The URL can be used to link to this page

JANUARY 22, 2008 AGENDACITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District a WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH, At -Large HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M. DYER„ Centerville - District I BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne — District 7 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach — District 6 RON A. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large ,JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY MANAGER -JAMES K. SPORE CITY A77-OPNEY - LESLIE L. LILLEY CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 22 JANUARY 2008 CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 234568005 PHONE: (757) 385-4303 FAX(757)385-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com 1:00 I'M I. SCHOOL BOARD BRIEFING A. SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS Dr. Robert Merrill, Superintendent II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING A. TOLL FEASIBILITY— I-264 and Southeastern Parkway Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager III. CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFINGS A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL— Annual Report Wanda J. Cooper, Secretarial Officer and William R. Brown, Financial Counselor B. BLUE RIBBON TAX, FEE and SPENDING TASK FORCE — Revenue Report Robert Goodman, Jr., Chair, Revenues Subcommittee IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. REVIEW OF AGENDA VI. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VII. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf 4:00 PM II - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM 11 B. INVOCATION: Reverend Richard Keever Bayside Presbyterian 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 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I. PUBLIC HEARING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - Virginia Beach Development Authority Dam Neck Road, Landstown Road and Recreation Drive January 8, 2008 J. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution SUPPORTING House Bill 1105 re the General Assembly's restoration of authority to localities over issues pertaining to Outdoor Advertising Structures (requested by Council Lady Reba McClanan) 2. Resolution SUPPORTING multi -modal accommodations for interim improvements to City rights-of-way to enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists (requested by Council Lady Rosemary Wilson). (Deferred on January 8, 2008) 2. Resolution to formally ADOPT the 2008 Virginia Beach Emergency Operations Plan as required by the Code of Virginia 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of City property, for EARL L. and MARO A. ROYER, to allow construction and maintenance of brick columns, existing electrical conduits and a brick column mailbox at 1460 Watersedge Drive (Staff recommends denial) (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE transfer of ten (10) acres of land in Princess Anne Commons at Dam Neck and Landstown Road to the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) for sale to Seven Cities Development Company, LLC re construction of an indoor baseball/softball and related sports facility 5. Ordinance to TRANSFER $797,500 from the School's Pupil Transportation Category to the Operations and Maintenance Category for repair and replacement of school trucks 6. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition from Nancy H. Hodgman of 2.910 acres of land for $600,000 at Shell and Diamond Springs Roads, Lakes Lawson and Smith, and provide funding from the Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project; and, the City Manager is to execute all necessary documents K. PLANNING 1. Applications for street closures: a. WILLIAM G. and JOY M. GOSS for a portion of an alley adjacent to 828 Surfside Avenue, Croatan Beach (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL b. MARY BEN THOMAS for a portion of an alley adjacent to Mediterranean Avenue and 24-1/2 Street (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL c. SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. T/A KELLAM FUNERAL HOME, INC. for a portion of Avenue E (DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Variance to §4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision for MLADICK MEDICAL ASSOCIATES at Colonial Medical Court and First Colonial Road (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application of AGC ACQUISITION, LLC, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District re strip retail and multi- family development at 1291 Nimmo Parkway (Deferred Indefinitely August 14, 2007) (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. for the Modification to a Conditional Change of Zoning request (approved by City Council on October 25, 2005 for S & J LLC) at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road (Deferred January 22, 2008) (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Application of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. for a Change of7oningDistrict Classification from R-7.5 Residential to Conditional A-12 Apartment at Zurich Arch and I-264 (Deferred June 12 and Indefinitely August 14, 2007) (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB) HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS 0. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL'S SCHEDULE February 19, 2008 Virginia Beach Convention Center 7 - 9 PM City-wide Town Meeting Stormwater Plans and Funding If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 Agenda 1/22/08st www.vbgov.com 1:00 PM I. SCHOOL BOARD BRIEFING A. SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS Dr. Robert Merrill, Superintendent II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING A. TOLL FEASIBILITY— I-264 and Southeastern Parkway Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager III. CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFINGS A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL— Annual Report Wanda J. Cooper, Secretarial Officer and William R. Brown, Financial Counselor B. BLUE RIBBON TAX, FEE and SPENDING TASK FORCE — Revenue Report Robert Goodman, Jr., Chair, Revenues Subcommittee IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. REVIEW OF AGENDA 4:00 PM VI. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VII. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Richard Keever Bayside Presbyterian 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 January 8, 2008 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - Virginia Beach Development Authority Dam Neck Road, Landstown Road and Recreation Drive �ID 18184969__ Date LO1/11/2008 Time 1,3 09 PM ■ MIA -40.419 1 1=1111W \ 1 (1 (� 7M filk:__ I l The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the disposition of a 10 acre parcel of land located at the intersection of Dam Neck Road, Landstown Road and Recreation Drive, Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall Building (Building #1) at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The purpose of this Hearing will be to obtain public input to determine whether this property should be transferred to the Virginia Beach Development Authority for the purpose of development of a sports -related facility. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303. Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to the Department of Planning, Room 115, Building #2, at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center. The Department of Planning telephone number is (757) 385-4621. Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC City Clerk Beacon Jan. 13, 2008 18184969 Ad shown is not actual print size J. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES 1. Resolution SUPPORTING House Bill 1105 re the General Assembly's restoration of authority to localities over issues pertaining to Outdoor Advertising Structures (requested by Council Lady Reba McClanan) 2. Resolution SUPPORTING multi -modal accommodations for interim improvements to City rights-of-way to enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists (requested by Council Lady Rosemary Wilson). (Deferred on January 8, 2008) 2. Resolution to formally ADOPT the 2008 Virginia Beach Emergency Operations Plan as required by the Code of Virginia 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of City property, for EARL L. and MARO A. ROYER, to allow construction and maintenance of brick columns, existing electrical conduits and a brick column mailbox at 1460 Watersedge Drive (Staff recommends denial) (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE transfer of ten (10) acres of land in Princess Anne Commons at Dam Neck and Landstown Road to the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) for sale to Seven Cities Development Company, LLC re construction of an indoor baseball/softball and related sports facility 5. Ordinance to TRANSFER $797,500 from the School's Pupil Transportation Category to the Operations and Maintenance Category for repair and replacement of school trucks 6. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition from Nancy H. Hodgman of 2.910 acres of land for $600,000 at Shell and Diamond Springs Roads, Lakes Lawson and Smith, and provide funding from the Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project; and, the City Manager is to execute all necessary documents M�6E„ r. 4` s • =� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution In Support of House Bill 1105 (Outdoor Advertising Structures) MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: In the past few years, the General Assembly has enacted legislation that has effectively divested Virginia localities of a good deal of their authority over billboards. In the present General Assembly session, however, Delegate Joseph Bouchard has introduced House Bill 1105, which would, if enacted, restore that authority by amending the recent legislation the General Assembly has enacted. Councilmember Reba S. McClanan has requested that a resolution in support of House Bill 1105 be brought forward to the City Council. ■ Considerations: The proposed resolution supports the enactment of House Bill 1105, which would: 1. Amend Virginia Code Sections 33.1-370.1 to remove prohibitions against local ordinances requiring the removal of nonconforming billboards when the property on which such billboards are located is developed; 2. Amend Virginia Code Section 33.1-370.2 to provide that the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner shall approve repairs to billboards when the cost of repairs does not exceed a dollar amount greater then fifty per cent (50%) of the original, rather than the current replacement cost, of a billboard; and 3. Amend Virginia Code Section 33.1-371.1 to limit the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner to grant "selective pruning" permits to billboards that are visible from interstate highways, National Highway System Highways, and highways designated as federal -aid primary highways as of June 1, 1991. ■ Public Information: This item will be advertised as part of the City Council 's January 22, 2008 agenda. No additional public notice is required. ■ Alternatives: The City Council may decline to adopt the resolution. ■ Attachments: Proposed resolution; House Bill 1105 Recommended Action: Submitting DepartmentlAgency: Requested by Councilmember Reba S. McClanan Citv Manacier: 1 REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER REBA S. MCCLANAN 2 3 4 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE GENERAL 5 ASSEMBLY TO ENACT HOUSE BILL 1105, PERTAINING 6 TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STRUCTURES 7 8 9 WHEREAS, Delegate Joseph F. Bouchard of Virginia Beach is the patron of 10 House Bill 1105, pertaining to outdoor advertising structures; and 11 12 WHEREAS, if enacted, the bill would effect the following changes to Virginia law: 13 14 1. Amend Virginia Code Sections 33.1-370.1 to remove prohibitions against 15 local ordinances requiring the removal of nonconforming billboards when 16 the property on which such billboards are located is developed; 17 18 2. Amend Virginia Code Section 33.1-370.2 to provide that the 19 Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner shall approve repairs to 20 billboards when the cost of repairs does not exceed a dollar amount 21 greater then fifty per cent (50%) of the original, rather than the current 22 replacement cost, of a billboard; and 23 24 3. Amend Virginia Code Section 33.1-371.1 to limit the jurisdiction of the 25 Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner to grant "selective pruning" 26 permits to billboards that are visible from interstate highways, National 27 Highway System Highways, and highways designated as federal-aid 28 primary highways as of June 1, 1991; 29 and 30 31 WHEREAS, if enacted, House Bill 1105 would largely restore the provisions that 32 applied to billboards prior to recent sessions of the General Assembly, during which 33 local governmental authority over billboards was significantly eroded by the enactment 34 of legislation sought by the outdoor advertising industry; and 35 36 WHEREAS, the enactment of House Bill 1105 would also restore to local 37 governments an appropriate measure of their traditional authority over local land use 38 issues; and 39 40 WHEREAS, the legislation previously enacted by the General Assembly, which 41 House Bill 1105 seeks to amend, constituted purely special interest legislation, in that 42 such legislation benefited, and continues to benefit, only the special interests of the 43 outdoor advertising industry to the detriment of the public interest and common good; 44 and 45 1 hereby egate 46 WHEREAS, the City Council rts to secure expresses enactment olf HouseBouchard � 1 � 05, its 47 appreciation of his patronage and e 48 49 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 50 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 51 52 That the City Council herebyexpresses it be enacted dupport by the or the provisions of General Assembly 53 House Bill 1105, and hereby requests that 54 without substantive amendments to its provisions. 55 56 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 57 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 58 59 That the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this 60 Resolution to the Members of the City's General Assembly Delegation. 61 62 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day 63 of , 2008. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office CA -10612 R-1 January 16, 2008 2 2008 SESSION INTRODUCED 086196435 1 HOUSE BILL NO. 1105 2 Offered January 9, 2008 3 Prefiled January 9, 2008 4 A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 33.1-370.1, 33.1-370.2, and 33.1-371.1 of the Code of Virginia, 5 relating to outdoor advertising. 6 7 Patron—Bouchard 8 Referred to Committee on Transportation 9 10 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 11 1. That §§ 33.1-370.1, 33.1-370.2, and 33.1-371.1 of the Code of Virginia are amended and 12 reenacted as follows: 13 § 33.1-370.1. Removal of billboard signs under this chapter prohibited without just compensation. 14 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no billboard sign subject to this chapter may be 15 removed by action of a county, city, or town under Chapter 22 (§ 15.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 15.2 16 without the payment of just compensation by the county, city, or town unless the billboard sign cannot 17 remain on the property due to the site constraints of the property and removal of the billboard sign is 18 therefore necessary for development on the property. The property owner may terminate the leasehold or 19 other right of the billboard sign to remain on the property in accordance with the terms and conditions 20 of the contract between the property owner and the billboard sign owner, but may not be required to do 21 so by the county, city, or town as a condition of obtaining development approval for the property, unless 22 removal of the billboard sign is necessary for development of the property or the billboard sign is 23 nonconforming a+W is *& Sipa} we on the pr-epeFty a*d t4e zeningor-difianee pennits e* eae. 24 pr-ineipal *se.en tke may. 25 § 33.1-370.2. Maintenance and repair of nonconforming billboard signs. 26 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, maintenance of and repairs to nonconforming billboard 27 signs shall be governed by this section and any applicable regulations promulgated by the 28 Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, known as the "Control and Continuance of 29 Nonconforming Signs, Advertisements and Advertising Structure." Nonconforming billboard signs shall 30 be maintained in a good state of repair and shall be subject to removal for failure to do so, in 31 accordance with § 33.1-375. In order to make repairs to a nonconforming billboard sign, the owner shall 32 make a written request to the Commissioner and submit the documentation required by 24 VAC 33 30-120-170. The Commissioner shall review the written request and if the Commissioner determines that 34 the cost of requested repairs does not exceed a dollar amount greater than 50 percent of the e-HFFeet 35 original replacement cost of the entire billboard sign or structure, the Commissioner shall provide the 36 owner of the billboard sign with a letter approving the billboard sign repairs. However, in no case shall 37 a nonconforming billboard sign be replaced or rebuilt if the cost of the replacement or rebuilding 38 exceeds 50 percent of the euFFefi original replacement cost. The owner of the billboard sign shall apply 39 for a building permit from the locality in which the billboard sign is located and provide a copy of the 40 approval letter from the Commissioner as part of the application for the building permit. The 41 Commissioner's determination as to whether the owner of the billboard sign has complied with this 42 section shall be binding upon the locality, unless the building official, for good cause shown, submits to 43 the Commissioner documentation objecting to the Commissioner's determination, within 30 days of the 44 building permit application, with a copy of such documentation being provided to the billboard sign 45 owner. The Commissioner shall consider any documentation submitted by the building official and shall 46 reissue a determination in accordance with this section, which determination shall be binding upon the 47 locality. 48 § 33.1-371.1. Selective pruning permits; fees; penalty. 49 Notwithstanding the provisions of § 33.1-353 or any other provision of law: 50 1. The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner shall by permit authorize the selective pruning, 51 within highway rights-of-way; as highways aye de€ned in22�351, within the jurisdiction of the 52 Commissioner pursuant to § 33.1-353, including within corporate limits of municipalities, of vegetation 53 that obstructs motorists' view of signs displayed on outdoor advertising structures legally erected and 54 properly maintained along the highways. Permits authorizing such pruning shall be issued in accordance 55 with this section. 56 (a) All work performed under the permit shall be (i) subject to the direction of the Commissioner or 57 his designee, (ii) supervised on-site by a certified arborist approved by the Commissioner, (iii) 58 completed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner or his designee, and (iv) performed solely at the 0 HB 1105 2 of 3 59 expense of the permittee. erformed in a manner that (i) creates a picture frame effect around the sign 60 (b) All pruning shall be p 61 and (ii) beautifies the area surrounding the advertising structure. All cutting shall be limited to 62 vegetation with trunk base diameters of less than six inches. Pruning cuts of limbs or branches or other 63 vegetation with diameters greater than four inches and clear cutting shall not be authorized and shall be 64 strictly prohibited. Pruning of vegetation in a highway median shall not be permitted where the locality 65 within which the pruning is to be done has a local beautification project, gas ^defined in this section, in 66 the area within the scope of the selective pruning application; hewe*e� �eR er e€ soh 67 *egetatiee shat} be dance as � this seEtiea. � �— with a h��'�a�i}?g �'` 68 (c) Any diseased or unsightly vegetation or any vegetation that endangers the health or retards the 69 growth of desirable vegetation may be removed at the discretion of the certified arborist supervising the 70 work. Any such removed vegetation shall be replaced at the permittee's expense with desirable 71 vegetation. 72 2. The requirements of this section shall not apply to the owner or authorized agent of the owner of 73 any sign, advertisement, or advertising structure exempted from the provisions of this article by 74 § 33.1-355. 75 3. The Commissioner shall promulgate such regulations as he deems necessary or desirable to carry 76 out the provisions of this section. Such regulations shall include but not necessarily be limited to the 77 following requirements: 78 (a) Every application for a permit submitted under this section shall be accompanied by photographs 79 of the affected site and a detailed description of work proposed to be performed. 80 (b) A fee of $400 shall accompany every application made to the Commissioner, or if applicable, to 81 the locality within which the pruning is to be performed. All such fees collected by the Commissioner 82 shall be paid by the Commissioner into the state treasury, allocated to the Commonwealth Transportation 83 Board. 84 (c) Every applicant shall post a bond payable to the Commonwealth, with surety approved by the 85 Commissioner and in a form approved by the Attorney General, in the sum of $2,500, conditioned on 86 the permittee's fulfillment of all requirements of the permit. 87 (d) No permit shall be issued under this section in order to create a new site for an outdoor 88 advertising structure. 89 4. Where the applicant is seeking a vegetation control permit in a locality where the public 90 right-of-way is within the jurisdictional limits of a city or town on a highway or street not within the 91 jurisdiction of the Commissioner under § 33.1-353 or on a highway or street in a county having the 92 county manager form of government, the Commissioner shall delegate the administration of this section 93 to that locality and, if so delegated, the locality shall apply the provisions of this section. 94 5. If there are plant materials in the public right-of-way that are part of a local beautification project, 95 the Commissioner or the locality, as the case may be, may include a requirement, in accordance with the 96 provisions of subdivisions 4 through 7, that, as a condition of the issuance of a vegetation control permit 97 for selective pruning, the applicant submit a landscaping plan, showing how the applicant will relocate 98 or replant the vegetation obstructing the motorists' view from the main traveled way of the highway or 99 street of signs displayed on outdoor advertising structures, in lieu of the selective pruning of such plant 100 materials. For purposes of this section, "local beautification project" means any project in a locality that 101 includes installation of plant materials, using public or other funds, in any public right-of-way within a 102 city or town or on a highway or street in a county with the county manager form of government. In the 103 absence of the existence of a local beautification project in the area within the scope of the selective 104 pruning application, no landscaping plan requirement shall be imposed on the applicant. 105 6. If subdivision 5 is applicable, the applicant shall pay the reasonable costs of implementing the 106 landscaping plan, which may include but not be limited to, relocating existing plant materials, 107 purchasing new replacement plant materials, and planting vegetation that will not grow to a height or 108 position in the future so as to obstruct motorists' view from the main traveled way of the highway or 109 street of signs displayed on outdoor advertising structures, as otherwise set out in the landscaping plan. 110 7. The provisions of subdivisions 4 through 7 shall apply to any local beautification project installed 111 prior to July 1, 2006. On and after July 1, 2006, the locality shall not plant materials that obstruct 112 motorists' view from the main traveled way of the high wa-y of street highways within the jurisdiction of 113 the Commissioner pursuant to § 33.1-353 of signs displayed on outdoor advertising structures. 114 8. Any application for vegetation control in compliance with this section submitted to the 115 Commissioner shall be approved within 60 days of submission or shall be deemed approved. Any 116 application for vegetation control in compliance with this section submitted to any city or town or on a 117 highway or street in a county with the county manager form of government shall be approved within 60 118 days of submission or shall be deemed approved. The locality may impose conditions in approval of the 119 landscaping plan consistent with this section and the regulations promulgated thereto. If the locality is 120 not satisfied that the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant complies with this section, the locality 3of3 121 may appeal to the Commissioner prieF to the ear -men of t4e 60 day p.W 4em the date of 122 submissiee within 10 days after the final action by the Commissioner. If the applicant objects to the 123 conditions imposed by the locality as part of the approval of the landscaping plan, the applicant may 124 appeal to the Commissioner within 10 days after the final action by the locality. The appealing party 125 shall submit a written appeal to the Commissioner, stating the reasons for such appeal, aleng w404 and, 126 if the applicant is the appealing party, a fee of $400. The Commissioner shall review the landscaping 127 plan and the reasons for the appeal and shall issue a determination in accordance with this section 128 within 30 days after filing of the appeal, which determination shall be binding upon the applicant and 129 the locality. 130 9. Upon issuance of a vegetation control permit in accordance with this section, the applicant shall 131 give written notice, at least seven days in advance of any site work, as authorized by the permit, of the 132 date and time of the commencement of the site work as approved by the permit. Such written notice 133 shall be given to the Commissioner unless the public right-of-way is within the jurisdictional limits of a 134 city or town on a highway or street not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under § 33.1-353, in 135 which case, the written notice shall be given to the local government official who approved the permit. 136 10. Any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated any provision of this 137 section, any regulation adopted pursuant to this section, or any permit issued under this section, shall, in 138 addition to the penalties provided in § 33.1-377, be prohibited by the court from applying for any other 139 permit under this section for a period of not more than five years. -42 - Item V-15. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS ITEM # 57209 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of January 22, 2008: Resolution SUPPORTING multi -modal accommodations for interim improvements to City rights-of-way to enhance safetyfor pedestrians and cyclists (requested by Council Lady Rosemary Wilson). Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, John E. Uhrin, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None January 8, 2008 IA- DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 757-385.1100 FAX (757)385-1130 TDD (757) 471-5836 November 16, 2007 Mrs. Rosemary Wilson Virginia Beach City Council 1304 Wren Place Virginia Beach, VA 23451 City of '�Tirgirzia Beach N llgovxom MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING 21 2406 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 234569016 RE: Resolution addressing Multi -Modal Accommodations within the City Right -of -Way Dear Councilmember Rosemary Wilson: Thank you for attending the Bikeway and Trails Advisory Committee meeting on October 8, 2007 and listening to our concerns. We appreciate your efforts to submit the resolution on multi- modal accommodations to City Council for consideration and adoption. The Bikeway and Trails Advisory Committee reviewed and discussed the proposed resolution addressing multi -modal accommodations within the city right-of-way again at our last meeting held on November 14, 2007. The members present at the meeting were all in favor of the resolution as written. The committee views this as a positive acknowledgement by city council and city staff that bikeway and pedestrian improvements can and should be part of every road project, whether it involves maintenance or reconstruction of an existing road or construction of new roads. As you know, part of our mission established by City Council's resolution in October 2004 is to work with city staff to review road construction projects to ensure that all roads and bridges, where part of the primary or secondary networks, are constructed, improved or maintained in a manner consistent with the Bikeways and Trails Plan. We have established a process to review new roadway plans which is working well; however, we need to develop a better process for reviewing existing roadways. In order to understand the unique constraints, objectives and opportunities for providing accommodations during repair/maintenance and/or reconstruction of existing roads, we need the expertise of a staff member from Public Works. We would like council to endorse our request for a Public Works staff member to be assigned to the Bikeway and Trail Advisory Committee and attend our meetings on a regular basis and provide support and information in this regard. The committee understands that there are real budget constraints and limited funding and that bikeway and trail improvements can only be made if the costs are reasonable. We are willing to accept less than full accommodations if the ultimate outcome is a safer road than what exists. Councilmember Rosemary Wilson Virginia Beach City Council November 16, 2007 Page Two Again, thank you for your support and guidance as we work together in the development of a comprehensive bikeways and trails system for use by residents and visitors alike. Sincerely, Christopher D. Felton Chairman, Virginia Beach Bikeway and Trail Advisory Committee c: Bikeway and Trail Advisory Committee Members City Council Members Cindy Curtis, Parks and Recreation Director Phil Davenport, Public Works Director Barry Frankenfield, Parks and Recreation Barbara Duke, Parks and Recreation I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution supporting multi -modal accommodations for interim improvements to City rights-of-way MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: City Council is concerned with making reasonable accommodations for various users of the City's public roads, such as providing adequate accommodations within its rights-of-way for multiple modes of transportation, including motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Current standards and practices provide such multi -modal accommodations, including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, whenever possible and feasible when roadways are improved to their ultimate width and location as shown in the City's Master Transportation Plan and in accordance with adopted typical roadway sections. This item was deferred on January 8, 2008. ■ Considerations: When roadway improvements of an interim nature are being constructed, there may be opportunities to provide reasonable accommodations to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, if feasible, as dictated by project purpose, project site constraints, and project budget. At the request of Councilperson Wilson and with support from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation, the attached resolution is presented to City Council for consideration, support, and endorsement. ■ Public Information: The proposed resolution was endorsed by the Bikeway and Trail Advisory Committee on November 14, 2007. ■ Alternatives: Do not adopt the resolution. The practice of providing multi -modal accommodations will continue with ultimate roadway infrastructure improvements. ■ Recommendations: Adopt the resolution for endorsement to provide, when feasible, multi -modal accommodations with interim roadway infrastructure improvements. ■ Attachments: Resolution. Requested by: Councilmember Rosemary Wilson I RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MULTI -MODAL 2 ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INTERIM 3 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY 4 5 6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach is concerned with making 7 reasonable accommodations for the various users of the City's public roads, including s motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists; and 9 10 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide accommodations for multiple modes i 1 of transportation within its rights-of-way; and 12 13 WHEREAS, current standards and practices require multi -modal accommodations, 14 including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, whenever possible and feasible when 15 permanent roadway improvements are designed to their ultimate width and location as 16 shown in the Master Transportation Plan; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the City Council also desires, when roadway improvements of an 19 interim nature are being designed, that reasonable accommodations be made to enhance 20 the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, if feasible. 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 25 When roadway improvements of an interim nature are being designed, reasonable 26 accommodations to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists shall be included in 27 the plans, if feasible, as dictated by project purpose, project site constraints and project 2s budget. 29 30 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 31 , 2008. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department of Public Works APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 2�-, /)�v City Attorney's Office CA10333 R-1 12/27/07 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D030\P002\00046044. DOC •t CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution to Formally Adopt the January 2008 Virginia Beach Emergency Operations Plan MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: On July 1, 2007, a new state law was enacted requiring local governing bodies to formally adopt the locality's updated and revised emergency operation plan every four years. At that time, the Virginia Beach Emergency Operations Plan was already under revision. That revision is now complete. ■ Considerations: The revised Emergency Operations Plan must be formally adopted by Council to fulfill the requirements of Code of Virginia § 44-146.19.E. ■ Public Information: City Council was briefed on the contents of the Emergency Operations Plan on January 8, 2008. Public information and notification will be handled through the Council agenda notification process. Lastly, the adopted plan will be made available to the general public through a variety of medias to include the library and the Internet. ■ Recommendations: Adopt Resolution. ■ Attachments: Resolution. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution. Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department City Manage 1. 61 1 A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ADOPTING THE JANUARY 2 2008 VIRGINIA BEACH EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 3 PLAN 4 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Fire Department, Office of Emergency 5 Services, regularly and routinely publishes and updates an Emergency Operations Plan 6 for the City of Virginia Beach; and 7 8 WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2007, the Code of Virginia § 44-146.19.E. required 9 the City of Virginia Beach to formally adopt the updated and revised City of Virginia 10 Beach Emergency Operations Plans every four years; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the revision of the City of Virginia Beach Emergency Operations 13 Plan is complete and City Council members were briefed on the content of the Plan on 14 January 8, 2008. 15 16 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 19 That the City of Virginia Beach hereby formally adopts the updated and revised 20 January 2008 Virginia Beach Emergency Operations Plan. 21 22 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this 23 day of ; 2008. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Fire Department CA10605 R-3 January11, 2008 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City property known as the 10 foot right of way in front of 1460 Watersedge Drive, for property owners Earl L. and Maro A. Royer MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: Earl L. and Maro A. Royer have requested permission to construct and maintain six (6) brick columns, maintain fourteen (14) existing brick columns, maintain twenty (20) existing electrical conduits, and maintain one existing brick column mailbox in a portion of City property known as the 10 foot right of way located in front of 1460 Watersedge Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. By installing the brick columns and electrical conduits, the property owners are attempting to prevent further damage to their landscaping from vehicles, and, in addition, to encourage vehicles traveling on Watersedge Drive to reduce speed. This item was originally reviewed by Council on December 11, 2007 and deferred to January 22, 2008. A decision was not reached and City Staff was directed to obtain input from residents/owners on Watersedge Drive and Watersedge Court. On December 13, 2007 a total of 38 letters were mailed and to date, 21 were returned. There were 14 respondents who were in favor of allowing the proposed encroachment and 7 against. Of the 14 respondents who were in favor of Mr. Royer's encroachment, 1 inquired as to what would happen if neighbors desired to install similar columns, 2 could empathize with the problem because they have also had to repeatedly 're -landscape' due the numerous vehicles destroying their yards, 2 of the respondents felt that the encroachment did not impact/concern them one way or the other, and 3 respondents cited that Mr. Royer's lighted brick columns were successfully slowing down the traffic on Watersedge Drive. The owners/residents along Watersedge Drive and Watersedge Court were also encouraged to attend the January 22, 2008 council meeting. ■ Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended denial because: 1. Brick columns would create problems for maintenance and garbage collection crews that are in this area and would create a driving hazard to vehicular traffic along Watersedge Drive. 2. The clear zone will be reduced for bicyclists and pedestrians and increase the chance for biking accidents along Watersedge Drive. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments, or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Plat, Location Map and Pictures, Letters sent to residents/owners of Watersedge Drive and Watersedge Court, 21 response letters from residents/owners Recommended Action: Denial of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate i n City Manager. ! 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 5 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS 6 INTO A PORTION OF CITY 7 PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE 10 g FOOT RIGHT OF WAY IN FRONT 9 OF 1460 WATE RSEDGE DRIVE, 10 FOR PROPERTY OWNERS EARL L. 11 AND MARO A. ROYER 12 13 14 WHEREAS, Earl L. and Maro A. Royer desire to construct and maintain six 15 (6) brick columns, maintain fourteen (14) existing brick columns, maintain twenty 16 (20) existing electrical conduits, and maintain one existing brick column mailbox in 17 a portion of City properly known as the 10 foot right of way, located in the front of 18 1460 Watersedge Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 19 20 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2- 21 2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments 22 upon the City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may 23 prescribe. 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 26 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 27 28 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 29 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Earl L. and Maro 30 A. Royer, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct 31 and maintain six (6) brick columns, maintain fourteen (14) existing brick columns, 32 maintain twenty (20) existing electrical conduits, and maintain one existing brick 33 column mailbox in a portion of City property known as the 10 foot right of way in 34 front of 1460 Watersedge Drive as shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" and 35 entitled: "EXHIBIT SHOWING PORTION OF LOT B-1 SUBDIVISION OF LOT B, 36 SUBDIVSION OF PARCEL NO. 6, SUBDIVISION OF EASTERN PART OF LAND 37 J.K. PARKER "PARKVIEW MANOR", a copy of which is on file in the Department 38 of Public Works and to which reference. is made for a more particular description; 39 and 40 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are 42 expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the 43 Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Earl L. and Maro A. Royer (the 44 "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 45 46 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized 47 designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 48 49 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until 50 such time as Earl L. and Maro A. Royer and the City Manager or his authorized 51 designee execute the Agreement. 52 53 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 54 of ,2007. R-1 PREPARED: 6/05/07 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS p�I�L. TI : �- a.. - APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SqICIENCY SND F RM ; I �-;' WLf CITY ATTO EY CA -10300 X:\OID\REAL ESTATE\Encroachments\PW Ordinances\CA10300 Royer Ordinance.doc V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D028\P002\00030647. DOC 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 5 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS 6 INTO A PORTION OF CITY 7 PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE 10 8 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FRONT 9 OF 1460 WATERSEDGE DRIVE, 10 FOR PROPERTY OWNERS EARL L. 11 AND MARO A. ROYER 12 13 14 WHEREAS, Earl L. and Maro A. Royer desire to construct and maintain six 15 (6) brick columns, maintain fourteen (14) existing brick columns, maintain twenty 16 (20) existing electrical conduits, and maintain one existing brick column mailbox in 17 a portion of City property known as the 10 foot right of way, located in the front of 18 1460 Watersedge Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 19 20 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2- 21 2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments 22 upon the City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may 23 prescribe. 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 26 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 27 28 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 29 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Earl L. and Maro 30 A. Royer, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct 31 and maintain six (6) brick columns, maintain fourteen (14) existing brick columns, 32 maintain twenty (20) existing electrical conduits, and maintain one existing brick 33 column mailbox in a portion of City property known as the 10 foot right -of --way in 34 front of 1460 Watersedge Drive as shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" and 35 entitled: "EXHIBIT SHOWING PORTION OF LOT B-1 SUBDIVISION OF LOT B, 36 SUBDIVSION OF PARCEL NO. 6, SUBDIVISION OF EASTERN PART OF LAND 37 J.K. PARKER "PARKVIEW MANOR", a copy of which is on file in the Department 38 of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; 39 and 40 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are 42 expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the 43 Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Earl L. and Maro A. Royer (the 44 "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 45 46 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized 47 designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 48 49 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until 50 such time as Earl L. and Maro A. Royer and the City Manager or his authorized 51 designee execute the Agreement. 52 53 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 54 of 72007. R-1 PREPARED: 6/05/07 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS PUBLIC WORKS, REAL ESTATE APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY PAND rRM W�Jf. CITY ATTORNEY CA -10300 X:\OID\REAL ESTATE\Encroachments\PW Ordinances\CA10300 Royer Ordinance.doc V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D028\P002\00030647. DOC PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Exemption Pursuant to Section 58.1-811(C )(4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this Z-5 day of Oc-6}� r , 2007, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and EARL L. ROYER and MARO A. ROYER, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Lot B-1", as shown on plat entitled, "SUBDIVISION OF LOT B, SUBDIVISION OF NO. 6, SUBDIVISION OF EASTERN PART OF LAND J.K. PARKER "PARKVIEW MANOR"," and said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 157 at Page 55, and being further designated and described as 1460 Watersedge Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain six (6) brick columns, maintain fourteen (14) existing brick columns, maintain twenty (20) existing electrical conduits, and maintain one existing brick column mailbox, collectively the 'Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; GPIN 1499-00-2012-0000 WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of existing City property known as the 10 foot right of way in front of 1460 Watersedge Drive, 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 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: "EXHIBIT SHOWING PORTION OF LOT B-1 SUBDIVISION OF LOT B, SUBDIVSION OF PARCEL NO. 6, SUBDIVISION OF EASTERN PART OF LAND J.K. PARKER "PARKVIEW MANOR" VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing or ordering the Grantee to remove all or any part of the Temporary Encroachments from the Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity, and Grantee shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. 2 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, construction, or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division, Department of Public Works, for final approval. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way/utility easement permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security in the amount of two times their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Planning Department to guard against damage to City property or facilities during construction. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Development Services Center/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 cavy comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setback requirements, as established by the City. El 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, Earl L. Royer and Maro A. Royer, the said Grantee, have caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures. 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. 5 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2007, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: _ STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by RUTH HODGES FRASER, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: 0 Notary Public I Earl . Royer q**v\-.3,�, C�- `�� "aro . Royer STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF �� to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 5 day of I , 2007, by Earl L. Royer. Notary Registration Number: ,2463 P 0 My Commission Expires: i f 3 ►,/b q STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF Vim ;3eaZA , to -wit: MWAMI I � f i s % jq • . • AYANNA R. WILLIAMS Notary Public Commonwealth of Virginia 240380 My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2009 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 257, µ day of 2007, by Maro A. Royer. Notary Registration Number: 0 My Commission Expires: 1 Vo 7 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS S C). 6 41�NATURE DEPARTMENT No ry Public AYANNA R. WILLIAMS Notary Public Commonwealth of Virginia 240380 [my Commission Expires Jon 31, 2009 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM iJ,`� GAUSERSISHARED1WP80\RE1Real Estate FormsIWORD DOCSIENCROACHMENTSIENCROACHMENT.AGREEMENT.doe VA NOTES : %IA// EXE(rBtT 1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND MAY NOT SHOW ANY/ALL �o ( EASEMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY AFFECT SAID PROPERTY AS SHOWN. .� o i 2) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE EXISTENCE V AND/OR LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. I 3) SURVEY PREPARED FOR EARL L ROYER.Gp (M•B COT U PROPOSED Bczlcr, IN• 1499-00;26 21 6). CbLuMN3 ANa 3g, �NLTa � ELECTRICAL PIN FOUND 0000 p O 3 CONDUIT (1.65' E: of Comer) { (TYPICAL) 70. 02 (ARV, R L ROD ss• 3873.20" / No. 1 43Qr pT Lei 14J V � m �h Re- EXsIS T1146 BRICK COLUMNS . —PIN FOUND N (TYPICAL) Al1A� K (0.61' E. of Corner) N� ANP �p 6LrC,T121CAl_ d CON ovlTS e, BRICK WALK r LOT B-1 �, (M.8. 457. PG. 55) cd �` •� GPIN. 1499-00-2012-0000 EDGE OF N x ASPHALT • Ov PAVEMENT F. BLUE UTILITY PAINT, A PIN FOUND---,.,,,, %y i BY OTHERS - / EXHIBIT SHOWING PORTION o .Q\ , �� O LOT B-1 o °T i5l- e�� ry SUBDIVISION OF LOT B, S� SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL NO. 6,F c'Oil, rye SUBDIVISION OF F .7 °T EASTERN PART OF LAND. od g98 J.K. PARKER PARKVIEW MANOR" ' -VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA GR API—tIC SCALE Igtin - X� O D 0 15 30 60 90 4 LAND SURVEYING, P.C. SCALE: 1"=30' DRAWN BY: W.W.L. 111 DATE: 01/11/07 CHECKED BY: A.L.R. 384 JOB NO. 60,144 SHEET 1 OF 1 5737 BARTEE STREET TEL :(7 NORFOLK, VA. 23502 FAX:(7 PUBLIC WORKS REAL ESTATE (757)-385.4161 FAX (757) 3854461 TDD (757) 3854305 December 13, 2007 Neighbor Watersedge Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23452-6222 Dear Neighbor: City of lira n7 a. $each VBgovcom MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING NUMBER 2 2405 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456-9030 The City of Virginia Beach is currently considering an encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. They are requesting permission to construct and maintain six (6) brick columns, maintain fourteen (14) existing brick columns, and maintain twenty (20) existing electrical conduits in a portion of City property known as the 10 foot right of way located in front of 1460 Watersedge Drive, Virginia Beach Virginia. By installing the brick columns and electrical conduits, the property owners are attempting to prevent further damage to their landscaping from vehicles, and, in addition, to encourage vehicles traveling on Watersedge to reduce speed. City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended denial because the brick columns could potentially create problems for maintenance and garbage collection crews that are in the area. Additionally, the brick columns could create a hazard to vehicular traffic as well as an increased likelihood of accidents from bicyclists/and or pedestrians traveling along Watersedge Drive. As the proposed encroachment could affect residents in the area, the City would like to obtain your input. Please mark as indicated in the space provided on the next page and return to this office by January 7, 2008. The decision whether or not to approve the encroachment will be made by City Council on January 22, 2008. Please be aware that you are more than welcome to attend this Council meeting and voice any additional concerns that you may have as well. Your input is valued and greatly appreciated. James C. Lawson, City Real Estate Agent Attachment (1) cc: Phil Davenport, Interim Director Public Works Rebecca Kubin, City Attorney's Office Please indicate one (1): ❑ We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 PUBLIC WORKS REAL ESTATE 757-1854161 FAX (757)385-4456 TOO(757)385.4305 City of Virginia B each MEMORANDUM Vftov M MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING NUMBER TWO 2405 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456-9030 DATE: January 15, 2008 TO: Homeowner/Occupants along Watersedge Drive and Watersedge Court FROM: Ayanna R. Williams IY DEPT: PW/Real Estate RE: Encroachment Request — Brick Columns GPIN: 1499-00-2012 In reference to the letter mailed to you and dated December 13, 2007, please be reminded that the decision whether or not to approve the above encroachment will be made by City Council on January 22, 2008 at 6pm in Council Chambers (2401 Courthouse Drive, Bldg. 1, 2nd floor). This memo is to serve as a reminder that you are encouraged to attend this Council meeting and voice any additional concerns that you may have. If you should have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact this office at 757-385-4161. Thank you. arw cc: Phil Davenport, Interim Director, Public Works Please indicate one (1): We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Address: i1 ;t ! h;{ -i ✓-�� i rte. ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: DEC 2 ? 2007 Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: T1+E LICH iS G:. ThC e! Sl►+Eix sj+c.L' -kC LurV= 0;7 Th+{ MCAb RT 7)-m j6GTi0✓ !$ aYtiE P-I"IF NC+ W64'- Lir, THS Gc_WhNS 3- !