties. The only four that have City water and City sewage are the front ones facing Shore Drive. Two and half years ago, I know for a fact that Edie Hughes and her husband tried desperately to get City water and City sewage to go through the back. She is all the way to the back on Lake Bradford. People don't even know it exists back there because from that front of Shore Drive, when you drive by there, it is a site not for pleasant viewing. And from my 22 years of experience, I can tell you that this is not about money. You could rip down these 60 year old buildings, and you could attempt to put up single-family homes, and I couldn't tell you one person that would want to purchase a single-family residence among multi-family commercial and four lanes. This developer is going in there proposing sidewalks. He is proposing to maintain the beauty of Lake Bradford. It will be more accessible. This does not cut off in any way C_hick's Beach. It doesn't affect Chick's Beach. It didn't in the beginning. It is far enough west on Shore Drive. The military base is basically the next gate up from after the multi-family. I just got a little confused sitting there. Some of the subdivisions that came up are not even remotely close to what we're referencing here. That is why I needed for you to understand I'm not coming here as a broker. I love people. I wouldn't have been a registered nurse. I would not have done rescue and devoted a lot of other things, and I don't want to get all into that. That is all that I wanted to say. I do appreciate you listening to me. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you. Ms. Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Do you live there ma'am? Judy Freitas: I live in Little Neck in Virginia Beach and a 22-year resident. Dorothy Wood: What is your connection with this property? Judy Freitas: I am the broker of Long and Foster representing the sellers and I've walked the property. I bought the parcel. I said that when I came up. I didn't try to hide my identity in any way, shape or form. Dorothy Wood: I didn't say that. Judy Freitas: I apologize. But I didn't want to hide my identity. I wasn't here for any other purpose. That is why I chose not to speak. But when I started hearing some of the Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 19 things that were mentioned. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: Has the developer considered -- and I think one of the recommendations was the lower density and making it duplex versus multi-family -- have they considered making it 17 duplexes? Judy Freitas: All that I am aware of, because I know Eddie Bourdon would have to address this, but I know he has brought down the noise decibel level according to the City Council and the second go around on his aesthetics only with shrubbery and bushes and trees and his preservation of Lake Bradford and keeping that natural environment as to the beauty as it should be. Kathy Katsias: That wasn't my question. I was lowering the density. Judy Freitas: The density. He did as requested, but I don't know if its gotten any lower than that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Okay. Ms. Katsias. Mr. Bourdon. Kathy Katsias: My question to you is has the developer entertained the duplex? Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Katsias. Most of you certainly recognize the cost of redeveloping a site like this with the demolition costs and the asbestos removal cost in these older homes. It is really prohibitive. The idea that was put forth that someone could make a million and half dollars by redeveloping this property into some number of single-family homes. I've represented, as you all know, represented a lot of developers. Our firm does well. I don't want to insult anybody. It is absolutely not feasible. It would not be able to done. I'il simply say it that way. The numbers are numbers that will make this doable. You get down in that situation. It isn't doable. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, obviously you have a few people in opposition today. Did you know that? What could you see here that you could do perhaps with this property? It is a beautiful design. Could it be smaller? What could you do? I'mjust asking a question. Eddie Bourdon: No. Ms. Wood, I certainly understand and appreciate that. I absolutely can assure you that your question has been asked of the developer and his architect long before today. Okay. The opposition does not come as a surprise to them nor to me. And, they have looked at every way to make this work, and make it feasible. The reality is if this project is not one that is approvable, they can't make the numbers work, and they will Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 20 not be able to do anything. Again, this didn't come as a surprise. Some of the comments maybe, but overall it isn't doable. It isn't feasible. This will more than likely, if this project or something of the same sort is not approved, and I would just point out that last summer in the heart of Ocean Park, the Colley Marine site zoned B-2 was rezoned B-4 for a similar high quality residential development without any opposition. It has been not even a year; so this developer is looking at this as a far better location than that, from a traffic standpoint and everything else. We believe this is consistent with the Shore Drive, DLI, and Corridor Study, which we all withdrew and which we approved that rezoning. Council approved the Colley Marine rezoning, and it wasn't even controversial. And this is less density than that was in terms of the per acre number of units now that we have reduced it. So, there are some inconsistencies here on part of the opposition. I do understand, and I can sympathize with, the fact that there is a perception, not an inaccurate one, that infrastructure improvements, sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian connection need to happen on Shore Drive. They absolutely have to. I was at the Council meeting last night, and the City actually got an award last night as the sixth best most walkable city in the country. I sat there and said, there is some merit to that, but I can tell you that there is a tremendous place that we can get number one, and that is what we need to do on Shore Drive plus when the Transition Area gets there with all those trails. Ten years from now, hoping sooner on Shore Drive, we'll be number one in that walkability thing, I caD. tell you that. The entire area of Shore Drive needs walkability. There is no disagreement about that whatsoever. Dorothy Wood: I don't mean to ask you the same question in a different way, but... Eddie Bourdon: That's okay. Dorothy Wood: What about the back buildings? The ones that people seem to have a problem with them being so high? Is there anything to bring them down? Eddie Bourdon: That would necessitate eliminating the under the building parking. Part of the attractiveness and appearance is that you don't have a sea of parking. Dorothy Wood: I know. I'mjust trying to see what we can do. Eddie Bourdon: What you will see from Shore Drive is 35 feet. It's back behind it. Back behind the wall there would be portions that would be a little bit taller. A four-story senior housing facility next to the grocery store is actually a much larger building overall. Todd's point is not without merit that on the Northampton side, because of the on-ramp being elevated, it does, from that side, not have the same height appearance. But from the Shore Drive side, it does. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much. Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 21 Barry Knight: Okay Commissioners. I'll open it for discussion among us. Who would like to start? Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I think were beating this thing around. This is the second time around. I heard the same thing today that I heard back in January. I haven't heard anything different, except for the fact that the developer has redesigned his units. They seem to be conforming with the safety study as much as can be done, as far as what they're building and what they're putting in. The thing we heard, that we started off with, was wait until the Shore Drive Safety Council met. They've met. They've given their report. I don't see as to where it is really affected us this much. If anything, I think the developer has improved it to some extent. So, the purpose of the deferral has been met from my standpoint of view. So consequently, I see moving if forward. I'm going to support the application. Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Henley. Al Henley: I'm very familiar with the Chesapeake Beach area, and in particular Chick's Beach. As a matter of fact, I remember finally visiting my great aunt who lived behind Frankies on Lookout Road for many years. Those times have changed a great deal. Virginia Beach has changed a great deal. Who would visualize we would have 400,000 people liv!ng in our midst. Shore Drive is obviously one area that is of great concern and safety. I would say, Mr. Bourdon, that I think your client should be applauded by trying to work with the community by lowering it with less units and also, on the traffic study, by eliminating the cut-through median and a left lane. I think that was absolutely a hazard. But, I guess what I'm summing up to, is that I will not be able to support this today primarily because of the density on the small piece of property. I can sympathize with both parties in opposition as well as in favor of this. If I lived there, I would want better conditions as well. But also, I am concerned with the residents that came in today in opposition to speak against this. They had some excellent points in here, and if I lived in that area, I would probably feel the same way. I do not. I live across the other end of town. But it is a beautiful complex. If it was on a different parcel of property, I think it would b~ absolutely gorgeous. It is a beachy unit, and it serves well because it's in the City of Virginia Beach. But, if you pack people in, I have a problem with that. And just to make a profit on it, and profit is not everything, and I realize because of the cost of construction, demolition, as Mr. Bourdon said and asbestos removal, you're talking about a lot of federal and state regulations that must be met, and they're extremely expensive. I feel very confident that (if the current developer is not interested in his property) there are going to be other opportunities for this property to be developed, and in a much better manner than what we are seeing here today. So based on that, without debating this any more, I will not be able to support this application. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments or discussion? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I'm glad that we deferred it. I thought the project is in my opinion, a better product because they have reduced the units and they addressed the traffic issue. I Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 22 understand what the neighbors concerns are and that Shore Drive is crowded, but so far as this developer and this site, I do believe this site is appropriate for multi-family use. R-I0 just doesn't fit anymore. It has been isolated, and I can't believe they got all nine people to join together to sell the property. That doesn't happen again. I don't think it would flourish with single-family homes there. It has been eaten up. I think this is appropriate to do the multi-family. It is dense. They lowered it down, but I don't think it is too dense. I like it because of the quality. You might get less dense but not the high quality. They come hand in hand. You're going to have to have a little density to have the high quality that I think what we're looking for. But I think it is appropriate size. It does add some benefits. The maintaining of Lake Bradford that everybody has talked about and the sidewalks that connect to the Wawa. I believe the applicant has done what we have asked them. I would be in support. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: When we started on the Shore Drive plan back about nine years ago, I guess, we started with nothing, and I probably mentioned this before, with no funding at all. Nothing. We started with an idea of how to improve the corridor. The reason you've heard her~ are the reasons. The infrastructure is not there. That is a huge problem. There is movement on infrastructure. We do have the Shore Drive Plan. We have developed guidelines. This particular applicant has tried to meet those guidelines. A product of the plan is to say that if you're going to build in this corridor, we want it to have a look that fits in the corridor. That is part of the solution in some people's mind. We had a meeting the other day with Bob Scott, myself, Clay and we talked about this, and Kathy, about the frustration that we have as people who serve on the Committee, and I know the community has. And we're just extremely frustrated from the standpoint that we are not able to shake loose funding to complete the infrastructure that needs to happen down there. The Safety Task Force came back with about 30 million dollars, which would include all phasing of construction. There are four phasings, and the design of the last phase, which, when you put all the safety issues in place, put all the infrastructure in there, so that the gentleman that got up and mentioned that he would like to ride his bike up on the road and he can't, that is a problem. The combination that the Committee envisioned, when it was started, was that by having a plan in place, as developments come along they would pay for part of the infrastructure because we had no money. . That was part of the process. And as we talked the other day, Bob, Kathy, Clay, and myself, the development community has done that. The City is the one who has not done it. We've got a meeting next Tuesday, I think it is, where we're going to present kind of a "State of the Bayfront Area" to Council, and those points are going to be made very strongly. I can assure you, because what were asking from Council, and I understand that they agreed to fund a million of dollars for safety issues, but were going to ask for the balance of the funding over the next six years. I think there is a possibility of getting it. So, that's real, real important. You heard the same issues from several speakers that infrastructure is critical. You got to feel safe. You got to be able to move through this corridor. This plan will pay for part of that. That is small consolation I'm sure, but they Item #15, 16, 17 Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Page 23 definitely will be doing that. I keep looking at the patterns too. I have a hard time seeing single-family in here. I think either it's a commercial use or it's a multi-family use. To be single-family, it doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it would make sense as a townhouse. I don't know, as Todd Solomon suggested. But I don't know the economics. On the Planning Commission, we don't get into that. We don't ask what you're paying. We're looking at land use patterns. I think Jan said it in a real good way, and that is, it just kind of says this is what it ought to be. I think you do have a good plan. With this particular plan, I think by going back and reducing the size of the number of units and changing the safety issues, I'm going to support it also. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Ripley. Is there any other discussion? Eugene Crabtree: I'll make a motion that we approve the application as presented. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange seconds it. Is there any other discussion? We have a motion on the floor for agenda Item #15 with five proffers, Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Agenda Item #16, seven conditions and agenda Item #17 with six conditions. A motion made by Gene Crabtree and seconded by Joe Strange. I'll call for the question. AYE 9 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS CRABTREE AYE HENLEY LIVAS AYE KA TSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 2 ABSO ABSENT 0 NAY AYE Ed Weeden: Bya vote of 9-2, the application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. has been approved. Barry Knight: If there is no other business before this body, we will stand adjourned. 1 / ~f~rtJ5 5 J') l ~;, Letter of opposition to the Ocean Properties~ L.L.C. request for chan!!e of Zonin!! from R-IO Simde Familv Residential to 8-4 Conditional Mixed Use for 86 Condo units My name is Mark Walker. I am a registered Architect and I've been in the industry for over 27 years. I'm also a resident of Chesapeake Beach since 1979 and I'm opposed to this proposed project. Although I have great respect'ror t}1e Planning Department and Planning Commission, I strongly feel that th~ '''_unit condominium project as proposed in this rezoning request, is not in compliance with the ULI Bay/ront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. vkr.r This rezoning application identifies the proposed project as being within the Primary ;Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor. Site # 1) and quotes from page 89 of the City's Comprehensive Plan by stating that land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on "preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods." I fail to understand how this project can preserve and protect the overall character and aesthetic quality of the adjacent A-12 medium density nor the R-10 low- density neighborhoods. On the contrary, the project proposes high density, <comparable to an A-24 development with unlimited hei~tJe,~triction, showing a 70-foot tall building.I'lP?:~~ development will be~Jri~e the density of the A-12 property to the west,I,six times the density of the current zoning and twice the height of any other structures within the immediate visible area. The Comprehensive Plan further states, on page 95 & 96, "The recent history of development in the (Shore Drive) corridor has been characterized by too high density on too small parcels of land, and the Shore Drive Overlay Di~~rict is intended, in part, to restore the proper balance." This proposed 86 unit condo project is precisely the type of development to which this previous statement is referring - "too high density on too small parcels of land." How could it be any more clear? One of the major Objectives of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan is stated on page 16 of the Plan" To protect and enhance the quality of residential communities in the corridor." This objective is further reinforced on page 8 "New development and redevelopment in the (Shore Drive) area should be oriented towards protection and enhancement of the character of existing residential neighborhoods." In the ULI Bayfront Study, on page 33, the study states "Many of the communities (along Shore Drive) are made up of single-family homes and should be protected from the intrusion of higher-density development." None of the three documents I've referenced, The ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, support this proposed project and neither do I. This high-density project will not improve the quality of life for citizens along the Shore Drive corridor, so please don't allow it! ! Thank you. Page 2 of 2 May 8, 2006 Mr. Robert J. Scott, Director Planning Department 2405 Courthouse Drive Building 2, Room 115 Virginia Beach, V A 23456-9013 Dear Mr. Scott: At our January general meeting, the Baylake Pines Civic League voted to oppose the application of Ocean Properties, L.L.c. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from- R-1 0 (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District on property located at 4856,4840,4848,4832 Shore Drive and 2209, 2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 14793746930000; 14793776110000; 14793756800000; 14793775880000; 14793757530000; 14793758630000; 14793769120000; 14793778500000; 14793777500000) scheduled for your meeting on May 10,2006. This request will increase the current density to 86 units from the existing 9. Such a change would have a very negative impact on our community regarding density, safety (via increased traffic), quality of life (increased traffic and density), alteration of the character of the surrounding neighborhood (72 foot proposed height will dwarf surrounding structures). Approval of this change would establish a very bad precedent. Please include our opposition to this re-zoning in your consideration of the application at the May 10, 2006 meeting. Thank you, Michelle Vachris, President Baylake Pines Civic League CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6343 DATE: June 2,2006 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lille':.\ll:\ B. Kay Wils6~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Ocean Properties LLC The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated September 14, 2005, 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 /as Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen PREPARED BY: ~ SYUS. ROURDON. DI AlIrnN & lIVY. P.C OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company LEE R. TURNER, JR. ANN ARGO DALE KAREN S. ROULLET JON R. FLOYD PENELOPE H. SMITH, TRUSTEE OF THE PENELOPE H. SMITH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST ALAN D. CORDREY and SHERI L. HOWARD STEVEN R. HUGHES a/k/ a STEVE HUGHES and EDITH M. HUGHES, husband and wife PENELOPE H. SMITH and KATHERINE A. JONES f/k/ a KATHERINE A. SMITH TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of September, 2005, by and between OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the fIrst part; LEE R. TURNER, JR., party of the second part, Grantor, ANN ARGODALE, party of the third part, Grantor; KAREN S. ROULLET, party of the fourth part, Grantor; JON R. FLOYD, party of the fIfth part, Grantor; PENELOPE H. SMITH, TRUSTEE OF THE PENELOPE H. SMITH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, party of the sixth part, Grantor; ALAN D. CORDREY and SHERI L. HOWARD, parties of the seventh part, Grantors; STEVEN R. HUGHES and EDITH M. HUGHES, husband and wife, parties of the eighth part, Grantors; PENELOPE H. SMITH and KATHERINE A. JONES, parties of the ninth part, Grantors; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the tenth part. GPIN: 1479-37-4693 1479-37-5680 1479-37-7611 1479-37-7588 1479-37-5753 1479-37 -5863 1479-37-6912 1479-37-7850 1479-37-7750 1 WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 14,505 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel 1 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel along 'with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 14,524 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel 2 in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the fourth part is the owner of a parcel of property loca~ed in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 12,329 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel 3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the fifth part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 12,368 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel 4 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the parties of the sixth part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 19,971 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel 5 in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said PREPARED BY: parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together IJIB STIIS. ROURDON, mil AIlrnN & LM. P.C referred to as the "Property"; and 2 WHEREAS, the parties of the seventh part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 19,965 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel 6 in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the parties of the eighth part is the owner of two (2) parcels of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 33,955 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcels 7 ahd 8 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcels along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the ninth part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing apPI:oximately 17,022 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel 9 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the parcels described in Exhibit "A" and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-10 Residential District to B-4 Mixed Use District (SD); 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 Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the PREPARED BY, need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of . lIB SYIa:S. ROURDON. the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to ..AllmN & 1M. P.c. 3 land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the Boo 4 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a -reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or Quid pro QUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA", dated 08/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. PREPARED BY: I31BSYllS. ROURDON, 2. When the Property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall mil AHIRN & UVY. P.C be via one (1) entrance from Shore Drive. 4 PREPARED BY, ~m SYKES. ROURDON. mil AIlrnN & UVY. P.c. 3. The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick. 4. There will be no more than seventy-seven (77) residential units within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City _Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zonip.g 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 5 PREPARED BY, ~.m SYKt:s. ROURDON. OJ AHrnN & lIVY. p,c. conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for pub!ic inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee. 6 PREPARED BY: . IIIB sms, ROURDON. .. AH[RN & uvY. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: aging Member v STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: (SEAL) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisd]lli day of September, by David Terry, Managing Member of Ocean Properties, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. s;~.~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ~ la~\0t07 SM. El.LlOfT f<<)TARY ABJC COfA<<)tfNEALTH OF \lIRGINIA flfCOMMlSSlON EXPIRES FEBRUARV28. m 7 PREPARED BY: ft8 SYKiS. ROURDON. mil AHiRN &. llVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: Graryt;fr: /1 'I ~J!. r-rlL Al1n Argodale7 ( (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: . \ - ~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ;).3 - day of September, 2005, by Ann Argodale, Grantor. My Commission Expires: c tQ-- ~~ NO~bIiC o{3dcA 9 PREPARED BY: ~ SYKts. ROURDON. mil AHrnN & 1M. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: ~lUAA~~L~ Karen S. Roullet (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: . ~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d..3 day of September, 2005, by Karen S. Roullet, Grantor. C t.Q~C~ Not Public My Commission Expires: a( '3.l \ oq 10 PREPARED BY: ~ SYl([S. ROURDON. mil AlIrnN &: LM. P.c. WITNESS the following signature and seal: Granto. f:-/ /Z'" (J.'" , /' 1 ,/ ../ /" / /'" / 1./ / l./" (.-T 1-- _,-, / ./dOn Floyd ,( / / (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: . rd The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ 3 -day of September, 2005, by Jon Floyd, Grantor. c) c>r\ ~ ~d Not , . l)ublic ......--'" My Commission Expires: 11 I'b ~.~ PREPARED BY: IJIB miS, ROURDON. aI AHmN & llVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: THE PENELOPE H. SMITH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST By: ../..., 'Penel pe H. Smith, Trustee (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: td The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d .~ day of September, 2005, by Penelope H. Smith, Trustee of The Penelope H. Smith Revocable Living Trust, Grantor. My Commission Expires: C~~~d ~~ NotaW Public <o13tto4 '--' 12 PREPARED BY; ~ SYla:S. ROURDON. DI AHrnN & 1M. p,c. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Grantor: ()ioh1 &.1"1/~ / Alan D. Cordrey I. tJ;J^'~';1~~ Sheri L. Howard (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: :;;3,..d The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this --day of September, 2005, by Alan D. Cordrey, Grantor. My Commission Expires: o ~(l~dC~,-~ Not~ blic oC?:> i \ 0 C) "- STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,,:)3 1"-~ay of September, 2005, by Sheri L. Howard, Grantor. C'''t c r\ -'''\ ~ ~2t::~~~ My Commission Expires: "6( 2> i' () 4 13 PREPARED BY: ~.m SYJ([S. BOURDON, m AllrnN & lM, P.c. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Grantor: St-~~~. ~~ Steven R. Hughes.~) 9~~~ Edith M. Hughes (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: .J. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ;)3 ~ay of September, 2005, by Steven R. Hughes and Edith M. Hughes, husband and wife, Grantors. c IG~~~ Public My Commission Expires: 013 (lOCI 14 PREPARED BY: 53m SYJ(ES. ROURDON. - AIlrRN & lm'. P.C WITNESS the following signatures and seals: (SEAL) AL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: . 3t---d The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ -day of September, 2005, by Penelope H. Smith, Grantor. C'-) fr\ ~C' ~~ Notary blic My Commission Expires: 'q 3> I } 04 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: '-)~I-d The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of September, 2005, by Katherine A. Jones, Grantor. My Commission Expires: 15 PREPARED BY: lIB sms. ROURDON. m AIlIRN & UVY. P.C EXHIBIT" A" PARCEL 1: ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon, and the easements and appurtenances thereunto belonging, numbered Shore Drive in Kempsville Magisterial District of the County of Princess Anne, Virginia, and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the north line of the Public Highway, known as Shore Drive, at the southwest comer of the said land herein conveyed and the land now or formerly owned by F. B. Road, marked by an iron pin, which point of beginning is distant 200 feet in a westerly direction from the north line of the said Shore Drive and the west line of the Oliver Road and thence running in a northerly direction along the said Roan's line 14 degrees 45 mins. East, 175 feet to the southem line of Lot 5 marked by an iron pipe; thence in an easterly direction parallel with the north line of said Shore Drive 100 feet to the west line of Lot 2 marked by an iron pin; thence in a southerly direction parallel with the west line of the said Oliver Dive 175 feet to the north line of said Shore Drive marked by an iron pin; thence west along the north line of said Shore Drive, 100 feet to a point marked by an iron pin the point of beginning as aforesaid being Lot 1 as shown on that certain plat of Bradford Terrace made by W. B. Gallup County Surveyor Apri118th, 1947, and duly recorded. GPIN: 1479-37-4693 PARCEL 2: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, formerly Princess Anne County, Virginia, now numbered 4848 Shore Drive, formerly numbered 2110 Shore Drive, Bayside, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot Two (2), Bradford Terrace duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at Page 5, excepting therefrom that portion of lot conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the widening of Route 60, dated October 5, 1955, recorded May 14, 1956, duly recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 446, at Page 198, as shown in Highway Plat Book 2, at Page 119. GPIN: 1479-37-5680 16 PREPARED BY: IDB STI:t:s. ROURDON. - MUm &. ll:VY. P.C PARCEL 3: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situate, lying and being in Bayside Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, State of Virginia, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the northern line of the public highway, known as Shore Drive at the northeasterly intersection of Oliver Drive, and running thence along the easterly line of Oliver Drive, North Fourteen (14) degrees, Forty-Five minutes (45) East, One Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (175) to a point; thence in an easterly direction along the division line between Lots Three (3) and Nine (9), parallel with the northern line of said Shore Drive, Eighty-Five Feet (85') to a point in the division line between Lots Three (3) and Four (4); thence in a southerly direction parallel with the east line of said Oliver Drive, One Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (175') to the northern line of said Shore Drive; thence in a westerly direction along the northern line of said Shore Drive, Eighty-Five Feet (85') to a point in the eastern line of said Shore Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid, excepting therefrom that portion which was conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia by Deed dated November 25, 1955 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, which Deed was recorded simultaneously with a photocopy of Sheet #8, of a plan and survey of part of State Highway Route 60, Project #2175- 06-08-11, reference to which is made for a more particular description of the portion to be excepted. GPIN: 1479-37-7611 PARCEL 4: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, known, numbered and designated as Lot Number Four (4), on the plat entitled, "BRADFORD TERRACE LOCATED ON SHORE DRIVE, PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, DATED APRIL 18, 1947, MADE BY W.B. GALLUP, COUNTY SURVEYOR", and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at Page 5. LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT a portion of property conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia in Deed Book 538, at Page 164. GPIN: 1479-37-7588 17 PREPARED BY, 53m SYf([S. ROURDON. mil AHillN & lM. P.c. PARCEL 5: All of that certain lot, tract, piece and parcel of land, with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in the County of Princess Anne, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as LOT numbered FIVE (5), on PLAT OF BRADFORD TERRACE, recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at Page 5, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description; said lot fronting one hundred feet (1001 on the West side of Oliver Drive, and extending back between para11ellines two hundred feet (2001- GPIN: 1479-37-5753 PARCEL 6: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot Six (6), as shown on that certain plat entitled "PLAT OF BRADFORD TERRACE", which said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at Page 5. GPIN: 1479-37-5863 PARCEL 7: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon and the easements and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situate, lying and being in Kempsville Magisterial District of the County of Princess Anne, State of Virginia, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the west line of Oliver Drive at the northeast comer of Lot Six (6), which point is distant Three Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (3751 from the northerly side of Shore Drive; thence running along the west side of Oliver Drive, North Fourteen degrees (140), Forty-Five minutes (451 East to the line of the property of the City of Norfolk, bordering on Lake Bradford; thence in a westerly- northwesterly direction One Hundred Feet (1001, more or less, from the shore line of said Lake Bradford, to a point in the Western boundary line of the said Grantors' property, which point is distant Four Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (4751, more or less, from the northerly side of said Shore Drive; thence South Fourteen Degrees (140), Forty-Five Minutes (45) West One Hundred Feet (100) to the northwest comer of Lot Six (6); thence in an easterly direction along the division line between the Lot hereby conveyed and said Lot Six (6) Two Hundred Feet (200) to the westerly side of said Oliver Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid. 18 Being Lot Seven (7) as shown on the Plat of Bradford Terrace, located on Shore Drive, Princess Anne County, Virginia, made by W. B. Gallup, County Surveyor, April 18, 1947, and recorded with the Deed from William W. Oliver and Alice M. Oliver, his wife to Claude R. Hargis, et UX., bearing the date 17th day of July, 1947, in Map Book 21, at Page 5, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County and State aforesaid. Together with all and singular the buildings and improvements thereon, rights and privileges, tenements, hereditaments, easements and appurtenances unto the said land belonging or in anywise appertaining. GPIN: 1479-37-6912 PARCEL 8: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon, situated in Kempsville Magisterial District, and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the east side of Oliver Drive at the Northwest comer of Lot 9, ~hich point is distant 275 feet from the northerly side of Shore Drive; thence running along the East side of said Oliver Drive N. 14 deg. 45' East to the line of the property of the City of Norfolk bordering on Lake Bradford; thence in an easterly- southerly direction 100 feet, more or less, from the shore line of said Lake Bradford to a point, the north-easterly comer of said Lot 9, distance 275 feet from the northerly side of said Shore Drive; thence in a westerly direction along the division line between the lot hereby conveyed and said Lot 9, 170 feet to the easterly side of said Oliver Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid. BEING Lot 8 as shown on the Plat of Bradford Terrace, located on Shore Drive, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, made by W.B. Gallup, Surveyors, April 18th, 1947 and recorded in Map Book 21, at Page 5, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. GPIN: 1479-37-7850 PARCEL 9: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne PREPARED BY: County), Virginia, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: ~ SYK[S. ROURDON. mil AIIfRN &. llVY. p,c. BEGINNING at a point in the East line of Oliver Drive distant one hundred seventy- five feet (1751 from the northeastern intersection of said Oliver Drive and the Public Highway lrnown as Shore Drive; thence running North fourteen degrees forty-five 19 minutes east along the east line of said Oliver Drive one hundred feet (100); thence East one hundred seventy feet (170) to a point in the Norfolk City property line; thence South parallel with the eastern side of said Oliver Drive one hundred feet (100) to the dividing line between said Lot Nine (9) and Lot Four (4); thence west parallel with the northern line of said Shore Drive one hundred-seventy feet (170) to the Eastern side of said Oliver Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid. Said lot being designated as LOT NUMBERED NINE (9) on that certain plat of Bradford Terrace, located on Shore Drive Princess Anne County, VA (now Virginia Beach) made by W. S. Gallup, County Surveyor, Apri118, 1947, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County (now Virginia Beach), Virginia, in Map Book 21, at Page 5. GPIN: 1479-37-7750 CONDITIONALREZONE/OCEANPROPERTIES/PROFFER PREPARED BY: IJBSYIrrS. ROURDON, lID AIlrnN & lM. P.C 20 L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS - New Construction GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PPEA MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMITTEE P ARKS AND RECREA nON COMMISSION SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L DATE: lune 6, 2006 C E S L D C M R C A W I 1 L A N R H N I PAGE: I E D 0 A D D E M U L W Z Y N N D 0 E I E S 0 AGENDA E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D I-A BRIEFINGS: TOURISM ECONOMIC IMPACT lames Ricketts, Director, Convention and Visitors Bureau B SWIMMING ADVISORIES Update Charlie Meyer, Chief Operating Officer 11'111' IVNI IV/ V-E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y F-l MINUTES - May 23. 2006 APPROVED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y A B S T A 1 N E D G/H-I MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION FOR YEAR OF E. Dana Dickens, REGIONAL CITIZENSHIP 1lI, President and CEO, Hampton Roads partnership II Ordinance to AMEND City Code 918-65 re bail ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y 1-Ia bondsmen CONSENT Ib Ordinances to AMEND City Code: ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y 918-49 re alcoholic beverages CONSENT 918-50 remixed beverages CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L DATE: June 6, 2006 C E S L 0 C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 2 E 0 0 A D 0 E M U L W Z Y N N D 0 E [ E S 0 AGENDA E E E A 0 R V 0 V 0 0 ITEM # SUBJECf MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N 0 2 Ordinance to AUTHORIZElDIRECT the City ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Manager to execute a Memorandum of CONSENT Agreement re Hampton Roads Regional Groundwater Mitigation Program 3 Resolution to AUTHORIZElDIRECT the City ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Manager to implement recommendations of the CONSENT Shore Drive Safety Task Force. 4 Ordinance to DISSOL VElRECONSTITUTE ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Towing Advisory Board. CONSENT 5 Resolution to REFER to Towing Advisory ADOPTED, AS 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Board Ordinances re nonc:onsensual tows from AMENDED, BY private Property/PoIic_e Department Wrecker List CONSENT criteria revisions 6 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temp ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y encroachments by Curtis E./Robyn M. Bailey CONSENT into City's r-<l-W at 4532 Black Cove Road on Lake Joyce re docklpileslexistinglbuIkheadJriprap. DISTRICf 4 - BA YSIDE 7 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $7,441 from ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y NotfoIk Foundation to Library FY 2005-06 CONSENT Operating Budget re access to online databases. ADD Recess to Closed Session @ 6:47 PM APPROVED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y ON ADD Certified Closed Session at 7:4 I PM re Personnel CERTIFIED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y ON and Publicly Held Property K APPOINTMENTS RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION BEACHES AND W A TERW A YS COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMmEE GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE INVESTMENT PAR1NERSHIP ADVISORY COMMmEE - PPEA OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMmEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICf REAPPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y COMMISSION - HRPDC Hany E. Diezel Tenn: 2 years - 07/0112006- 06/3012008 Louis R. Jones Meyera Obemdotf APPOINTED CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L DATE: June 6, 2006 C E S L D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 3 E D 0 A D D E M U L W Z Y N N D 0 E I E S 0 AGENDA E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D Term: Unexpired thru 06/3012007 Barbara M. Henley Term: 2 years - 07/0112006- 0613012008 John E. Uhrin MEAL TAX TASKFORCE APPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y No term Robert M. Dyer- City Council Ron A. Villanueva - City Council Rita Sweet Bellitto - Virginia Beach City Schools - Delegate John Welch Bill Brown - Member of Minority Business Council Patricia Phillips - Director of Finance or Designee Chris Savvides, Hu Odom, Mike Standing - Restaurant Assoc. Mike Kreider- Hotel/Motel Assoc. Sanford Cohen - Central Business District Stephen Romine- Chamber of Commerce MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL REAPPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y Term: 2 years - 06/0112006- 05/3112008 William R Brown Daniel Pearsall No term Louisa M. Strayhorn - Governor's Liaison RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y Tenn: Unexpired thru 1213112007 Richard A. Maddox CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L DATE: June 6, 2006 C E S L D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I PAGE: 4 E D 0 A D D E M U L W Z y N N D 0 E I E S 0 AGENDA E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD APPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A y A Y y y Term: 4 years- 07/0112006- 06/3012010 Susan Parker TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE APPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A Y y Y BOARD Term: 4 years - 07/0112006- 06/3012010 Bruce Meyer TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME REAPPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A y Y y COMMISSION George B. Chafee, Term: 4 years - 07/0112006- 0613012010 Jr, TOWING ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A y y y Term: 3 years - 06/0112006- 05/3112009 Ernest Cooper- Towing IndustJy Louis Ochave - Citizen Police Chief or Designee TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT REAPPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A Y y Y COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS- TIDe James L. Wood Term: 2 years - 07/0112006- 0613012008 APPOINTED John E. Uhrin UM/ ADJOURNMENT 7:45 PM N PUBLIC COMMENTS: 6:35 - 6:46 pm 2 speakers CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS RESCHEDULED July 4, 2006 ALL SESSIONS CANCELED July II, 2006 Briefing, Infonnal and Fonnal Sessions July 18, 2006 Briefing, Infonnal and Fonnal Sessions July 19 - August 7,2006 City Council Vacation August 8, 2006 Resume Regular Schedule