-0-*-W..i:W 7 -h -S RORA AND i;,-;., C kg CA" ?ASE if AICZ SPEEWA-16- Name: . C rt i v 3 ;L-A CAM P8E cL- Address: !y/6 1)elyiE �flRhs O�V �, ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Eariid er residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Vir zinia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): 0 We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: - i Name: '? i' Yl GC. � .�, ��t��l 4' << Ck;�GZc� i• Ir• j Address: �jGS�'1 Ll ,L. �FT : l.%_ ve- ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: rwase return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): ❑ We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: L✓J We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: n Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 TO -Z �H Please indicate one (1): I LLJI We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comae t L L CL -I' c4c, Name: 0 CL Ix, -c-- Addres Z-/ ck_ A JAN -824 I " �E S �TN El We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 L-0 C A,,\ C- CA Com, Please indicate one (1): Lam" We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro, Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: �y� G✓c°/St°��/' '" ' ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): El We Support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Lr,, eo Name. 6 Address: 22 10 �Ivo,*- AP DEC 2 84W ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer resgL `P 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): Ed We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Name: O o w0.c_, �-" �o.� r,� P°- (��S d �" T�QtTc,� Address:I Jr- a. \ c�E C- S� `� s ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 _0 Please indicate one (1): We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersed e Drive in Virginia Beach. g Comments: �� F Name: Address: A-.� (✓ �� !/ �� \G��1G : �. ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Com ents: _ 44"Ma a� G�-u� .f. ,c..r 2ue�t o �yRrolcQP,�lrtx , fir e _ w �� _ A INK w ,�pp, % vG7 Igo Address: WALT AND NORA DELBRUGGE 1321 WATERSEDGE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452 We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 40 DEC 2 2007 i c�C cSlP� Please indicate one (1): ❑ We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: A Name: —�, ,L�' 'k Lj. W o Address: f � 5 �''�;�i� f►�;� / QJ Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 ` � r v Please indicate one (1): C J ❑ We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: . 01 CP I We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: I.V m4RcM OF 'Tt//S YEft.2 WE LvRorE LETTERS " AA -L moA*,*uF,es OF CIT -Y Cavnici< 1/914=,enrd�- ovR OP1o507-a,�l. pL E�}SE DEniy� Tufts AAO"4=A077vN . rRC ccAj--m Ns .12E A SRF'Er y I-jojX *rD / Name: �.,✓ x . .� Lt/,�(.,,,,,,,., t2 ..a4 eyp s+.ee-rL Address: Aa, . Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: —P, / c3,22<J'' 7-C M �i` // �r *0 Address: V W4 G b'/Z/ J -J �-� 112 ,� SAP 9 ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: l �1iL Name: Zornd LIGE 6nGtn lc ' �`6E '07,` 925:111I! ck" j Address: ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Mato Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): ❑ We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: _ Address: ® We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: am Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): ❑ We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach, Comments: Name: Address: l l� We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Mr. n�Oxg 1 J beki7e klu'Rlna 4-h ealj rmrTs on 1'4c- PQSPIYI�r7� 5 19 IN a�- fhe- �lun�✓l5 f7�crla�� +hN raid 4/o»r a �teri/� l�rr�,fin� 4lGsV fv�r �i _ 7h/5 also Name: V /i/hi�"��, Ce55 hoJYf�S a� ffit end 6� wez he -Cdr �rtlie ah C WCryC1%'t1 Address: / 3 i,3 Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 0209 Please indicate one (1): ❑ We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 City of Virginia Beach Public Works 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Ref: Input on encroachment application of Earl and Ma ro Royer December 17, 2007 Dear Sirs, I believe the decision to approve or deny the proposed encroachment by the Royer's should fall to the neighbors who live next to and past Mr. and Mrs. Royer's home. I don't know of any impact to those of us who live on the straight portion of Watersedge Drive. The only relative comparison that those of us along Watersedge share is that we have fixed mailboxes as close or closer to the road as the pillars the Royer's constructed. My sense is that the pillars have slowed traffic since there is less room to drive onto the Royer's property when other wide trucks are in the bend of the road. As a result, drivers appear to concentrate more in staying on the paved road. However, those homeowners living past the Royer's home are the individuals impacted and should be the ones whom the city turns to in dealing with this issue since it involves their experiences with the curved road, nighttime driving, truck deliveries and general safety. It is my hope the city council looks to those individuals and weights their opinions to solve this problem. My sense is that the existing pillars have slowed traffic as many of the neighbors who once speed (mostly young drivers) through this area must now slow down and be more deliberate in their driving on this curved section of road. Consequently, this is my only basis on which to evaluate the application; I thus support the Royer's encroachment application. Sincerely, 1-e jj CO P-It� J. William Cofer 1440 Watersedge Drive Please indicate one (1): We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing dmg at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Li o Wa t)k �SST P'� ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Please indicate one (1): Ef We support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: 1'Jtt..L. 3`A-c+�p i �c Rtrwr�10IC Q �tSj Address: t+{0,j WAmyjg72S gEeje A-3 M ❑ We DO NOT support the encroachment application submitted by Earl and Maro Royer residing at 1460 Watersedge Drive in Virginia Beach. Comments: Name: Address: Please return to: City of Virginia Beach Public Works/Real Estate 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 Virginia Beach:, 1!4 23456 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Transfer to the Virginia Beach Development Authority Property Located at the Intersection of Dam Neck Road and Landstown Road (GPIN 1484-79-2426) MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: Seven Cities Development Company, LLC ("Seven Cities") is a Virginia company formed by Tim Hummel, Michael Cuddyer, B.J. Upton, Justin Upton, and Michael Call. Seven Cities has expressed interest in purchasing a ten (10) acre ± tract of land located within Princess Anne Commons at the northwestern comer of the intersection of Dam Neck Road and Landstown Road (GPIN 1484-79-2426). It is the desire of Seven Cities to utilize this tract for the development of a 40,000 square foot indoor baseball/softball and related sports facility. ■ Considerations: The development of an indoor facility dedicated to training in baseball, softball, and related sports, including sports clinic facilities, sports therapy facilities, and a non-profit foundation that will finance programs for underprivileged individuals would be complementary to the other existing uses in the Princess Anne Commons area, including the Sportsplex and the Sentara Princess Anne complex, and planned future recreational uses. The proposed project has been indentified by the City Council as a desirable development project that would contribute to the quality of life in the City, have a positive economic impact, provide a comprehensive sports training and medicine facility, and be compatible with and supportive of other recreational facilities and activities in the City of Virginia Beach. ■ Public Information: This item was advertised in The Virginian -Pilot and published with the City Council Agenda. ■ Alternatives: Convey the ten (10) -acre parcel to the Virginia Beach Development Authority or retain ownership of the subject site. ■ Recommendations: Based on the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority's (VBDA) expertise and flexibility in project development, and on the significant positive economic CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH — Seven Cities Page 2 of 2 impact on the city the proposed development will have while also enhancing the quality of life within the city, City staff recommends that the ten (10) acre parcel be conveyed to VBDA. The VBDA will execute and manage the sale of the property to Seven Cities Development Company, LLC. ■ Attachments Ordinance Location Map Recommended Action: Approval of the Ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Managel. V , 3�- 1 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND 2 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER TO THE 3 VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT 4 AUTHORITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE 5 INTERSECTION OF DAM NECK ROAD AND 6 LANDSTOWN ROAD (GPIN 1484-79-2426) 7 8 WHEREAS, the design and construction of an indoor baseball/softball and 9 other sports and activities facility (the "Sports Facility') by Seven Cities Development 10 Company, LLC ("Seven Cities"), has been identified by City Council of the City of Virginia 11 Beach as a desirable development project that would contribute to the quality of life in the 12 City, have a positive economic impact, provide a comprehensive sports training and 13 medical facility, and will be compatible with and supportive of other recreational facilities 14 and activities in the Princess Anne Commons area of the City; 15 16 WHEREAS, the City owns an approximately 10 -acre parcel of property (GPIN 17 1484-79-2426) at the intersection of Dam Neck Road and Landstown Road (the "Ten Acre 18 Parcel"); 19 20 WHEREAS, the Ten Acre Parcel is a portion of the Lake Ridge property 21 acquired by the City on February 16, 1995 from NationsBank of Virginia, N.A. for various 22 public purposes, including to provide land for economic development; 23 24 WHEREAS, the Ten Acre Parcel was physically separated from the 25 remainder of Lake Ridge property by the construction of the relocated Landstown Road 26 and Dam Neck Road and it has not been put to any use or identified for any particular 27 purpose. 28 29 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the 30 "Authority") was specifically created for the purpose of fostering and stimulating economic 31 development in the City; and 32 33 WHEREAS, based on the Authority's expertise and flexibility in project 34 development, the City Council desires to transfer the Ten Acre Parcel to the Authority and 35 requests the Authority to accept the transfer and develop an agreement for the sale of the 36 parcel consistent with the economic and recreational interests of the City. 37 38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 39 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, 40 41 1. The City Council, subject to acceptance by the Authority, authorizes 42 the transfer of ownership of the Ten Acre Parcel to the Authority. 43 44 2. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute on 4s behalf of the City the documents to complete such transfer, so long as such documents are 46 acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. 47 48 49 50 51 52 3. The City Council requests and recommends that the Authority adopt a Resolution accepting the transfer of the Ten Acre Parcel to the Authority. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2008. CA10547 R-1 1/14/2008 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\W pdocs\D010\P002\00046776.DOC 2 APPRV D A T CONTENT: Planning D tartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney 1*1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer $797,500 from the School's Pupil Transportation Category to the Operations and Maintenance Category MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: On November 13, 2007, the City Council appropriated $14,690,129 to the Schools from the FY 2006-07 year end fund balance. $797,500 of that amount was to be used for the repair or replacement of School trucks, but that amount was incorrectly included in the Pupil Transportation Category instead of the Operations and Maintenance Category. By resolution adopted on December 18, 2007, the School Board requested that City Council approve a categorical transfer from Transportation to Operations and Maintenance. ■ Considerations: State law requires that City Council approve categorical transfers such as the one requested by the School Board. ■ Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process, which includes advertisement of the agenda. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Adopted School Board Resolution of December 18, 2007 Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager• Q Management Servic st% 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $797,500 FROM THE 2 SCHOOL'S PUPIL TRANSPORTATION CATEGORY TO 3 THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CATEGORY 4 5 6 WHEREAS, the School Board has requested a transfer from their Pupil 7 Transportation Category to their Operations and Maintenance Category: 8 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 10 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 11 12 That $797,500 is hereby transferred from the School's Pupil Transportation 13 Category to the Operations and Maintenance Category. 14 15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 16 day of , 2008. Approved As to Content: Approved As To Legal Sufficiency: ��; ec�'M� T- — - Management Services City Attorney's O CA10609 R-2 January 11, 2008 V,IRGINIA BEACHSCHOOLS SCHOOLBOARD Daniel D. Edwards Chairman District 1 - Centerville 1513 Beachview Drive VA Beach, VA 23464 495-3551(h) - 717-0259 (c) Rita Sweet Sellitto Vice Chairman At -Large P.O. Box 6448 VA Beach, VA 23456 418.0960 (c) Todd C. Davidson At -Large 2424 Savannah Trail VA Beach, VA 23456 427-3330 (w) - 285-9409 (c) Emma L. "Em" Davis District 5 - Lynnhaven 1125 Michaelwood Drive VA Beach, VA 23452 34M911 (h) Patricia G. Edmonson District 6 - Beach 401.205 Harbour Point VA Beach, VA 23451 675-0137 (c) 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) Lyndon S. Remias District 7 - Princess Anne 3225 Nansemond Loop VA Beach, VA 23456 630-6102 (c) Sandra Smith -Jones District 2 - Kempsville 705 Rock Creek Court VA Beach, VA 23462 490-8167(h) Michael W. Stewart District 3 - Rose Hal! 105 Brentwood Court VA Beach, VA 23452 498.4303 (h) - 445.4637 (w) Carolyn D. Weems At -Large 1420 Claudia Drive VA Beach, VA 23455 464-6674(h) SUPERINTENDENT James G. Merrill, Ed.D. 2512 George Mason Drive VA Beach, VA 23456 263-1007 AHEAD OF THE CURVE RESOLUTION REGARDING FY 2007-08 BUDGET AND REQUEST FOR CATEGORICAL TRANSFER WHEREAS, on September 18, 2007, the School Board approved the Resolution Regarding FY 2006-07 Reversion, Revenue Actual Over Budget, and Debt Service Budget Over Actual Funds in the amount of $14,690,129; and WHEREAS, an amount of $797,500 was incorrectly categorized into the Transportation Category instead of the correct category of Operations and Maintenance; and WHEREAS, the administration recommends that the $797,500 be transferred from the Transportation Category to the Operations and Maintenance Category; and WHEREAS, the Board approves and affirms the recommended transfer of these funds as presented by the Administration; and WHEREAS, categorical transfers are necessary; and WHEREAS, any transfer of funds between categories must be approved by City Council prior to transfer and expenditure of funds by the School Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board requests the City Council to approve categorical transfers as follows: ® $797,500 from Transportation • $797,500 to Operations and Maintenance and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: 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 Board of the City of Virgini SEAL ATTEST: Dianne P. Alexander, Clerk of the Board this 18th day of December 2007. D. Edwards, Chairman CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY Clark, SchomfBoard of the City of Virginia Beach School Administration Building - 2512 George Mason Drive - P.O. Box 6038 - Virginia Beach, VA 23456-0038 \`�U'gE•i r �y •rdd'kia,i6 �. �J CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize the acquisition of approximately 2.910 acres of real property located off the south side of Shell Road and east of Diamond Springs Road, just east of the eastern end of Sajo Farm Road with frontage on Lake Lawson, Virginia Beach, Virginia for $600,000 from Nancy H. Hodgman. MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: In 2001, a citizen advocacy group comprised of several civic organizations surrounding Lake Lawson and Lake Smith in the Bayside Area (known as Friends of Lake Lawson and Lake Smith) approached City Council requesting that the City preserve the remaining natural areas along the two lakes for present and future generations to enjoy. The City responded by working with the City of Norfolk (the majority property owner) and nearby neighborhoods to acquire 22 acres from Norfolk along Lakes Lawson and Smith through its Open Space Acquisition Program. The City is currently in negotiations with the City of Norfolk to acquire the remaining 15 acres on Lake Lawson. The City approached Nancy H. Hodgman ("Property Owner") and has offered to purchase 2.910 acres of her family's property to add to the acquisitions surrounding Lakes Smith and Lawson. Staff recommends acquisition of the Property for preservation as open space. The Open Space Subcommittee has been briefed and has endorsed this acquisition. ■ Considerations: The City and the current owner have reached an agreement on the parcel's purchase price and the terms of the acquisition. The purchase price is $600,000 and is recommended to be funded from the Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project (CIP 4-004). ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda ■ Alternatives: Do not acquire the Property. ■ Recommendations: Purchase the Property for $600,000 through the Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project (CIP 4-004). ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map and Summary of Terms Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agen cy: PW/REAL E . DTA City Manage I AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE 2 ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 2.910 3 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED OFF 4 THE SOUTH SIDE OF SHELL ROAD AND 5 EAST OF DIAMOND SPRINGS ROAD, JUST 6 EAST OF THE EASTERN END OF SAJO FARM 7 ROAD WITH FRONTAGE ON LAKE LAWSON, 8 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR $600,000 9 FROM NANCY H. HODGMAN. 10 11 12 WHEREAS, Nancy H. Hodgman ("Hodgman") owns a 2.910 acre parcel of real 13 estate off the south side of Shell Road and east of Diamond Springs Road, just east of the 14 eastern end of Sajo Farm Road with frontage on Lake Lawson, in the City of Virginia 15 Beach, Virginia (the "Property"); 16 17 WHEREAS, Hodgman desires to sell the Property to the City of Virginia Beach (the 18 "City"); 19 20 WHEREAS, the City's Open Space Subcommittee has identified the Property as a 21 parcel to be considered for acquisition as part of the City's open space initiative, and has 22 recommended that the Property be acquired for such purposes; 23 24 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City 25 Council") is of the opinion that the acquisition of the Property would further the City's Open 26 Space initiative; 27 28 WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available in the Open Space Acquisition 29 CIP account (CIP 4-004). 30 31 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 32 VIRGINIA: 33 34 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition of the Property by purchase 35 pursuant to § 15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which Property is 36 generally identified as GPIN 1469-50-3783 and shown as the "Hodgman Property" on 37 Exhibit A attached hereto. 38 39 2. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute all 40 documents that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the purchase of the 41 Property, so long as such documents are in accordance with the Summary of Terms 42 attached hereto and acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. 43 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 44 , 2008. CA -10321 V:\applicaions\citylawprod\cycoTn32\Wpdocs\W23\PW2\OW3M7.DOC R-1 January 11, 2008 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT- 9zPw'& C . 'c blic Works/Real Estate APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO SUFFICIENC City Attorneys Office day of SUMMARY OF TERMS AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 2.910 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED OFF THE SOUTH SIDE OF SHELL ROAD AND EAST OF DIAMOND SPRINGS ROAD, JUST EAST OF THE EASTERN END OF SAJO FARM ROAD WITH FRONTAGE ON LAKE LAWSON, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR $600,000 FROM NANCY H. HODGMAN. OWNER: Nancy H. Hodgman BUYER: City of Virginia Beach ZONING: R-40 AICUZ: N/A SALE PRICE: $600,000 at Settlement by check. SOURCE OF FUNDS: CIP-4-004 — Open Space Program Site Acquisition Project SETTLEMENT DATE: On or before thirty (30) days after acquisition is authorized by Council. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: • Property must be conveyed free and clear of all leases, tenancies and rights of possession of any and all parties other than the City. •. Seller shall prepare Deed conveying title to the Property to City and pay all expenses of preparation of the Deed, the grantor's tax and its own attorney's fees and costs. • City shall bear all other costs of closing. V :\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\W pdocs\D023\P002\00039068.DOC K. PLANNING 1. Applications for street closures: a. WILLIAM G. and JOY M. GOSS for a portion of an alley adjacent to 828 Surfside Avenue, Croatan Beach (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL b. MARY BEN THOMAS for a portion of an alley adjacent to Mediterranean Avenue and 24-1/2 Street (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL c. SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. T/A KELLAM FUNERAL HOME, INC. for a portion of Avenue E (DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Variance to §4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision for MLADICK MEDICAL ASSOCIATES at Colonial Medical Court and First Colonial Road (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application of AGC ACQUISITION, LLC, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District re strip retail and multi- family development at 1291 Nimmo Parkway (Deferred Indefinitely August 14, 2007) (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. for the Modification to a Conditional Change of Zoning request (approved by City Council on October 25, 2005 for S & J LLC) at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road (Deferred January 22, 2008) (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Application of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. for a Chan,,,e ofZoninz District Classification from R-7.5 Residential to Conditional A-12 Apartment at Zurich Arch and I-264 (Deferred June 12 and Indefinitely August 14, 2007) (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber E City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive Tuesday, January 22, 2008, at 6:00 P.M. Th following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 6 - BEACH William G. and Joy M. Goss Applicatior ,Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portio of an alley located adjacent to 828 Surfside Avenue, Lc 3, Block 13, Croatan Beach. Mary Ben Thomas Application: Discontinuance, closun and abandonment of a portion of Mediterranean Avenui and 241/5, Street and extending to 25th Street. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL. SCI Virginia Funeral Services, Inc. tia Kellum Funera Home, Inc. Application: Discontinuance, closure an( abandonment of a portion of Avenue E South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc Application: Change of Zoning District Classificatior from R-7.5 Residential to Conditional A-12 Apartment a• Zurich Arch, south of 1-264 (GPIN 1487939540). This is a Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriatel) located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop residential dwellings. AICUZ is 65 to 70 dB Ldn. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Mladick Medical Associates, at Colonial Medical Court and First Colonial Road (GPIN 2408534297). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 4GC Acquisition, L.L.C. Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural to "onditional B-4 Mixed Use at 1291 Nimmo Parkway GPIN 2414161683). The Comprehensive Plan *ecommends use of this site for neighborhood office and single-family residential uses. The purpose of this ezoning is to develop a strip retail center and nulti-family dwellings. AICUZ is 65 to 70 d8 Ldn. 111 interested citizens are invited to attend. Wth Hodges Fraser, MMC 'it Clerk :opies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the )epartment of Planning or online at ftp://www.vbgov.com/oe For information call 185-4621. you are physically disabled or visually impaired and eed assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY ,LERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303. eacon Jan. 6 & 13, 2007 18116067 ---� SUNDAY, 01.13.08 1 BEACON -z > L.- . - EXHIBIT "A" THIS SURVEY WAS PRODUCED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND THEREFORE MAY NOT SHOW ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS OR ENCROACHMENTS AFFECTING THE PARCEL. ALL LINES, ALLEYS STREETS AND LOTS ARE AS FOUND IN MAP BOOK 24 AT PAGE 37. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE NOT LOCATED AS PART OF THIS SURVEY, HOWEVER ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FEATURES HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE OBSERVED. NO WETLAND DELINEATION MARKERS WERE OBSERVED AS A PART OF THIS SURVEY. WETLANDS MAY EXIST ON THIS OR ADJACENT PARCELS. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD CONTACT A TRAINED WETLANDS SCIENTIST SHOULD THEY NEED FURTHER INFORMATION. THIS PARCEL APPEARS TO LIE IN FLOOD ZONE X AS SCALED FROM F.I.R.M. 515531 0033 E, DATED DECEMBER 5, 1996. TSC SURVEYING, P.L.C. IS NOT A PARTY TO DETERMINING THE NEED OR LACK OF NEED FOR FLOOD INSURANCE FOR THIS OR ADJACENT PARCELS. PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT A LOCAL FLOOD OFFICIAL. WRG/N/q COORDINgSrATE pL4 SOUTH ZONE SY Nq STEM E 083 (19 94 HARN) LOT 14 LOT 13 LOT 12 15' ALLEY 6' WOOD FENCE (MB. 24, PG. 37) FFFF��-(ENCROACH 72 F�'iIYFFFcrrr IRS S 1716"40"E 50.00' PROPOSED ALLEY CLOSURE LOT 3 (375± S.F. / 0.009 ACR ) 2.8 ES AREA (7.5' X 50.0') (5,000 S.F. / 0.115 ACRES) LOT 4 S1716'40"E 350.00' TO IRF IRS ® SOUTH R.O.W. MARYLAND AVE. IRS 7' SHED 0.7' WOOD DEC 20 0 10 20 40 1 INCH = 20 ft. REFERENCES: _iQ*So,TH 0�., (M.B. 24, PG. 37) B. 1, PG. 1 b) g!.1/�W I SCALE: Lic. No. 002594 1" - 20' 09-24-09 JOB 07.008 OHW K SCONC �7r DECK WOOD SURFSIDE AVE. , (50' R.O.W.) PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 3, BLOCK 13, CROATAN BEACH (GP4N 2426-37-5573-0000) FOR WIWAM G. AND JOY M. GOSS VIRGINIA BEACH, VA TSC SURVEYING, P.L.C. 261 AMBERLY ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA PHONE: 757-876-0286 / FAX: 757-577-6776 E-MAIL:tcompbell@verizon.net O p OUT DOOR o SHOWER .g ^ 3 STORY a p B WOOD FENCE (ON LINE) STRUCTURE o #828 SURFSIDE o A/C UMT P LOT 2 3.0' -1—MEa-Mat UN? HOUSING #--j- ' WOOD DEC 20 0 10 20 40 1 INCH = 20 ft. REFERENCES: _iQ*So,TH 0�., (M.B. 24, PG. 37) B. 1, PG. 1 b) g!.1/�W I SCALE: Lic. No. 002594 1" - 20' 09-24-09 JOB 07.008 OHW K SCONC �7r DECK WOOD SURFSIDE AVE. , (50' R.O.W.) PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 3, BLOCK 13, CROATAN BEACH (GP4N 2426-37-5573-0000) FOR WIWAM G. AND JOY M. GOSS VIRGINIA BEACH, VA TSC SURVEYING, P.L.C. 261 AMBERLY ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA PHONE: 757-876-0286 / FAX: 757-577-6776 E-MAIL:tcompbell@verizon.net Z �am .g ...-A A IRS WOOD DEC 20 0 10 20 40 1 INCH = 20 ft. REFERENCES: _iQ*So,TH 0�., (M.B. 24, PG. 37) B. 1, PG. 1 b) g!.1/�W I SCALE: Lic. No. 002594 1" - 20' 09-24-09 JOB 07.008 OHW K SCONC �7r DECK WOOD SURFSIDE AVE. , (50' R.O.W.) PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 3, BLOCK 13, CROATAN BEACH (GP4N 2426-37-5573-0000) FOR WIWAM G. AND JOY M. GOSS VIRGINIA BEACH, VA TSC SURVEYING, P.L.C. 261 AMBERLY ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA PHONE: 757-876-0286 / FAX: 757-577-6776 E-MAIL:tcompbell@verizon.net Sy,ire` CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing a portion of that certain unimproved alley known as "PROPOSED ALLEY CLOSURE AREA (7.5' X 50.01) (375± S.F. / 0.009 Acres)" as shown on that certain plat entitled "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 3, BLOCK 13, CROATAN BEACH (GPIN 2426-37-5573-0000) FOR WILLIAM G. AND JOY M. GOSS VIRGINIA BEACH, VA" DISTRICT 6 — BEACH. MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: William G. Goss and Joy M. Goss request that the City Council close a portion of a 15 -foot wide unimproved alleyway that runs north to south behind their property and to incorporate this area into their existing single-family lot. ■ Considerations: Evaluation of this request, as in any street closure application is primarily based on current or future need for the right-of-way for vehicular, pedestrian or public infrastructure purposes. The portion of the alley proposed for closure is part of an undeveloped alleyway that runs north to south along the entire block. City Council has adopted a policy aimed at disposing of right-of-way to adjoining property owners in the Croatan community. The Street Closure Viewers Committee recommended approval of this request, as it was determined that there will be no public inconvenience from the closure and abandonment of this right-of-way, subject to the conditions listed below. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the Viewers determined that there will be no public inconvenience from closing the alley, the closed area will be incorporated into the adjacent property, and there was no opposition. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this 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 William G. and Joy M. Goss Page 2of2 Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat must include a drainage easement over the right-of-way property for future use as deemed necessary by the City of Virginia Beach. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. The approval is for the western half of the 15 -foot wide alley, being seven (7)feet and six (6)inches by fifty (50) feet (7.5' x 50'), adjoining the rear of Lot 3, Block 13, Croatan Beach. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Location Map Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manage - ti o WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Application for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of an alley located adjacent to 828 Surfside Avenue, Lot 3, Block 13, Groat an Beach. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located adjacent to 828 Surfside Avenue, Lot 2 Block 13, Croatan Beach. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 6 -BEACH SITE SIZE: 375 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting to close a portion of the 15 feet wide unimproved alleyway that runs north to south behind their property and incorporate this area into their single family lot. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Portion of an undeveloped alleyway between residential lots. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single family dwellings/ R-10 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Single family dwellings/ R-10 Residential District East: . Single family dwellings/ R-10 Residential District West: . Single-family dwellings/ R-10 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site does not have any significant historical, cultural or CULTURAL FEATURES: environmental features associated with it. WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 1 AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 - 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIE): No impacts related to the MTP or CIP. WATER & SEWER: There are no City water and sewer lines in the area proposed for closure. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: A private drainage easement shall be retained to insure proper drainage through this and adjacent lots. PRIVATE UTILITIES: Preliminary comments from private utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the area proposed for closure. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. This means that the established type, size and relationship of the land use in and around these neighborhoods serve as a guide when considering future development. Evaluation: Evaluation of this request, as in any street closure application is primarily based on current and/or future need for the right-of-way for vehicular, pedestrian or public infrastructure purposes. The portion of the alley proposed for closure is part of an undeveloped alleyway that runs north to south along the entire block. The Street Closure Viewers Committee recommended approval of this request, as it was determined that there will be no public inconvenience from the closure and abandonment of this right-of- way, subject to the conditions listed below. City Council has adopted a policy aimed at disposing of right-of-way to adjoining property owners in the Croatan community. Funds generated from the closure are deposited into an account dedicated to the purchase of beach access in the Croatan area. WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 2 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 Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat must include a drainage easement over the right-of-way property for future use as deemed necessary by the City of Virginia Beach. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. The approval is for the western half of the 15 -foot wide alley, being seven (7)feet and six (6)inches by fifty (50) feet (7.5'x 50'), adjoining the rear of Lot 3, Block 13, Croatan Beach. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. 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. WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 3 V'RGINIA COORDIN STATE P SOUTH 2ON�0 ATE SYST � F X83 (1994 HARN) LOT 14 LOT 13 LOT 12 15' ALLEY 6' WOOD FU CE (MB. 24, PG. 37) �-(ENCROACH 77 IRS PROPOSED ALLEY CLOSURE - AREA (7.5' X 50.0') (375f S.F. / 0.009 ACRES) LOT 4 S12'16'40"E 350.00' TO IRF IRS 0 SOUTH R.O.W. MARYLAND AVE. VtlTl6'4O"E 50.00' f00 I a► WOOD DEC 0 0 10 20 40 1 INCH = 20 ft. SURFSIDE AVE. / (50' R.O.W.) 0 SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 4 OUT DOOR 3 STORY o(oN 6' WOOD FENCE UNE) STRUCTURE #828 SURFSIDE o0 ;c LOT 2 UNIT JO' MECIfANIM UNIT HOUSING 3.9' *-e6. 20.3' � o .. Q ►' .. n. -v►� • v z IRS WOOD DEC 0 0 10 20 40 1 INCH = 20 ft. SURFSIDE AVE. / (50' R.O.W.) 0 SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 4 1 05/22/07 Street Closure Granted 2 02/27/07 Street Closure Granted 3 01/23/07 Street Closure Granted 4 02/28/06 Street Closure Granted 5 01/03/06 Street Closure Granted 6 10/26/04 Street Closure Granted 7 09/23/03 Street Closure Granted 8 08/13/91 Street Closure Granted ZONING HISTORY WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 5 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) William G. Goss & Joy M. Goss, husband and wife 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity= relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) X 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) 2, List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity, relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & 2 See next page for footnotes Street Closure Applicaton Pace 12 0113 Revised W112004 WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 6 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) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C. TSC Surveying, P.L.C. ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-31D1. 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 Me 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. f William G. Goss wner/A001i,caffs Signature Print Name Joy M. Goss PrcperiyO,vnerl�Scanfs Signature Prins Name I $irozi CkSuYC APPI : LIDM page i3 of 13 Rt aec Vir-1004 WILLIAM G. & JOY M. GOSS Agenda Item 4 Page 7 Item #4 William C. and Joy M. Goss Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion Of an alley located adjacent to 828 Surfside Avenue, Lot 3, Block 13, Croatan Beach District 6 Beach December 12, 2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item 4. This is the application of William G. and Joy M. Goss. This is for a discontinuance and closure of a portion of an alley located adjacent to Surfside Avenue in Croatan in the Beach District. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Ms. Anderson, again for the record, Eddie Bourdon representing Mr. and Mrs. Goss, and we appreciate being on the consent agenda. All five conditions are acceptable. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any objection to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Jay Bernas to review this application for us. Jay Bernas: Thank you. This is an application for a street closure of a portion of an alley located adjacent to 828 Surfside Avenue in the Croatan subdivision located in the Beach District. This unimproved alleyway is about 15 feet wide and is located behind the property. And the applicant wishes to incorporate this alleyway into their single-family lot. The street closure viewers found that there would be no public inconvenience; so, the Planning Commission felt that this should be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Janice Anderson: Thank you Jay. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the following item to be approved on the consent agenda. It is agenda item 4. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve consent agenda item 4, and a second by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE Item #4 William C. and Joy M. Goss Page 2 HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 4 for consent. 1 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND 2 DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN 3 UNIMPROVED ALLEY KNOWN AS "PROPOSED 4 ALLEY CLOSURE AREA (7.5' x 50.0') (375± S.F. / 5 0.009 ACRES)" AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN 6 PLAT ENTITLED "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 3, 7 BLOCK 13, CROATAN BEACH (GPIN 2426-37-5573- 8 0000) FOR WILLIAM G. AND JOY M. GOSS 9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA" iiR 11 WHEREAS, William G. Goss and Joy M. Goss, (the "Applicant") applied to 12 the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described 13 street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 14 15 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be 16 discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 17 before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 18 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of 20 Virginia Beach, Virginia: 21 22 SECTION 1 23 24 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, 25 subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's 26 adoption of this ordinance: 27 28 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being 29 in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and 30 described as "PROPOSED ALLEY CLOSURE AREA (7.5'x 31 50.0') (375± S.F. / 0.009 ACRES)" shown on that certain plat 32 entitled: "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 3, BLOCK 13, 33 CROATAN BEACH (GPIN 2426-37-5573-0000) FOR 34 WILLIAM G. AND JOY M. GOSS VIRGINIA BEACH, VA" 35 Scale: 1"=20', dated September 24, 2007, prepared by TSC 36 Surveying, P.L.C., a copy of which is attached hereto as 37 Exhibit A. 38 39 GPIN: 2426-37-5573 40 SECTION II 41 42 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 43 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 44 45 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 46 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 47 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 48 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are 49 available in the Planning Department. 50 51 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot 52 lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat 53 shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 54 55 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right -of - 56 way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate 57 that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private 58 utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility 59 companies. 60 61 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with 62 the above stated conditions within one (1) year of approval by City Council. If all 63 conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 64 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered 65 null and void. 66 67 SECTION III 68 69 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before January 21, 70 2009, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City 71 Council. 72 73 2. If all conditions are met on or before January 21, 2009, the date of 74 final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 75 76 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the 77 underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever 78 documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said 79 documents are approved by the City Attorney's Office. 2 80 SECTION IV 81 82 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 83 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY 84 OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and WILLIAM G. GOSS AND JOY M. GOSS, as 85 "Grantee." 86 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 87 day of , 2008. CA -10334 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D020\P003\00045899. DOC R-1 December 20, 2007 APPR V„ AS TO CONTENT: Plannin epartmen APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorn 3 EXHIBIT "A" =0 O m � Oppp N O � m + m O N10' ALLEY rt m O N L T4 mm N rn ti N r\ 4 N J p T cN C 84 6 N 071500 W 190.00 total MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE (60' R/W) MS 5 P 103 co a^ ° >< yam .u�'�' 5 c� rrD O 1A Z O^ N ROOMu D s w o 5 4 " z"w< =um Z > W+�I .>Ny m m D 2 0 eo n p �_ 2 0 :5� > m 7C _ 3• °, c y 4 4Oy ; Z m D m D m R. r tl rn O V pN z Id N n D 7 V c �tl 7LLN� O � � K N O N S 0715'00' E 190.00' UNIMPRO o.00'� saoo' n.00• U I S I N I i i g 9 .00' oz + �N N C Im� Io; Imp o N I i i I I I .00' I I I 59.00' I 7.00' ui CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing a portion of that certain unimproved alley known as "PORTION OF 10' ALLEY TO BE CLOSED (1900 Sq. Ft/0.044 Ac.)" as shown on that certain plat entitled "STREET CLOSURE PLAT PORTION OF 10' ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 & 40 BLOCK 125 VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT CO. MAP NO. 6 MB 5 P 103 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" DISTRICT 6 — BEACH. MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant, Mary Ben Thomas requests the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of an unimproved 10 -foot wide alley located 120 feet east of Mediterranean Avenue and beginning on the north side of 24'/2 Street and extending a distance of 190 feet to the south side of 25t' Street. A 1915 plat by the Virginia Beach Development Company depicts the neighborhood in its entirety and its original grid pattern. The streets, alleys, and lots are laid out in size and pattern typical of that period. Within the Old Beach neighborhood, most lots were planned to be narrow, face median street parks, and be served in the rear by alleys. ■ Considerations: The applicant's family has owned the properties adjacent to the area proposed for closure since the 1940s. The alley was never developed. The applicant intends to re -subdivide the lots and incorporate the alley into new lots. The applicant does not intend to sell the lots but rather convey the lots to family members. The proposed re -subdivision is a reconfiguration of existing lots to incorporate the land area of the alley into the lots. It will not create any additional density or lots. The new configuration will be more conforming to the Apartment District and meet the guidelines of the Old Beach Neighborhood. The Viewers Committee met on November 19, 2007 to discuss this request and found that there would be no inconvenience to the general public if this closure be approved. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the Viewers determined that there will be no public inconvenience from closing the alley, the closed area will be incorporated into the adjacent property, and there was no opposition. Mary Ben Thomas Page 2of2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures, approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The new lots shall be limited in use to single-family dwellings, except proposed Lot C may contain the two existing single-family dwellings. Should the dwellings on proposed Lot C be removed, the lot is then limited in use to one single-family dwelling. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Location Map Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: l` MARY BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a 10 -foot alley located 120 feet east of Mediterranean. Avenue and beginning on the north side of 24 and 1/2 Street and extending a distance of 190 -feet to the south side of 25`t' Street ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located adjacent to 2410 and 2412 Mediterranean Avenue and 524 and 528 25`" Street COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 6 - BEACH 1,900 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a 10 -foot wide alley located 120 feet east of Mediterranean Avenue and beginning on the north side of 24 and Y2 Street and extending a distance of 190 feet to the south side of 25th Street. A 1915 plat by the Virginia Beach Development Company depicts the neighborhood in its entirety and its original grid pattern. The streets, alleys, and lots are laid out in size and pattern typical of that period. Within the Old Beach neighborhood most lots were planned to be narrow, face median street parks, and be served in the rear by alleys. The applicant's family has owned the properties adjacent to the area proposed for closure since the 1940s, and the alley was never developed. The applicant intends to re - subdivide the lots and incorporate the alley into new lots. The applicant does not intend to sell the lots but rather convey the lots by deed to family members. The proposed re -subdivision will not create any additional density or lots; it is merely a reconfiguration of existing lots to incorporate the land area of the alley into the lots. The new configuration will be more conforming to the Apartment District and meet the guidelines of the Old Beach Neighborhood. MARY BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Three single-family homes and various accessory buildings currently exist adjacent to and in the alley. SURROUNDING LAND North: . 250 Street USE AND ZONING: • Across 25'" Street are single-family dwellings, duplex dwellings, small cottages, and garage apartments / R -5D Residential (Old Beach) South: . A 20 -foot alley • Across the alley are multi -family dwellings / A-12 and A-24 Apartment (Old Beach) East: . Single-family dwelling / A-12 Apartment (Old Beach) West: . Mediterranean Avenue • Across Mediterranean Ave is Virginia Beach Middle School / R - 5S Residential (Old Beach) NATURAL RESOURCE AND The alley is grassy. There are no known significant natural resources or CULTURAL FEATURES: cultural features associated with the alley. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES There is no impact to City services or Private Utility services. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as the Resort Area. Three residential areas exist within the defined boundaries of the resort area. Old Beach is located between 22nd Street and 27th Streets. No other residential neighborhoods in the city face the challenges of the oceanfront neighborhoods. The combination of problems due to noise and other intrusion resulting from being located in a resort area (traffic, parking conflicts, aging housing stock and private investment contrary to the character of the area) all point to the need for revitalization. The Oceanfront Resort Area Plan and the Old Beach District Center Plan contain general planning guidance and principles with regard to protecting established neighborhoods in the area. These neighborhoods are the focus of current and programmed Capital Improvement Program projects orchestrated to achieve multiple positive outcomes. Among these include MARY BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 2 improvements to drainage, utility, and traffic management systems, as well as aesthetic treatments. It is the City's policy to continue making progress toward revitalizing these residential areas and support land uses and physical improvements that reinforce neighborhood quality, stability and character. Evaluation: The Viewers Committee met on November 19, 2007 to discuss this request and found that there would be no inconvenience to the general public should this closure be approved. Staff finds the request acceptable and in keeping with the Old Beach neighborhood. The goal of the applicant is to incorporate the alley into existing lots and reconfigure the lots. The applicant does not intend to increase the density or the number of lots over what currently exists. 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 Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The new lots shall be limited in use to single-family dwellings, except proposed Lot C may contain the two existing single-family dwellings. Should the dwellings on proposed Lot C be removed, the lot is then limited in use to one single-family dwelling. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. 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 and Standards. 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. R L/7.7 uv r lyvw%LOWIj MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE (6V R/W) MB 5 P 103 >r v n v A E 10' ALLY SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED MARY `BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 4 tl�b O N S 0715'00" E 190.00' IMPROVED +� 2 toll 1-10.00"4g p� O m � } R L/7.7 uv r lyvw%LOWIj MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE (6V R/W) MB 5 P 103 >r v n v A E 10' ALLY SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED MARY `BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 4 O N S 0715'00" E 190.00' IMPROVED 1-10.00"4g I 53.00' I p7W Zs- I I o f I i W � { ca I T ( ! 6.00' � mto N z c N l I 1 u I I# CR ! I ! I I 40WI k7.W R L/7.7 uv r lyvw%LOWIj MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE (6V R/W) MB 5 P 103 >r v n v A E 10' ALLY SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED MARY `BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 4 SAL1CAVE IT, i . V, � R ro V gig MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE (60' R/W) rn n 2s PROPOSED RE -SUBDIVISION PLAN MARY BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 5 moo, 'o > 10' ALLEY 5rlE(EL (TD BE CLOSED) rq — T_ T II I 0 94 lot __4 __q N 0775*W 1* v 84 W v 4715 W 105,07 moi z R I rn= IT, i . V, � R ro V gig MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE (60' R/W) rn n 2s PROPOSED RE -SUBDIVISION PLAN MARY BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 5 VIP DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE .,�[If applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated nization, complete the following: st the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees,artners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Ben Thomas )IMNy 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity` 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 list if necessary) } 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity 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. 8 See next page for footnotes conStreet Closure Application Page ,S2 of 33 Revised 8:'7!2004 MARY. BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 7 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) Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C. Surveyors & Engineers. Ltd. ' "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. z "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. Mary Ben Thomas Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name street Closure Application Page 13 ed 13 Revised 9.112004 z 9m, N w N MARY BEN THOMAS Agenda Item 5 Page 8 Item #5 Mary Ben Thomas Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of A 10 foot alley located 120 feet east of Mediterranean Avenue And beginning on the north side of 24th Street District 6 Beach December 12, 2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item 5. This is the application of Mary Ben Thomas. This is the application for the discontinuance and abandonment of a portion of a ten foot alley located east of Mediterranean Avenue in the Beach District. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you again, Ms. Anderson. For the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicants. I was going to say this later, but I figure I will say it now. Dot? Congratulations. You survived us, R.J., myself, and the rest of us for eight years. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: And congratulations to Phil Russo. I know he will do a magnificent job on the Planning Commission, and be a great addition to the Planning Commission. But one thing is for sure, they will never be able to replace you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Eddie. I appreciate it. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all for putting us on the consent agenda. We're fine with all four conditions. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any objection to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Al Henley to review this application for us. Al Henley: Thank you. The applicant, Mary Ben Thomas is requesting a discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a ten foot wide alleyway located 120 feet east of Mediterranean Avenue beginning on the north side of 24%2 Street, and extending a distance of 190 feet to the south of 25`h Street. This particular property was platted in 1915 by the Virginia Beach Development Company. The applicant's family has owned the property adjacent to the area proposed to close since the 1940s, and the alleyway was never developed. The applicant intends to re -subdivide the lots and incorporate the alley into new lots. The applicant does not intend to sell the lots, but rather convey the lots by deed to family members. The proposed re -subdivision will not create any additional density or lots; it is merely a reconfiguration of existing lots to incorporate the land area of the alley into the lots. The new configuration will be more conforming to the Item #5 Mary Ben Thomas Page 2 Apartment District, and meet the guidelines of the Old Beach Neighborhood. For this reason, the Planning Commission has decided to place this on the consent agenda. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Al. I can't see you because of Dot's flowers. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the following item to be approved on the consent agenda. It is agenda item 5. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve consent agenda item 5, and a second by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 5 for consent. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AVE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 5 for consent. 1 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND 2 DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN 3 UNIMPROVED ALLEY KNOWN AS "PORTION OF 4 10' ALLEY TO BE CLOSED (1900 SQ. FT/0.044 5 AC.)" AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT 6 ENTITLED "STREET CLOSURE PLAT PORTION OF 7 10' ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 8 39 & 40 BLOCK 125 VIRGINIA BEACH 9 DEVELOPMENT CO. MAP NO. 6 MB 5 P 103 10 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" 11 12 WHEREAS, Mary Ben Thomas (the "Applicant") applied to the Council of 13 the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street 14 discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 15 16 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be 17 discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 18 before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 19 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of 21 Virginia Beach, Virginia: 22 23 SECTION 1 24 25 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, 26 subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's 27 adoption of this ordinance: 28 29 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being 30 in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and 31 described as "PORTION OF 10' ALLEY TO BE CLOSED 32 (1900 SQ. FT/0.044 AC.)" as shown on that certain plat 33 entitled: "STREET CLOSURE PLAT PORTION OF 10' 34 ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 & 40 35 BLOCK 125 VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT CO. MAP 36 NO. 6 MB 5 P 103 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 37 1"=30', dated September 17, 2007, prepared by Gallup 38 Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., a copy of which is attached 39 hereto as Exhibit A. 40 41 GPIN: 2417-99-4502, 2417-99-3450, 2417-99-3546, and 2417-99-3541 1 42 SECTION II 43 44 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 45 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 46 47 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 48 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 49 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 50 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are 51 available in the Planning Department. 52 53 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate in lot 54 lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be 55 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The new 56 lots shall be limited in use to single-family dwellings, except proposed Lot C may 57 contain the two existing single-family dwellings. Should the dwellings on proposed Lot C 58 be removed, the lot is then limited in use to one single-family dwelling. 59 60 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right -of - 61 way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate 62 that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private 63 utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility 64 companies. 65 66 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with 67 the above stated conditions within one (1) year of approval by City Council. If all 68 conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 69 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered 70 null and void. 71 72 SECTION III 73 74 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before January 21, 75 2009, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City 76 Council 77 78 2. If all conditions are met on or before January 21, 2009, the date of 79 final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 80 81 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the 82 underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever 83 documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said 84 documents are approved by the City Attorney's Office. a 85 SECTION IV 86 87 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 88 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY 89 OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and MARY BEN THOMAS, as "Grantee." 90 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 91 day of , 2008. CA -10332 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\DO20\PO03\00045926. DOC R-1 December 20, 2007 AR . VE A TO C NTENT: Planning epartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: l�7/t �iL City Attome NOTE& 1. MERIDIAN SOURCE BASED ON PLAT RECORDED N MAP BOOK 4. PAGE 191- 2. PORTION OF AYENUE E TO BE CLOSED: 3. AREA OF AVENUE E TO BE CLOSED - t8;923* SOIJARE FEET/0.388ft ACRE. 4. THIS PLAT IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOWANY EASEMENTS OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT MAY AFFECT THIS PROPERTY. 5. THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUil IVISION OF LAND. N pUSUC R/W) S. THIS PLAT IS NOT THE RESULT OF A RECENT FRO SURVEY, AND ((VA � 12'S3ZMP. 1) P. 191) THUS IS SUBJECT TO THE RESULTS OF SUCH. (M.B. — N 64"oi�— REMAINING PORTION a OF LOT 1 2 46- I+ d 3 �Z 5 ip?Z---- o as 6 zM� S c 7 Mm ma s Em D. Rm td Lic. No. 2045 Q ©. h� sURq�-�o�' — — — 10 NOW OR FORMERLY SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. 11 (D.B. 3494. P. GPIN 1)(CE 33lCATE $0, P. 1994) 12 PARCEL Z-2 SUBnwi" PIAT OF PARCEL. Z 13 (INSTR. / 2DOW100O07739) GPIN 1487-33-3397 NOW OR FORMERLY CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC. (1167R. P0040204002091) E)HBIT PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF AVENUE E TO BE CLOSED (M.B. 3, P. 125)(M.B. 4, P. 191) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"-40' AUGUST 31, 2007 JOHN E. SIRINE AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. SURVEYORS• ENGINEERS -PLANNERS 4317 BONNEY ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23452 Q 20 40 6,0 1?0 1§0 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE U z JZI gay 0 m a SHEET 1 OF 1 REVISED: JANUARY 2, 2008 EXHIBIT A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing an unimproved portion of Avenue E as shown on that certain plat entitled "EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF AVENUE E TO BE CLOSED (M.B. 3, P. 125)(M.B. 4, P. 191) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA AUGUST 31, 2007". DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL. MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: SCI Virginia Funeral Services, Inc. t/a Kellum Funeral Home, Inc., the applicant, is requesting City Council to close a portion of a fifty -foot wide unimproved right- of-way and to incorporate a portion of the closed area into its property. This portion of the right-of-way does not provide sole access to any adjacent properties; however, the applicant presently maintains a small portion of the right-of-way as part of its parking lot. ■ Considerations: Evaluation of this request, as in any street closure application, is primarily based on current and/or future need for the right-of-way for vehicular, pedestrian and/or public infrastructure purposes. The street closure Viewers Committee recommends approval of this request, as it was determined that there will be no public inconvenience from the closure and abandonment of this right-of-way, subject to the conditions listed below. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the Viewers determined that there will be no public inconvenience from closing the right-of-way, the closed area will be incorporated into adjacent property, and there was no opposition. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. SCI Virginia Funeral Services, Inc., T/A Kellum Funeral Home, Inc. Page 2 of 2 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. T/A KELLUM FUNERAL HOME, INC. Agenda Item 6 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Application for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Avenue E beginning on the south side of Bonney Road and extending approximately 338.99 feet in a southerly direction. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on a portion of Avenue E beginning on the south side of Bonney Road and extending approximately 338.99 feet in a southerly direction. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 3 — ROSE HALL 16,949 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting to close a portion of a fifty feet wide unimproved right-of-way and incorporate this area into their lot. The applicant presently maintains this portion of the right-of-way which does not provide sole access to any adjacent properties. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site SURROUNDING LAND North: USE AND ZONING: • Across Bonney Road is the Norfolk Southern Railroad Right -of - Way and adjacent to the R -O -W is Virginia Beach Boulevard. On the opposite site of Virginia Beach Boulevard is a retail SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. Agenda Item 6 Pagel center / B-2 Community Business District South: • Automobile sales / B-2 Community Business District East: . Funeral Home / B-2 Community Business District West: . Automobile Sales / B-2 Community Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site does not have any significant historical, cultural or CULTURAL FEATURES: environmental features associated with it. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): No impacts regarding the MTP or CIP: WATER & SEWER: There are no City water and sewer lines in the area proposed for closure. PRIVATE UTILITIES: Preliminary comments from private utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the area proposed for closure. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Evaluation: The street closure Viewers Committee and staff recommend approval of this request, as it was determined that there will be no public inconvenience from the closure and abandonment of this right-of- way, subject to the conditions listed below. Evaluation of this request, as in any street closure n and/or application, is primarily based on current and/or future need for the right-of-way for vehicular, p public infrastructure purposes. 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 Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. "Agenda Item 6 Page 2 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. 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 and Standards. 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. SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. Agenda Item 6 Page 3 :C ESR:Cz'; sou -ME ?;,5£D s n- afs Ra s A 3a x a C �. .tea "', ", F a Ei_5r. £ q -:o .8 .3i SCl; hc' r-;•; tri,,: =.";.£ :.A'EMENT% rt ��ryry A. =? iH.S RO y �.y ,9 c1r �AD VtJ��L c. ,.;c «^ s s NO- ?N£ i`£ .. ' +. R C.:'+" ,- 53R':c", .AW zvF''cKS fP:i1 *" u s. u5 S ue a4. Tr .._ a�»i.-s CF SILCH. w t3 s� REMAINING 90R.iON OF LO I L G 5 4 j ` _ y Z -•nr r x N iJ7 :i SCI :tRG€�iA FUNERALS�:RV.CE INC— SCI 15ARCif- Z-2 SIJSu VISION Pi AT OF w } An r— 3 C.ARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, ?NC. x,+ vC v F— SIRI'IE AMD , SSC' AiGS LTD. 7t= :✓ .. SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. Agenda Item 6 Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCI F111"AW177 _Cvrarirvc ZONING HISTORY SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. Agenda Item 6 Page 5 Street Closure - Ave F. 09/28/93 REZONING (B-2 Business to 0-1 Office) APPROVED USE PERMIT (Mausoleum/Cemetery) APPROVED STREET CLOSURE APPROVED 07/08/97 REZONING (0-1 Office to Conditional 1-1) APPROVED 04/13/99 STREET CLOSURE APPROVED 10/30/89 USE PERMIT (Motor Vehicle Repair) APPROVED 07/13/93 USE PERMIT (Truck Repair) APPROVED 01/23/96 USE PERMIT (Cell Tower) APPROVED 06/05/01 STREET CLOSURE APPROVED USE PERMIT (Auto Body Repair) APPROVED 01/28/02 STREET CLOSURE APPROVED 09/09/03 REZONING (1-1 Industrial to B-2 Business) APPROVED USE PERMIT (Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) APPROVED 03/23/03 REZONING (1-2 and B-2 to Conditional B-2) APPROVED USE PERMIT (Motor Vehicle Sales) APPROVED STREET CLOSURES APPROVED ZONING HISTORY SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. Agenda Item 6 Page 5 F—T 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) JAMES SCOTT YOUNG PRES.. CURTIS BRIGGS, VP' LOM E. SPILUE, LT* MARK L. EVANS, TREAS. ; JUDITH KARSRAL,L, SEC. 1 List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) KELTdN FUNERAL HOME, TNC. 0 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 frorn 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) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entityZ relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & See next page for footrwtes Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes No x If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? Sheet CMsare APOCAOn % J Paged of il Revised 71'9107 SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, .INC. Agenda Item 6 Page 6 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) WOLCOTT RIVERS CATI:5, LEGAL JOHN E. SI.RI'NE AND ASSOCIATES, LTD., SURVEY WORK "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. `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. The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application, Applicant's Signature Print Name 47 �, _ SC Le Vr r , fY L d z. Wit; f s C. f2 .. C,,; facTSA— Property Owners Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Street OaSwe Rppi Catlon Page 1 a of i 1 Revised 7AW07 SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. Agenda Item 6 Page 7 1 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND 2 DISCONTINUING AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF 3 AVENUE E AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT 4 ENTITLED "EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF 5 AVENUE E TO BE CLOSED (M.B. 3, P. 125)(M.B. 4, 6 P. 191) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA AUGUST 31, 7 2007" 8 9 10 11 WHEREAS, SCI Virginia Funeral Services, Inc. t/a Kellum Funeral Home, 12 Inc. (the "Applicant"), applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to 13 have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 14 15 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be 16 discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 17 before one (1) year from .City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 18 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of 20 Virginia Beach, Virginia: 21 22 SECTION 1 23 24 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, 25 subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's 26 adoption of this ordinance: 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated as the cross -hatched area and described as "AVENUE E (UNIMPROVED 50' PUBLIC R/W) (M.B. 3, P. 125) (M.B. 4, P. 191)" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF AVENUE E TO BE CLOSED (M.B. 3, P. 125) (M.B. 4, P. 191) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 1"=40', dated August 31, 2007, prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION II The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: GPIN: 1487-33-5798; 1487-33-8552; 1487-33-6602 and 1487-33-3397 45 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 46 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 47 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 48 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are 49 available in the Planning Department. 50 51 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot 52 lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be 53 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat 54 must include a drainage easement over the entire property for future use as deemed 55 necessary by the City of Virginia Beach. 56 57 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right -of - 58 way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate 59 that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private 60 utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility 61 companies. 62 63 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance 64 with the above stated conditions within one (1) year of approval by City Council. If all 65 conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 66 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered 67 null and void. 68 69 SECTION III 70 71 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before January 21, 72 2009, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City 73 Council. 74 2. If all conditions are met on or before January 21, 2009, the date of 75 final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 76- 77 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the 78 underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever 79 documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said 80 documents are approved by the City Attorney's Office. 81 82 SECTION IV 83 84 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 85 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY 86 OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and SCI VIRGINIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. t/a 87 KELLUM FUNERAL HOME, INC. as "Grantee." 88 2 89 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 90 day of , 2008. CA10536 \\vbgov.com\dfs1\app1ications\city1awprod\cycom 32\Wpdocs\D019\P002\00045827.DOC R-1 December 19, 2007 CAN iiiiiiiijillillillill APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: _ Z 14w" g City Attorney 3 MapoJ s Not d& �NO,s.�� r" 0- (3i�WtM.NJ rldo$bT7fMf - Q—Z OF o LRRf :JNIA VACH 0 uil� Ste! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Mladick Medical Associates. Property is located on the north side of Colonial Medical Court, 426.92 feet west of First Colonial Road (GPIN 2408534297). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN. MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant owns an existing 0.372 acre (16,207 square foot) parcel located on Colonial Medical Court that is used as an overflow parking area for a medical office located at the southwest corner of the intersection of First Colonial Road and Colonial Medical Court (1037 First Colonial Road). A Board of Zoning Appeals variance approved in February 1985 requires the subject parcel be maintained as off-site parking for the office building on First Colonial Road. An off-site parking agreement was executed and recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court as a condition of the variance. That office building requires 35 - parking spaces. The medical office fronting on First Colonial Road has 25 - parking spaces. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 10 -parking spaces on the subject parcel in accordance with the parking agreement. ■ Considerations: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide 0.11 acre (4,774 square feet) from the western side of the subject site. The applicant intends to convey the new parcel to the adjacent property to the southwest to be incorporated into the parcel identified on the submitted plat as Lot 6, which is at 1825 Colonial Medical Court. Since neither the new parcel nor the remainder of the existing parcel will have the required minimum lot width, a Subdivision Variance is necessary. The applicant agrees to maintain the remainder of the parcel for the off-site parking required for the medical office fronting on First Colonial Road. When the parcels on Colonial Medical Court were created and recorded in 1978, the site was then zoned 0-1 Office, which required a minimum of only 5,000 square feet in lot area and a 50 -foot lot width. With the adoption of the current City Zoning Ordinance, on April 18, 1988, all property then zoned 0-1 Office was changed to 0-2 Office. The 0-2 Office district requires a minimum of 43,560 square feet in lot area and a 100 -foot lot width. As a result, the lots in this subdivision are nonconforming. Additionally, the 1988 zoning change from the O- Mladick Medical Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 1 Office to 0-2 Office rendered the site nonconforming with regard to construction of an office building, as the parcel lacks the required minimum lot area. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the parcels on Colonial Medical Court were made nonconforming through the adoption of the current City Zoning Ordinance in 1988, the applicant will still meet the provisions of the variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the off- street parking requirement of the medical office at 1037 First Colonial Road, and there was no opposition to the proposal. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The applicant or property owner shall maintain use of the 11,434.3 square foot parcel in accordance with the Board of Zoning Appeals variance approved on February 6, 1985 and the recorded parking agreement for the benefit of the office building located at 1037 First Colonial Road. 2. The subdivision plat shall substantially adhere to the exhibit plan submitted entitled "Mladick Medical Associates Property, Colonial Medical Court, Virginia Beach, VA", prepared by MSA, P.C., and dated 10/1/07. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. A note shall be added to the subdivision plat that the 11,434.3 square foot parcel is not a building site. The lot line between the 4, 774 square foot parcel and the adjacent parcel to the southwest (Lot 6) shall be abandoned and the two parcels combined into one. ■ 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 Manag S k '0)t'&t MLADICK MEDICAL ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. Map J -S Mladick Medical Associates ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the north side of Colonial Medical Court, 426.92 -feet west of First Colonial Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24085342970000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 16,207 square feet Existing Lot: The existing lot is 0.372 acres (16,207 square SUMMARY OF REQUEST feet) and 73.63 -feet wide. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide 0.11 acres (4,774 square feet) from the western side of the site to be incorporated into Lot 6, which is at 1825 Colonial Medical Court, directly adjacent to the site. ItemRequired:New Lot Remainder of Existing L2t Lot Width in feet 100 14.19 ' 59.44 Lot Area insquare feet 43,560 4,774.2 11,433 V QI IQI IGC I VgUII CU LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The parcel is uses as an off-site parking lot for the office building located at 1037 First MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 1 �S��a 7 i , • ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the north side of Colonial Medical Court, 426.92 -feet west of First Colonial Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24085342970000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 16,207 square feet Existing Lot: The existing lot is 0.372 acres (16,207 square SUMMARY OF REQUEST feet) and 73.63 -feet wide. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide 0.11 acres (4,774 square feet) from the western side of the site to be incorporated into Lot 6, which is at 1825 Colonial Medical Court, directly adjacent to the site. ItemRequired:New Lot Remainder of Existing L2t Lot Width in feet 100 14.19 ' 59.44 Lot Area insquare feet 43,560 4,774.2 11,433 V QI IQI IGC I VgUII CU LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The parcel is uses as an off-site parking lot for the office building located at 1037 First MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 1 Colonial Road (intersection of First Colonial Road and Colonial Medical Court) SURROUNDING LAND North: . Stoney's Market / 0-2 Office USE AND ZONING: South: . Colonial Medical Court East: . Office / 0-2 Office West: . Office / 0-2 Office NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no significant natural resources or cultural features on this CULTURAL FEATURES: 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) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): There are no traffic impacts associated with the request. WATER & SEWER: There is a four -inch water line and an eight -inch sanitary sewer line in Colonial Medical Court fronting the site. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 2 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request. Comprehensive Plan: The site is located within a Primary Residential Area, more specifically the First Colonial Road Medical Corridor Area, Site 9. The Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital anchors a major medical complex along First Colonial Road from Mill Dam Road south to Republic Drive. The area includes doctor's offices that provide a wide range of specialized medical care, numerous rehabilitation centers and centers for independent, assisted and nursing care for older adults. The area also includes a good mix of non- medical uses such as banks, general offices, places of worship and other neighborhood -based services. Hampton Roads Transit service is also provided to this area. Single-family and multifamily neighborhoods are located adjacent to and behind many of these uses. Because this area provides well-established and vital medical services to the community, priority should be given to infill or redevelopment proposals that complement these health care activities. Evaluation: The existing lot is currently nonconforming, as are all of the lots in this subdivision. When the subdivision was created and recorded, the site was zoned 0-1 Office which only required a minimum of 5,000 square feet in lot area and a 50 -foot lot width. With the adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance on April 18, 1988, all property zoned 0-1 Office was changed to 0-2 Office. The 0-2 Office district requires a minimum of 43,560 square feet in lot area and a 100 -foot lot width. The applicant intends to subdivide 0.11 acres (4,774 square feet) from the site to be incorporated into Lot 6 at 1825 Colonial Medical Court, directly adjacent to the site. A Board of Zoning Appeals variance approved in February 1985 requires the site be maintained as off-site parking for the office building at 1037 First Colonial Road. An off-site parking agreement was executed and recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court as a condition of the variance. That office building requires 35 -parking spaces. The site at 1037 First Colonial Road has 25 -parking spaces. The applicant will have to provide a minimum of 10 -parking spaces on this site in accordance with the parking agreement. The applicant agrees to maintain this site for the required off-site parking, as the 1988 zoning change from the 0-1 Office to 0-2 Office rendered the site nonconforming with regard to construction of an office building. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS The applicant / property owner shall maintain use of the site in accordance with the Board of Zoning Appeals variance approved on February 6, 1985 and the recorded parking agreement for the benefit of the office building located at 1037 First Colonial Road. 2. The subdivision plat shall substantially adhere to the exhibit plan submitted entitled "Mladick Medical Associates Property, Colonial Medical Court, Virginia Beach, VA", prepared by MSA, P.C., and dated 10/1/07. Said plan has been exhibited to the City of Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the MLADICKASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 3 Planning Department. A note shall be added to the subdivision plat that the site is not a building site. 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 and Standards. 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. MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 4 is ,� az a-�eY�+c a ttz sc) PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 6 j n ter. Q u i nx ,o! , is ,� az a-�eY�+c a ttz sc) PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 6 1. 4/10/78 Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to 0-1 Office) Approved 6/11/73 Conditional Use Permit (100 -bed convalescent and extended care Denied facility) 3/12/73 Rezoning (R -S3 Residence Suburban to R -M Multi -family) and Approved Conditional Use Permit (84 -bed nursing home) 12/8/69 Conditional Use Permit (nursing home) Approved 7/5/66 Conditional Use Permit (professional offices) Approved 5/7/63 Rezoning (R -S3 Residence Suburban to R -M Multi -family) and Approved Conditional Use Permit convalescent home 2. 6/8/04 Rezoning 0-2 Office to Conditional A-36 Apartment) Approved 3. 12/14/99 Conditional Use Permit(dining room for employees) Approved 4. 5/27/03 Conditional Use Permit (patient rooms tower and emergency room Approved addition 5. 12/3/96 Conditional Use Permit farm stand Approved ZONING HISTORY MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page MSCLOSURE 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) �ladick Medical Associates (Richard Mladick & Elly Mladick, General Partners) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: ,(Attach list ifnecessary) VI-Mladick Center for Cosmetic Surgery El 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 necessarl) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. � ` & 'See next page for footnotes Subdivision Variance Application Page 10 of 11 Revised: 7'11.'06 MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 8 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) j�/ f:nlhin e„nrevnrc•�anfmnn k (nnnlec- CR Richard Ellis: Bayshore Partners. L.L.C. - •,(Lot 6); APS Real Estate, L.L.C. (Associates in Plastic Surgery, Inc.) ; LA5,1 1 "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than SO percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. "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 5 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. The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for pu s of processing and evaluating this application. v' R,dN&0.& 4 films-tJ �cY� Ap licant's Signature G.n 2 v, P;. -L a-)-eW Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Subdivision Variance Application Page 11 of 11 Revised Z 11 06 Print Name ODMA PCDOCS DOCS%B MLADICK ASSOCIATES Agenda Item 1 Page 9 Item #1 Mladick Medical Associates, L.L.C. Subdivision Ordinance North side of Colonial Medical Court District 5 Lynnhaven December 12, 2007 CONSENT Barry Knight: The next item will be our consent items. I'll hand that over to our Vice Chair Jan Anderson. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The first matter on our consent agenda this afternoon is agenda item 1. That is the application of Mladick Medical Associates. This is an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers regarding Subdivision Ordinance. This is on property located on the north side of Colonial Medical Court in the Lynnhaven District. Is there a representative on this application? Please come forward. Michael Barney: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Janice Anderson: Welcome sir. Could you please state your name? Michael Barney: Michael Barney. I'm here representing the applicant. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Barney. This is placed on the consent agenda with two conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? Michael Barney: Would those be the ones stated in the write up? Janice Anderson: Yes sir. Michael Barney: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: And those are agreeable to the applicant? Michael Barney: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Michael Barney: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Is there any objection to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Thank you sir. Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Kathy Katisas to review this application for us. Item #1 Mladick Medical Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 Kathy Katsias: Good afternoon. This is an application for Mladick Medical Associates for a Subdivision Variance that requires that all newly created lots to meet all the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. It is the applicant's intent to subdivide 0.118 acres from the western part of the site to be incorporated into lot 6, which is at 1825 Colonial Medical Court, directly adjacent to the site. The reason for the subdivision is to create additional off site parking for both parcels. The staff recommends approval. Therefore, we agree with staff and put it on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Kathy. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the following item to be approved on the consent agenda. It is agenda item 1. I need to note that I need to abstain from agenda item 1. My firm represents an adjacent property owner who has interest in that application. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve consent agenda item 1, and a second by Dot Wood with Jan Anderson abstaining from agenda item 1. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ABS Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved item 1 for consent. Item V -L 9. PLANNING -65 - ITEM #56701 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY Ordinance upon application of AGC ACQUISITION, L.L.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF AGC ACQUISITION, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG -2 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL B-4 MIXED USE DISTRICT Ordinance upon application ofAGC Acquisition, L.L.C. for a Chan e o Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District on property located at 1291 Nimmo Parkway (GPIN 2414161683). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: John E. Uhrin August 14, 2007 !K-11 I I M Not to Scale AGC dBW Ldn'7a, ---y- � , •,l:.rr� -� �`/ /ter,%/�/O�/%�/0�;�� --_ ' OF S' -21 .. ANO Conditional Zoning Change from AG -2 to 8-4 Am CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District on property located at 1291 Nimmo Parkway (GPIN 2414161683). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant proposes to rezone an existing parcel, zoned AG -2 Agricultural District, to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District, and to develop the site with retail uses and multi -family dwellings. The applicant proposes a retail building of 24,777 square feet and 99 multi -family dwellings. The dwelling unit density for the residential component is 18.7 units per acre if only the 5.3 acres of the site devoted to residential is used in the calculation. If the site's entire 10.21 acres is used in the density calculation, the density is 9.7 units per acre. The regulations of the B-4 District do not specify if dwelling unit density should be calculated on the entire acreage of the development or only the acreage used for the residential units. This application was deferred by the City Council on July 10, 2007. Since the time of the deferral, the applicant has revised the proposal by reducing the height of the residential buildings (all three-story instead of three and four-story). Also since the time of the July deferral, the City Council, on January 8, 2008, adopted amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ. On January 10, 2008, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Committee met and evaluated this application against the criteria established under the January 8 ordinance amendments. The report of the MOU Committee is attached. ■ Considerations: The submitted site development plans depict a commercial building fronting Nimmo Parkway. The proposed building is slightly u -shaped with parking depicted in a reverse u -shape. Five residential buildings and parking are depicted behind the commercial building. Three stormwater management facilities are depicted on the site and will also be used for aesthetic amenities. Landscaping is shown around the perimeter and within the parking areas on the site. Two access points are depicted. The western access is proposed as a right in / right out to mostly serve the residential portion of the site. The eastern access is aligned with AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 the median break on Nimmo Parkway and will be a full service access serving mostly the retail portion of the site. The applicant indicates that the 1.5 -acre outparcel will be marketed for a full service restaurant facility, however that was not proffered as part of the rezoning. The proposed retail buildings on the site are similar in design to the Courthouse Marketplace Shopping Center on Nimmo Parkway. The proposed residential portion of the site is comprised of five buildings. The buildings are 3 stories. The proposed buildings incorporate a traditional architectural influence with details from the Colonial style. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the Primary Residential Area, Site 4.2 Nimmo Parkway / General Booth Intersection Area. An outstanding issue pertains to the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan regarding access to the site. The Plan states "Vehicular access for the proposed development should be limited to no more than one point on either Nimmo Parkway or General Booth Boulevard," (p. 106). The Department of Public Works/Traffic Engineering notes that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and conceptual site plan submitted with this proposal show two proposed entrances to the development from Nimmo Parkway. Since Nimmo Parkway is a Controlled Access roadway, and this is a single parcel, Traffic Engineering will only allow the easternmost entrance, lined up with the median break on Nimmo Parkway. Traffic Engineering has determined that any negative traffic impacts of eliminating the western access from the proposed plan will not be significant because right -in / right -out traffic can be accommodated at the eastern access aligned with the existing median break. The Planning Commission, however, approved the plan as proffered, which includes the two access points. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-2 to approve this request as proffered. ■ Attachments: Report of the MOU Committee Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager. 1 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF 2 AGC ACQUISITION, LLC FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING 3 DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG -2 AGRICULTURAL 4 TO CONDITIONAL B-4 MIXED USE DISTRICT 5 6 7 WHEREAS, AGC Acquisition, LLC (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made 8 application to the City Council for a change of zoning district classification from AG -2 9 Agricultural District to B-4 Mixed Use District on 10.28 acres of property located at 1291 10 Nimmo Parkway, in the Princess Anne District (hereinafter the "Property"); and 11 WHEREAS, the application contemplates, among other things, the development 12 of ninety-nine (99) multiple -family dwelling units on the Property; and 13 WHEREAS, the Property is located within Sub -Area 2 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise 14 Zone; and 15 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1804 of the City Zoning Ordinance, it is the 16 policy of the City Council that no application for a change of zoning of property for a 17 residential use within Sub -Area 2 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone shall be approved 18 unless the City Council finds that the proposed development: 19 (1) is at a density similar to or lower than that of surrounding properties 20 having a similar use and no greater than recommended by the 21 Comprehensive Plan; and 22 (2) conforms to the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, 23 including, without limitation, the Princess Anne Corridor Study, Princess 24 Anne Commons Design Guidelines, or Mixed Use Development 25 Guidelines. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 27 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 That the City Council hereby finds that that the proposed development: 29 (1) is at a density similar to or lower than that of surrounding properties 30 having a similar use and no greater than recommended by the 31 Comprehensive Plan; and 32 (2) conforms to the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, 33 including, without limitation, the Princess Anne Corridor Study, Princess 34 Anne Commons Design Guidelines, or Mixed Use Development 35 Guidelines. 36 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 37 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 38 That the application is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions set 39 forth in the Conditional Zoning Agreement dated May 25, 2007, which Agreement was 40 exhibited to the City Council this date. 41 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the day of 42 January, 2008. 43 44 CA -10611 45 R-1 46 January 14, 2008 47 48 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 49 50 5152 53 Plann4ngiDepartment City Attorney's Office 2 REPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) COMMITTEE January 10, 2008 AGC ACQUISITION, LLC. REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District on property located at 1291 Nimmo Parkway (GPIN 2414161683). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this site for neighborhood office and single-family residential uses. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop a strip retail center and multi -family dwellings. AICUZ is 65 to 70 dB Ldn. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing AG -2 Agricultural District site to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District, and to develop the site with retail uses and multi -family dwellings. The applicant proposes a retail building of 24,777 square feet and 99 multi -family dwellings. A 1.5 -acre outparcel is also proposed. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) COMMITTEE: The site is located within the 65 to 70 dB Ldn AICUZ. Residential uses are designated as 'not compatible' within this AICUZ. Thus, under the terms of the MOU, discussion between the City and the Navy of the request was required to determine the `lowest reasonable density' for this site. On January 10, 2008, the MOU Committee, consisting of City Attorney Office staff (Bill Macali), Planning Department staff (Jack Whitney, Karen Lasley, Stephen White, and the staff assigned to the application), and NAS Oceana staff (John Lauterbach, Bobby Rountree, and Ray Firenze), met and discussed the above -referenced application under the terms of the MOU. At the MOU meeting, representatives of AGC Acquisition were present to summarize the proposal and answer any questions. The existing site is currently zoned AG -2 Agriculture and has been used for agricultural uses for many years. The existing use is a garden and landscape plant nursery retail operation. The MOU Committee noted that the existing zoning is not reasonable and also noted that the immediate surrounding area is a mix of retail, office, and residential uses, with the residential uses ranging from R-20 Residential single-family lots located to the southeast to multi -family dwellings at nine (9) units per acre located to the west. Report of MOU Committee AGC Acquisition, LLC January 10, 2008 Page 2 The MOU Committee evaluated the proposal under the criteria of the Section 1804(c) of the City Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on January 8, 2008. The site is located within Sub -Area 2 of the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ. For sites within that Sub -Area, discretionary applications for residential use may be approved by the City Council only if the City Council finds that the proposed development is at a density similar to or lower than that of surrounding properties having a similar use and no greater than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, and that it conforms to the all of the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. After discussion, the MOU Committee determined that the residential development for the site is acceptable under the criteria of Section 1804(c), as the proposed density is at 9 dwelling units, which is in keeping with the residential development on the western corner of this intersection. The Comprehensive Plan has no specific density recommendations for this site; the general land use recommendations for the Primary Residential Area note that density for infill sites such as this one should be compatible to the surrounding area. The applicant's proposal satisfies that recommendation. Further, the proposal meets all other applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. In sum, the MOU Committee finds that the proposal meets the criteria provided for this site in Section 1804(c) of the City Zoning Ordinance. AGC ACQUISITION, LLC Prepared for January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District. 0�40��4 PD - (R-201 [i4l itional Zoning Change from AG -2 to ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1291 Nimmo Parkway GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24141616830000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 10.21 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to rezone the existing AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District, and develop the site with retail uses and multifamily dwelling. The applicant proposes a retail building of 24,777 square feet and 99 multi -family dwellings. The submitted site development plans depict a commercial building fronting Nimmo Parkway. The proposed building is slightly u -shaped with parking depicted in a reverse u -shape. Five residential buildings and parking are depicted behind the commercial building. Three stormwater management facilities are depicted on the site and will also be used for aesthetic amenities. Landscaping is shown around the perimeter and within the parking areas on the site. Two access points are depicted. The western access is proposed as a right in / right out to mostly serve the residential portion of the site. The eastern access is aligned with the median break on Nimmo Parkway and will be a full service access serving mostly the retail portion of the site. The applicant indicates that the 1.5 -acre outparcel will be marketed for a full service restaurant facility; however that was not proffered as part of the rezoning. AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 1 The proposed retail buildings on the site are similar in design to the Courthouse Marketplace Shopping Center on Nimmo Parkway. The proposed residential portion of the site is comprised of five buildings. The buildings are three stories and they incorporate a traditional architectural influence with details from the Colonial style. The overall building design for both the retail building and the residential buildings provides an integrated project that will blend well with the surrounding properties. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Atlantic Garden Center occupies the site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Nimmo Parkway USE AND ZONING: . Across Nimmo Parkway is the Hickman homestead, currently in the rezoning process to develop the site with a shopping center South: . Single-family dwelling / R-20 Residential East: . A church and single-family dwellings / R-20 Residential West: . Offices / 0-1 Office NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with the CULTURAL FEATURES: site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. There are additional comments and discussion pertaining to the AICUZ in the Evaluation and Recommendation section of this report. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Booth Boulevard in front of this site is currently a four -lane divided minor urban arterial. This section of General Booth Boulevard is not included in the current City Capital Improvement Plan. Nimmo Parkway is currently a four -lane divided major urban arterial roadway. Nimmo Parkway is classified as a controlled access roadway. Currently no roadway improvements projects are proposed for this section of Nimmo Parkway. Nimmo Parkway from Upton Drive through Lagomar is currently under construction (CIP 2-151). Nimmo Parkway connecting General Booth Boulevard to Holland Road is anticipated to begin construction in 2009/10 (CIP 2.121). AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 2 TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Nimmo Parkway 11,800 ADT 36,900 ADT Existing Land Use — 1,000 ADT Proposed Land Use 3— General Booth 36,100 ADT 32,700 ADT Boulevard 2,689 ADT Average Dairy i nps 2 as defined by garden center on 10 acres of land 3 as defined by multi -family, retail, and restaurant Traffic Engineering substantially agrees with the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for The Atlantic Garden Center, dated April 2007, and is approving the Recommendations of the TIS with the following comments / exceptions: 1. The TIS and conceptual site plan show two proposed entrances to the development from Nimmo Parkway. Because Nimmo Parkway is a Controlled Access roadway, and this is a single parcel, Traffic Engineering will only allow the entrance labeled as Driveway B, the eastern access aligned with the median break. Therefore, Recommendation 11.1 regarding the Driveway A, the western access, is not accepted. 2. Traffic Engineering has determined that the traffic impacts of eliminating the western access, from the proposed plan will not be significant because of the right -in / right -out traffic that can be accommodated at the eastern access aligned with the median break. Because they are all right turns, this additional traffic at the eastern access will not affect the signal warrants analysis or un -signalized analysis of this intersection. The following comments are provided based on Traffic Engineering's review of the preliminary site plan for the Atlantic Garden Center development. 1. A one -foot no ingress -egress easement will be required for the proposed restaurant out parcel at the Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard intersection. No entrances to either of these roadways will be granted for the out parcel. A cross access easement will be required on the residential / retail site to allow access to the out parcel from the three entrances shown on the preliminary site plan. 2. A Traffic Signal Bond will be required at the construction plan approval stage for the developments portion of the cost for a potential traffic signal to serve this development. The bond amounts will be determined at a later date and will be based upon the data presented in the TIS. 3. Traffic Engineering reserves the right to make additional comments regarding the locations and lengths of the proposed turn lanes and entrances on Nimmo Parkway when the development construction plans are submitted to the DSC for review and approval. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There are 12 -inch and 16 -inch City water mains in Nimmo Parkway in front of the site, and a 16 -inch city water main in General Booth Boulevard in front of the site. SEWER: There is a 42 -inch Hampton Roads Sanitary District force main in Nimmo Parkway and a six-inch City force main in General Booth Parkway fronting the site. The six-inch City force main in General Booth Boulevard is at capacity. No City gravity sanitary sewer is available to this site. A public pump station may be AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 3 required with the development. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The referenced subdivision must develop a stormwater management plan for water quantity and quality in accordance with the Public Works Specifications and Standards. The dedicated area for the proposed stormwater management facility appears to be minimal in size and may need to be enlarged after the proposed stormwater management plan for the proposed development is designed. Public or private easements will need to be provided over the on-site portion of the existing drainage ditch located along the eastern property line. Offsite stormwater runoff enters this existing ditch. Furthermore, the proposed BMP will most likely outfall directly into this existing ditch. The recorded maintenance easement for the proposed stormwater management facility will need to define the maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater management facility by each of the proposed on-site parcel users of the stormwater management facility. SCHOOLS: School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation Change 2 Three Oaks Elementary 592 780 17 17 Princess Anne Middle _ 1,514 1,275 9 9 Kellam High 2,078 1,832 13 13 "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). Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers. The proffers are provided below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the Primary Residential Area, Site 4.2 Nimmo Parkway / General Booth Intersection Area. Proposed development within the Primary Residential Area should focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The Comprehensive Plan addresses proposed development for this site with the following: "The tract on the southeast corner of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard is planned for neighborhood office use for parcels along General Booth Boulevard and single-family residential use behind the office use at densities compatible with the existing residential development in this area. If possible, roadways serving the proposed single-family development should connect to the existing single-family area to the east, (p. 106)." AICUZ: On January 10, 2008, the MOU Committee evaluated the proposal under the criteria of the Section 1804(c) of the City Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on January 8, 2008. The site is located within Sub -Area 2 of the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ. For sites within that Sub -Area, discretionary applications AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 4 for residential use may be approved by the City Council only if the City Council finds that the proposed development is at a density similar to or lower than that of surrounding properties having a similar use and no greater than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, and that it conforms to the all of the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. After discussion, the MOU Committee determined that the residential development for the site is acceptable under the criteria of Section 1804(c), as the proposed density is at 9 dwelling units, which is in keeping with the residential development on the western corner of this intersection. The Comprehensive Plan has no specific density recommendations for this site; the general land use recommendations for the Primary Residential Area note that density for infill sites such as this one should be compatible to the surrounding area. The applicant's proposal satisfies that recommendation. Further, the proposal meets all other applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. In sum, the MOU Committee finds that the proposal meets the criteria provided for this site in Section 1804(c) of the City Zoning Ordinance, and thus represents an application that the City Council may approve. Evaluation: Staff finds the request acceptable. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family development behind office uses for this.site, the introduction of a multi -family component between the existing low intensity office uses and the proposed retail uses could provide an appropriate buffer for the existing single-family dwellings to the east. A rezoning was approved in 1999 for The Crescent Condominiums, just west of the intersection of General Booth Boulevard and Nimmo Parkway. In that case, the applicant proffered nine (9) units to the acre. Even though the Comprehensive Plan recommended neighborhood office uses for that side of General Booth Boulevard, the project was approved because of the high quality of site and building design proposed. The applicant redesigned the project to conform to previous recommendations of nine (9) dwelling units to the acre. The applicant also redesigned the commercial and residential buildings to be more in keeping with the overall architectural theme emerging in the area. The Comprehensive Plan also states "Vehicular access for the proposed development should be limited to no more than one point on either Nimmo Parkway or General Booth Boulevard," (p. 106). Traffic Engineering notes that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and conceptual site plan show two proposed entrances to the development from Nimmo Parkway. Since Nimmo Parkway is a Controlled Access roadway, and this is a single parcel, Traffic Engineering will only allow the easternmost entrance, lined up with the median break on Nimmo Parkway. Since the adoption of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) and the Base Re - Alignment Commission (BRAC) hearings have occurred, impacting how properties such as this are evaluated for zoning changes. Based on the MOU meeting with the Navy, the land use character of the surrounding area, and evaluation of the proposal against all of the relevant provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, staff concludes that the proposal is now proffered at what is the lowest reasonable density. However, staff is still concerned with the applicant's desire to retain the two entrances to the site from Nimmo Parkway. As previously stated, Nimmo Parkway is a Controlled Access right-of-way. It is vitally important we protect the integrity of the roadway by preventing unnecessary access to parcels. Traffic AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 5 Engineering has determined that the traffic impacts of eliminating the western access from the proposed plan will not be significant because right -in / right -out traffic can be accommodated at the eastern access aligned with the median break. Staffs recommendation of approval, therefore, comes with the caveat that the applicant must eliminate the western access from Nimmo Parkway. 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 development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan titled "Atlantic Gardens", last revised May 10, 2007, as modified with respect to the residential portion by that site plan titled "A.G.C. Apartments Site Plan" dated May 12, 2007, prepared by Jeff Love and Associates, which plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: The buildings constructed on the Property shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the building elevations titled "Atlantic Gardens Center Proposed Retail Center", "Atlantic Gardens Center Revised Design" dated May 10, 2007, prepared by Jeff Love and Associates, which elevations have been exhibited to the City Council and are on file with the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (the "Building Elevations"). PROFFER 3: The number of residential units developed on the Property shall not exceed ninety-nine (99) units, in compliance with the recommendation of the City of Virginia Beach Planning Staff. PROFFER 4: No gas station or convenience store shall be located on the Property. PROFFER 5: The Grantors shall install and maintain a solid privacy fence, constructed of materials of the Grantors' choosing, along the southern boundary of the property immediately adjacent to the neighboring parcel identified by GPIN 2414-06-8108. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are acceptable as they insure the site will be developed in accordance with the submitted preliminary site and elevation plan. The proffers also define the number of proposed dwelling units and delete any proposals for gasoline stations in conjunction with convenience stores. The submitted preliminary site plan depicts a coordinated development of the site in terms of design, landscaping, parking layout, and traffic control and circulation within the site. The submitted preliminary elevation plan depicts buildings that are complementary to existing buildings in the area. These proffers, however, are acceptable only if the applicant eliminates the western access (Driveway A on the plans) from Nimmo Parkway. AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 6 Booth 130uleyar a PROPOSED SITE PLAN AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 8 The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated May 25, 2007, 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 and Standards. 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. AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 7 PROPOSED SITE PLAN (RESIDENTIAL PORTION) AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 9 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING RENDERING AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page10 RETAIL BUILDING RENDERING AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 11 Map K-11AGC m j{z111. ....................... . ............. .. i t PD -H? `r� + • OW -R.-20 w " Conditional Use Perms (Retai; Sales) 2. Pending Rezoning (R -2C Residenda to Conditional S-2 Business) Pending 8/25.,'92 2 Approved 3_ r^+y. - 2 - rias, 1 `r� + • Appraved -R.-20 Conditional Use Perms (Retai; Sales) 2. Pending Rezoning (R -2C Residenda to Conditional S-2 Business) Pending 8/25.,'92 1 Subdivision Variance Approved 3_ 1 2PI92 Rezoning i -20 Reesidentia to Coryditional C-1 Office)i A - roved d. -b;9-5 Rezoning (R -21C Residentia: to Condtonal 0-1 Office) Approved µ�R f t- Appraved 0. &25:99 Rezoning (AG -1 and AG -2 Agrcu tural and R -2u Approved Residential to Condi ona C-1 Office) and Rezoning +:AG -7 and AG -2 Agricultural and R-20 Residential to Conditional X n ',i,! 9--= 1 `r� + Rezoning (R-3 Residential to AG -3-2 Agri cult iral,, and Appraved Conditional Use Perms (Retai; Sales) 2. Pending Rezoning (R -2C Residenda to Conditional S-2 Business) Pending 8/25.,'92 1 Subdivision Variance Approved 3_ 1 2PI92 Rezoning i -20 Reesidentia to Coryditional C-1 Office)i A - roved d. -b;9-5 Rezoning (R -21C Residentia: to Condtonal 0-1 Office) Approved l 1,2afg3 Rezoning R-20 Residential to Condtionai C-1 Cfiice) Appraved 0. &25:99 Rezoning (AG -1 and AG -2 Agrcu tural and R -2u Approved Residential to Condi ona C-1 Office) and Rezoning +:AG -7 and AG -2 Agricultural and R-20 Residential to Conditional A-18 Apartment) ?_ 1 &'2:-J90 i Conditional Use Permit Church Addition) A roved ZONING HISTORY AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page12 0 a 41LVlVV 10123189 vucv% v.......... Reconsideration of Conditions (R-3 Residential to 0-1 Approv ed Office — approved 1127186) and Rezoning (R-20 10112/04 Residential to 0-1--Office)roved Conditional Use Permit (Expansion) APP 8111198 Conditional Use Permit (School) Approved Approved 8113196 Conditional Use Permit (School) roved 4125188 Conditional Use Permit Church 8114101 Modification of Proffers and Conditional Use Permit Approved (Communication Tower) Approved 3114100 1111100 Modification of Proffers Conditional Use Permit (Church)Proved roved 101/2199 Modification of Proffers 27199 Rezoning (Conditional 0-2 Office to Conditional B -1A Businesfi) and Conditional Use Permit (Self -storage facility) Approved 3124198 Rezoning (Conditional 0-2 Office to Conditional B-1 A Approved 1219197 Business) Rezoning (Conditional 0-2 Office to Conditional A-12 Apartment) Withdrawn 10126193 Rezoning (Conditional 0-2 Office to Conditional B-2 Business) and Conditional Use Permit (Skating Rink) ,128191 11/27190 Street Closure Reconsideration of Conditions placed on a Street Closure Approved Approved 911$1$9 Rezoning (Conditional 0-2 Office to R-20 Residential) and Rezoning (R-20 Residential to Conditional 0-2 Office) Approved ZONING HISTORY AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 13 F - Z W W a N W N O U U A m 1 11 fu m +i I E_a8r� ril I z cogs°x+15;2 11 Lm�'�3 N011V)r1ddV9N1N0ZRH7VN0WCN0J L' p AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 14 O N C. 8 @ E @ E O G O m = 1 W 7r _w pq c 0`c� Od n �� mo �, > 2mc1n� O _ d�33� tic ?v Wo@ECLm3 C d Q U C O ti _ = U CES 2 a�m.4 c' to em o _ L L m E ” OE pC&B c CL @$ voamm �N 2�Q°=its m vi �t am Ym me CC L m J d Ci J a U O E° C Lp � C J m m ❑ n p AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 14 Applicant Disclosure (AGC Acquisition, LLC) 2. Indian River Farms, LLC Lynnhaven Homes - Isle of Wight, LLC Lynnhaven Helicopter Service, LLC Lynnhaven Mortgage, LLC Lynnhaven Turbine, LLC Thalia Commons, LLC Torrey Properties, LLC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AGC ACQUISITION January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 15 Item # 18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification 1291 Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne June 13, 2007 REGULAR Dorothy Wood: The next item sir is item 18 and that is AGC Acquisition. That is Mr. R.J. Nutter. Barry Knight: Welcome R.J. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't envy your jobs. First of all for the record, my name is R.J. Nutter. I'm an attorney and represent that applicant AGC Acquisition. This application, as you know, has been deferred once before. What you may not realize is, but I'm sure staff has probably pointed out to you, is that this applicant has worked very, very hard with your staff on getting this application to a point where it comes to you today with their recommendation of approval. It is that application that resulted in us modifying the land plan at least five times. In addition to that we have had meetings with the Navy. In fact, this was the first application to proceed with the Navy under the new MOU process that was adopted while this application was pending. I'm happy to have been that first case. In addition to that, it resulted in a large change in the plan that was before you previously in two principal respects. First is that we were asked to reduce the density on this project by about 20 percent. In relationship to other projects that have been approved near by, and frankly, we met with staff, projects that were approved in the nearby area where the density was anywhere from 9 to 12 units to the acre, and they were asking us to go 9. We've agreed to that with the reductions that we've made. I will tell you that we have come a long way. In addition to that the other principal change is the architecture which we submitted to staff originally, we were asked to modify, to comply at first, as many of you, with an application across the street from us by the Hickman family. We were asked to look at that as a principal guide for how our architecture should be modified. What we found when we met with staff on the Hickman application is that while it is a very nice project, a very nice proposal, it had aspects that they wanted us to pick up, but frankly staff admitted to us that the Hickman application was designed not to blend with Nimmo church but designed to blend with the Hickman home. So, it had a lot more brick. It had a lot more features like that then the church did. But they did say that application had a substantial number of roof features that they wanted us to modify. We had large flat roofs with some features. So, as you can see from these composites we went back to work with them, and our architects changed over to materials that matched and compliment Nimmo church type of roof line. Again, it has that steeple type effects instead of a flat roof, more and more traditional rural county look if you well. A more colonial look then we had originally proposed at this site. So, a lot has been done on this application. We are happy to have staff's recommendation of approval. Now, I would like to comment on, because I was not able to attend this morning's earlier session, but I did have someone from my office, who took Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 2 rather some copious notes, and talked to me about it, so, I can tell you that I am very familiar with the conversation that occurred, and as I wanted to be, because I wanted to be responsive to the issues that you raised, quite frankly. And, I think it is fair to say that the principal discussion dealt with the access points on the property that we proposed. If I could, I would like to point those out to you. As you know, this property has some small frontage on General Booth here, but its principal frontage, I guess into an adjacent right-of-way, is along Nimmo Parkway. The two access points that you see here currently exist on the property today and have existed even though the property has been used for large retail and wholesale operation by a wonderful user. The Atlantic Garden Center has been a wonderful user. In fact, as we met with residents in the area on this application, I will tell you that there was less concern about this application than there was about what are we going to do when we lose Atlantic Garden Center, which is a wonderful tribute to their business? So, at any rate and having said that, these are the two access ways that we have had on this property for quite some time. As your staff report points us the staff is recommending that we only have one of those access ways, but I think there are a couple of arguments that I would like to propose to you on why we would like to keep those two access ways. First of all, these two access ways currently are on Nimmo Parkway. There is a great level of service on that roadway as you know. We are well under capacities for this property as Nimmo currently stands. And, while I recognize that Nimmo Parkway will be improved and those numbers will increase. Those numbers will increase from A & B to probably C & D. So, this won't be the only piece of property in the city with access points along roadways with C & D with two access ways. In fact, it will be far from it. It will be one of the many throughout the city that have that situation. The second thing that I point out to you is that this property, after all the discussion and meeting with Jack's office and his staff, and we started working with this before Jack assumed this position, so we had to look at it independently at how Bob had looked at it. I think he concluded the same that we did. This is a major intersection. It is a property that could have mixed use on it. We were asked to modify to have a true mixed use. So, there is true connectivity between these properties. We were asked to modify the location of BMPs. We were asked to modify the orientation of the retail. How it was set on the property. We were asked to add this feature here to get a nice connection with the retail and the residential along the BMP here. There are a number of features that have been added to make sure this works. So, my point to you is that you have a property that is right now all commercial going to a property that will have both retail and commercial on it. And, to have those two mixtures of uses with one access way is, I think is a little dangerous in my mind. I really believe, in this case, with retail use and residential on the same piece to have one access way on this property is a little dangerous. I tell you that because I know your write up points out and your Comprehensive Plan recommends that, the Comprehensive Plan looked at a little different land uses than we have here. That is why if you look at it today with what's here, two existing access ways, a plan in process that works very well together and have been modified to comply with that, the two access ways, in my mind are certainly not unreasonable. Another significant point I point out to you that this is the out parcel. It is briefly discussed in the staff's write up. One of the first things we were asked to do on this site was to eliminate, because we were actually in conversations with Wawa's, and we left staff know that. And, they said hey look, we would really be opposed to having Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 3 that kind of heavy use on this property. So, we agreed in this case to not only eliminate Wawa's, but any convenience gas store operation on the property. So, 7 -Eleven can't go here. Wawa's can't go here or whatever the next iteration of that business venue turns out to be, will not be looked at the property. So that means a substantial reduction in the amount of traffic that could come to this site. It means a vote would probably go with either an office use or as a staff points out a restaurant use is a high probability here, so very complimentary uses. So, my point again to you is that you got a mixture of uses. You have a Comprehensive Plan recommendation that was based upon a set of facts not in play. You're on a roadway with great access and availability in terms of level of service. It is very high on this property. Even staff says that it doesn't propose a problem here. They are just talking about a policy where they want a few restrictions and access points as possible. And, with that much frontage along there and with these uses and with the restrictions, the applicant has already agreed to, we feel that it is very reasonable for two access ways on the property. I will also point out to you very briefly because I know that my light is going to on here shortly. I know I can count on Ed for that light. We have met with many adjacent property owners. We have a church located right here. We met with the pastor, and they are very much in support of the application provided there is a pedestrian connection between us and the church. We sent out letters to the residents along this portion of the property prior to our last meeting. Several of them came to the meeting with us and had no objection. Since the last meeting, Mr. Chairman as you know all to well, we met with the Pratts, who own this property here and met with Mr. & Ms. Kaplan. I'm sorry that they are not here today but they told us they would be in support of the application. They also asked for a pedestrian connection from our property into theirs, which we have no disagreement. We met with them last week. Ed Weeden: R.J. You have 45 seconds. R.J. Nutter: I'll wrap up very quickly. And, finally Mrs. White, who is here today, and her home is somewhere. Ms. White you know better than I. I am not going to try and guess but somewhere in this general vicinity. And, I can tell you that the stand of trees that are along this portion of the property, we have no intention of impacting whatsoever. I think most of them are on her property as best as we can tell anyway. We plan on simply a landscape feature here. And, we added a full fence feature separating us from her property as well. So, we've tried our best to meet with everyone. If you compare to the people that showed up at the Hickman application, I think we've done a real good job. I think we've tried really hard. So, if you could grant us this second access way we would certainly like it. It is existing, and we think, in this case, it makes sense. But I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Barry Knight: Thank you. Ms. Wood, for clarification, we don't have any other speakers on this do we? Dorothy Wood: No. Mr. Nutter did such a good job he is the only speaker. Barry Knight: Okay. We will open it up for questions for Mr. Nutter. Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: You mention that when you initially started the design staff had already mentioned to you that they would only allow one access? Item # 18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 4 R.J. Nutter: I would say that staff has noted that traffic engineering department said they wanted one access way. Jay Bernas: So, did you develop an alternate layout with one access? Because I think that if you did have one access, it might change some of your layout, or site flow, or did you just do it for two accesses? R.J. Nutter: We would have to, and to be honest with you, we felt that this is the best way to do the second access way. The one access way we had would be the best location. The one they are objecting to, as I understand it, is this one. I think they want this one eliminated and not this one, as I understand the staff s recommendation. So, this one is essential to us, and this, we think is very important, but if there is only one granted we would probably modify the land plan. Jay Bernas: It would be in the same location. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. I believe so. Barry Knight: Is there any other questions? Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: Would you have to do some more modifications internally? R.J. Nutter: Not significant. No sir. It flows much better with the two, but in talking with staff between your earlier session and this one, if the Commission would recommend approval of this application with only one access way, we would go to Council and we might submit a revised site plan to comply with that, but otherwise eliminating that second access way is a scenario that can occur today if you wish it too. We would also asked about a possible deferral. I would tell you that unfortunately our contract requirements are up actually at the end of August, somewhere at the end of July. So, we are in a situation where we don't have the option to defer in this case. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Horsley. Donald Horsley: Mr. Nutter, take your pointer there. Forget about that right now. Tell me how these people get back there. Show me the direction. R.J. Nutter: They would enter here (pointing to PowerPoint), come in to this system here and come up into the property like this. Donald Horsley: So, they don't have to come all down through the commercial? R.J. Nutter: No. It is designed so they go around it like this. In fact, we will be coming back to you probably with a subdivision variance to create a separate lot here. The residential would be a separate one. But, the access way was designed to be ubiquitous like this for the residential people. That is why we wanted this one so badly, so our second point of access for the residential people in this parcel. But, if there is one, this is where it would be. Item # 18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 5 Barry Knight: Mr. Henley? Al Henley: The first entrance is the one that exists. R.J. Nutter: They both exist now. This is actually the main entrance today into the garden center. Al Henley: If that is approved today, what kind of service? Is that a right in only? R.J. Nutter: This is a right in/right out only. Yes sir. Al Henley: And a right out also? R.J. Nutter: This is a right in/right out. That is what I am saying. There may be the option of a right in only which is certain to damages. But, the way it is submitted right now Mr. Henley is a right in/right out on both roads. There is no median break. So, therefore, there is no chance of cross traffic into the site. Al Henley: Okay. Thank you. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: Mr. Nutter? You showed going in to one entrance and going to our left and going around. Is there a way around the other way? Is that a circle? Can they come around? Can they come into that entrance and make a left hand turn and come around the back side there? R.J. Nutter: That is a service road. Yes sir. I am going to say it is not possible. Eugene Crabtree: Don't you think that if we have only one entrance that there is going to be a lot of people using that service road as a main thoroughfare to get back to their residential area? R.J. Nutter: I think one entrance here. I think internal traffic circulation between two different uses requires two. Eugene Crabtree: My other question too. We were told this morning that it is not on this application, but there is a design that there be a rather high scale restaurant going in that front part up there to where that front entrance would serve? R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: If that did go in there, then if you only have one entrance that would make it rather difficult for anyone to get to that establishment with just the one entrance. Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 6 Would it be economically feasible for anybody to even build a restaurant there if they only had the one entrance? R.J. Nutter: It certainly diminishes the acceptance of that sight tremendously, as you can imagine. Restaurants are more and more sophisticated where they go and there are a lot of sites available in this area. Eugene Crabtree: The traffic flow, in reality within the unit, would be much better with the two entrances and would prevent maybe use of the service road or prevent a traffic mire with the one entrance going around the other way to get to the residential? Am I not correct? R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. That is our position exactly. That is why we believe two is appropriate in this case. Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: Thank you. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Eugene Crabtree: I do have one other thing. With the discussion with the military and one thing or another, it says that the density must be to the lowest reasonable rate. Is what you have it now, do you consider that the lowest reasonable rate that you can do? R.J. Nutter: Oh, absolutely. In fact, our client reasonably wouldn't agree to the reductions. They had to go and see if the numbers would work. It is a very expensive site. Eugene Crabtree: So, the density now is at the lowest reasonable rate? R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. I would say without any question about that. It would jeopardize the entire project. I would tell you too that we showed staff, even their own applications were approved between 9 and 12 in this area, and they're using the lowest of those numbers. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley has a question. Al Henley: I have a question regarding the landscaping on the southern property side essentially where Mrs. White lives. Most of those trees as you have indicated are trees that are on their property. They are half high canopy trees. That means there is not much vegetation below those. And, of course, the applicant has agreed to install a high, what is the definition of a high fence? R.J. Nutter: To be honest with you, I didn't want to lock us in because we hadn't met with her. So, I'm not sure what that is going to be. We're going to meet with her and find out if that is six or eight, and to be very, very honest with you, in some cases, people Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 7 want ten feet but you're only allowed to go to eight. So, that is the problem. We hadn't met with her in the time that was drafted. Al Henley: Okay. Well, along with that consideration, I would like to put in a proffer that they be evergreens, possibly Leyland Cypress or something of that item of vegetation on the applicant's side of the fence. R.J. Nutter: I don't think there is any problem with that. Al Henley: The reason for that is because these units are 55 feet or a little bit more than 55 feet tall so in order to protect those property owners, and as well as aesthetics within the complex, I think would beautify it even more. R.J. Nutter: I understand. And, I am sure that we have no problem with that kind of feature along that line.. It will fill the gap, which you are trying to do between the canopy and where those features are. Al Henley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Okay. There are no other questions for Mr. Nutter? Eugene Crabtree: I make a motion that we approve it the way it is presented the application. Bang Knight: We have a motion on the floor by Gene Crabtree to approve it as presented and that as presented with two entranceways? Do I have a second to that motion? Mr. Redmond seconds the motion. Okay. We'll open it up back up for discussion. You can sit down if you want to Mr. Nutter? Okay. There is, a motion to approve agenda item 18, AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. by Gene Crabtree and a second by Dave Redmond. I'll open it back up for discussion. Mr. Henley. Al Henley: I want to congratulate the applicant. You have done a wonderful job. You have compromised a lot. You, as well as the attorney, Mr. Nutter, knows my strong feelings regarding this other entrance. And, I think I told you at the meeting with you that I wanted that entrance closed, or at least I prefer it to be closed. But, considering all the other things that you have done by lowering the density, and that was a concern of residents, as well as myself. You have compromised on the elevation and you brought that in order with the historical church. I guess I need to compromise. It is a two way street. So, with that in order, I like your application and I will be supporting it. Once again, the reason why I am supporting this other entrance is because you do have plans for upscale restaurant. A comment was made earlier. If it is a good restaurant they're going to find a way to get there. But, also in order that is an existing entrance. There may be some concern with additional traffic when Nimmo Parkway goes in, but I believe with the other parcels when they are developed that this other entrance is going to be needed. So, with that in order and my comments to Mr. Nutter that you are going to be Item # 18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 8 working with the adjoining owners to properly landscape I will be recommending approval on this. Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas? Jay Bernas: I got a question for staff. Barry Knight: Okay. Who would you like to bring up? Jay Bemas: Probably Rick. Barry Knight: Okay. Short and concise answers. Identify yourself please? Rick Lowman: My name is Rick Lowman, Public Works Traffic Engineering. Jay Bernas: I just have some quick questions. Rick Lowman: Okay. Jay Bernas: Along that corridor, has there already been precedent set where other people have applied and then denied entrances? Rick Lowman: Not that I'm aware of. Jay Bernas: So, no one has even applied? Rick Lowman: No. Not that I'm aware of. Jay Bernas: This is the only one that has one forward? Rick Lowman: I believe so. Jay Bernas: I think maybe the other one is maybe Hickman, but that number went through but you had also opposed an entrance on that side. Rick Lowman: Absolutely. Yes. Jay Bernas: So, this could set a precedent for the other side allowing them to have an entrance on the Hickman property. Rick Lowman: Sure. One of the issues does set precedent, again providing a second access point along a controlled access roadway as called by the Master Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. So, that is one of the issues there, it does set a precedent. Jay Bernas: That we're breaking our own policy that is stated in the Comprehensive Plan and in other policy documents. Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 9 Rick Lowman: Yes sir. Jay Bernas: I haven't been there in a while, but along Newstead, didn't they close off an entrance to that neighborhood? Is it Newstead? There is limited access on there. Rick Lowman: I think I know what you're talking about. I believe the made it a one way street. Jay Bernas: They made it a one-way street. Rick Lowman: I'm not sure how that plays in with this. Jay Bernas: Okay. I didn't know they had anything, but I knew that it was kind... Rick Lowman: I think it was a neighborhood issue, and I wasn't involved with it. It was more the side of Traffic Engineering. It was more of a neighborhood and cut through issue. Jay Bernas: Okay. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley. Donald Horsley: Rick, will a right in only make any difference on that entrance? Rick Lowman: Well, you're probably not going to have a lot of right out traffic there from that one entrance. Most of your traffic, especially the commercial traffic, is going to be left out and you obviously can't make a left out of that entrance. Maybe some traffic will come out and make a u -turn at the median opening, but a right in eliminates some of the conflicts. Again, it doesn't eliminate all of the conflicts of it. So, if the question is it better then a right in/right out, then yes. However, it is still an issue that the Comprehensive Plan takes up and the Master Transportation Plan takes up. Again, it does set that sort of precedent. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: Do you look at it any different when you have a ten acre parcel that has two existing entrances rather than adding one? Do you look at it different when you actually close one? Are we looking at closing it because it is unsafe? Since it is already there and has been used there that is a little different, then, I think. Rick Lowman: Well, the land uses are changing. There is certainly going to be a lot more traffic with this purposed use of this site. The one thing is it is a large site. The nursery does, and it is the type of operation where because it is a nursery you grow things there. It is not very dense as it is. Now, we're creating a more dense situation. Again, Nimmo Parkway is going to be taking on a different role in the City. And, like I said, it is a controlled access roadway. It may have good level of service right now and the capacity may be good now, again, like the Comprehensive Plan states that we're trying Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 10 to, and one of the goals of transportation, I believe is goal T2-1 support efforts to minimize vehicular access along arterials. We're constantly looking out for this because the next thing you, and I'm not going to say this is going to happen, but the next thing you know it is going to be Virginia Beach Boulevard. We all know what the access looks like out there. I'm not comparing it, but access, if you allow uncontrolled access or multiple access points you tend diminish your capacity of the roadway. Janice Anderson: Right. Rick Lowman: We hate to see that now before we even build this roadway and develop it. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond has a question. David Redmond: Rick, we had kind of sidebar this morning and I told you then that I'm not a big believer of slippery slope arguments of Virginia Beach Boulevard. I just don't think this has anything to do with this. The reality in my mind is that there is two entrances. The level of service is extremely favorable. I don't see the sky falling if there are two entrances there today. I don't know of anything in Virginia Beach in June for crying out loud, that is busier than garden center. The sky is not falling so, I'm a little uncomfortable with the arbitrary nature that wherever we find two entrances we make them one. Wherever we find three entrances we make them two. I think we are limiting to respond to what you said. I think we are limiting access to this road. We're limiting it to what is there now. We're not providing anymore access to this site. I don't see how we're creating any sort of hardship if some conflict exists there today, we would be racing over there with our alarms blaring and we're not. So, I just have a hard time trying to figure what is so wrong with two access points there. I think this is, all other respects, a terrific looking development. It is will balance in terms of its uses. The applicant, as far as I can tell, has been very, very responsive in terms of the criticism and suggestions that the city staff has recommended. I don't really know that it needs to be fooled with any more than this. Jack apparently disagrees with me. But, so, I'm going to support the motion as well that has been offered with the two access points, which will come as no surprise. Rick Lowman: Do you want me to respond? David Redmond: Sure. By all means. Rick Lowman: Real quick response. I promise. What this focuses on, again, the sky is not falling. There are really no issues that Traffic Engineering has responded too. Again, it is my job as a traffic engineer working for the Department of Public Works to take a look at things, and work in the best interest of the citizens of Virginia Beach and to protect what is spelled out by Public Works and Planning in the Comprehensive Plan and on the Master Transportation Plan. That Master Transportation Plan is what we worked towards. I mean, we can obviously modify it a little bit. Again, it is called out as a controlled access roadway. I believe that there is no hardship here. The site will work Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 11 with one entrance. It may not be as convenient, and the sky probably will not fall if we allow two entrances to this, but again, I'm looking out for the interests for the City of Virginia Beach and Public Works Department. David Redmond: And, I respect that. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Rick at this time? Thank you Rick. We appreciate it. Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: I just want to respond to Rick's comments. I do believe that his job to look 20 years down the road. That is what we need him to do is look 20 years down the road. So, it is really tough between the two, but I would supportive of the city's position to close the first and have the one access because it can work with that. That is my position on that. I like the application. I think they have done a great job with all the changes, like Mr. Henley said, that they made. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Bernas? Jay Bernas: Real quick. When we talk about traffic we talk about safety. I think to sacrifice safety for convenience, I think that is the wrong thing to do. If the Traffic Engineer says that one entrance will work, and the other one could be potentially a safety concern. Also, the aspect of, and we already got all of these policies in place, it is in the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Transportation Plan, and we recently just disapproved an entrance along Princess Anne Road for the same reasons that we have these policies in place, that I wouldn't want to create a precedent. I don't think there is anything that was presented here today that would want not to follow policy in this case. I don't think there was a strong enough argument to me today, that there was a strong enough reason to keep that access open. So, I think the application is great. If I do not support the application, it will just be because of that one entrance. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Just to be clear though, on Princess Anne Road the level of service there was bordering, what was it, D minus. And this is entirely a different traffic situation. It is far less stressed than Princess Anne Road was in that stretch. Henry Livas: I don't think that was existing. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Dorothy Wood: I'll sponsor Mr. Nutter for one minute. One minute Mr. Nutter. I have a meeting at 3:00 o'clock with you Mr. Nutter. R.J. Nutter: With me. I have to get out of here. The two points that I would like to say. This is more of a convenience to us. It really is safety as well. There are residents that are going to be living here. If that entrance is blocked then ambulances and fire that have Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 12 to get to residences in this property, we don't have that problem when it is all commercial. So, I will tell you that it is every bit about safety, number one. Number two, I got to be careful on this motion is framed. My sense is that the Commission likes the application. The only debate is if there are two entrances or one. So, I don't want to send City Council a wrong message for those of you, like Jan, who prefer one entrance and not two. So, if I could ask you to consider how this motion is framed right now. I like the motion. It is clearly in our favor. My concern is that I don't want to send Council the wrong message that there is opposition and that you don't recommend approval of the application. The only problem is the access way. I can't make a motion, Mr. Macali so I'm really stuck here. But, I like the Commission to send the right message to Council on this application that I think you're trying to send. Some of you favor two, like me, and some of you do not. I understand that. It's the nature of why we are all here. I would ask for someway to send that message to Council in your process, and I appreciate it. But I reiterate that safety is a very large part of what we are requesting here. Barry Knight: Mr. Nutter. Thank you. We got a couple of options at our disposal if we care to accommodate Mr. Nutter. One, of course, is we can make a substitute motion for the single entrance, or if Commission so desire, if they desire to oppose the motion, they can let us know to put in the verbatim why they would oppose voting for it, because it had two entrance as opposed to one. So, keep that for your thoughts. Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: I would like to make a substitute to approve the application with just the one entrance. Barry Knight: A substitute motion made to approve with one entrance. Do I have a second? Mr. Bernas has second it. Okay. Is there any discussion? I will say that as far as our neck of the woods down there with this little stretch of road is, Nimmo Parkway is dead end on each end. And, there is no through traffic now other than that one small section, and all the traffic that is on Princess Anne Road, probably 90 percent of it is going to coming through Ferrell Parkway and Nimmo Parkway through there, so it is going to bring up the level of service. It is going to be about access points. It isn't going to hurt, right now, but where is the straw that breaks the camel back come along. I hear so many people, particularly in this neck of the woods talk about traffic concerns. I like Mr. Nutter's project. I really do. They have done a wonderful job. I really weigh in hard on the two entrances from a safety issue as far as safety within the community, but I think probably overriding on the safety is the traffic, as far as the access there because the level of service on this thing. It is a one mile dead end road right now, but hopefully it is going to be a limited access thoroughfare here shortly. I'm going to be voting in favor of the substitute motion, but I will open it back for any discussion on the substitute motion. Okay. We'll vote on the substitute motion made by Jan Anderson and seconded by Jay Bernas. Is that substitute motion with the recommendation to have the evergreens and the Leyland cypress on the southern end of the border? Janice Anderson: Yes. Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 13 Barry Knight: Do you concur with that Jay? If there is no other discussion, I'll call for the vote on the substitute motion which is for the one entrance only. Ed Weeden: By a vote of 3-7, the substitute motion for one entrance has failed. Barry Knight: Okay. The substitute motion fails to carry. We will now vote on the original motion which was made by Gene Crabtree and seconded by Dave Redmond, which is the two entrances, and also stated with the evergreens and the Leyland cypress on the southern border. I'll call for the question. Ed Weeden: This was for two entrances? Barry Knight: This is for two entrances. Ed Weeden: With the original two people? Barry Knight: Yes. It was Gene Crabtree and Dave Redmond with two entrances and with the evergreens and Leyland cypress on the southern border. AYE 8 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE AYE 3 NAY 7 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE AYE BERNAS AYE KNIGHT CRABTREE LIVAS NAY HENLEY AYE NAY HORSLEY WOOD NAY KATSIAS NAY KNIGHT AYE LIVAS NAY REDMOND NAY STRANGE ABSENT WOOD NAY Ed Weeden: By a vote of 3-7, the substitute motion for one entrance has failed. Barry Knight: Okay. The substitute motion fails to carry. We will now vote on the original motion which was made by Gene Crabtree and seconded by Dave Redmond, which is the two entrances, and also stated with the evergreens and the Leyland cypress on the southern border. I'll call for the question. Ed Weeden: This was for two entrances? Barry Knight: This is for two entrances. Ed Weeden: With the original two people? Barry Knight: Yes. It was Gene Crabtree and Dave Redmond with two entrances and with the evergreens and Leyland cypress on the southern border. AYE 8 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REMOND AYE STRANGE WOOD AYE NAY 2 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 NAY NAY ABSENT Item #18 AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. Page 14 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-2, the application of AGC Acquisition, L.L.C. has been approved with two entrances. Barry Knight: Ms. Secretary? Are there any more items to be heard? Dorothy Wood: No sir. That is it. Barry Knight: The meeting is adjourned. In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -6638 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilson` CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: January 11, 2008 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: AGC Acquisition, LLC The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 22, 2008. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 25, 2007 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. further. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter BKW/bm Enclosure cc: Kathie Hassen Prepared by Troutman Sanders LLP AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this 25th day of May, 2007, by and between AGC ACQUISITION, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, hereinafter ("AGC"), and BOOTH FERRELL ASSOCIATES, a Virginia general partnership, hereinafter ("Booth"), which collectively may be referred to herein as ("Grantors"), and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter ("Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, AGC is the contract purchaser of a parcel located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 10.28 more or less, which parcel is currently owned by Booth, which property is more particularly described in the exhibit labeled Exhibit A attached to this Agreement (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is presently zoned AG -2 and is subject to the terms of the zoning ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, AGC intends to develop, operate, and use the Property in a manner more restrictive than contemplated by the current zoning of the Property, and AGC has initiated an amendment of the Zoning Map by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification of the Property from AG -2 to Conditional B-4 with the covenants, restrictions and conditions of this Agreement; WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPINs: 2414-16-1683-0000 WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned B-4 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 part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing B-4 zoning district by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance ("CZO"), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation and use of the Property, to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or 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 subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, 2 that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of the ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion of quid pro 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 these proffers shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: 1. The development of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan titled "Atlantic Gardens", last revised May 10, 2007, as modified with respect to the residential portion by that site plan titled "A.G.C. Apartments Site Plan" dated May 12, 2007, prepared by Jeff Love and Associates, which plans have been exhibited to the City Council and are on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (collectively, the "Site Plan"). 2. The buildings constructed on the Property shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the building elevations titled "Atlantic Gardens Center Proposed Retail 3 Center" and "`Atlantic Garden Center' Apartments Proposed Elevation" dated May 10, 2007, prepared by Jeff Love and Associates, which elevations have been exhibited to the City Council and are on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (collectively, the `Building Elevations"). 3. The number of residential units developed on the Property shall not exceed ninety-nine (99) units, in compliance with the recommendation of the City of Virginia Beach Planning staff. 4. No gas station or convenience store shall be located on the Property. 5. The Grantors shall install and maintain a solid privacy fence, constructed of materials of the Grantors' choosing, along the southern boundary of the Property immediately adjacent to the neighboring parcel identified by GPIN 2414-06-8108. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. The Grantors covenant and agree that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if n aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantors and Grantee. This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts which, upon execution by all the parties, shall constitute a single agreement. [Separate Signature Page Follows] G IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Agreement is executed by the parties as of the date first written above. AGC ACQUISITION, LLC, a Virgini limited liability company By: — YA p, e L. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNT CI OF "'`4 ` f,—%4 , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z -Tqav of m p 2007, by , z., n,; . ,r,r, S,. in his capacity as v F z : �,. + of AGC Acquisition, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, on its behalf, and that he is personally known to me or produced as identification. My Commission Expires: Notary Public BOOTH FERRELL ASSOCIATES, S0 ", o�P,�iY P/j�`'y ' 2 MY 0 =_ AO i COMMISSION a EXPIRES r O'• 3/31/2009 •'QOM LT H 0 a Virginia general partnershi 011111111+1WIN't, P By: COMMON�TH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY ITY F The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2S day of r n 2007, by S,A.•. ET�- , in his capacity as � p-_. -- of Booth Ferrell Associates, a Virginia general partnership, on its behalf, and that he is personally known to me or produced w.. 2 z L ,use a identificatiga . �6 �u '5. J,- � ".� t'a% NotaryPublic ,.�``Qc�P .•• • ,. My Commission Expires: p n �h 3 z o o a Y Pv' ,SPP 6 •• �. 0 MY 6 =AO' COMMISSION S t' EXPIRES 3/31/2009.-' QOM 11 O' �'''Iih ALT H 00 0' Exhibit A ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being a portion of the land shown on that certain plat entitled, "Subdivision of Property, Charles C. Hickman, et ux: which said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 88, at page 45 and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the eastern right-of-way line of Oceana Boulevard at the southeastern intersection of Oceana Boulevard and the Proposed Indian River - Courthouse Road as shown on said plat, thence South 18 degrees 04' West 169.42 feet, more or less, along the eastern right-of- way line of Oceana Boulevard to a pin, which pin is in the northwesterly corner of Lot C as shown on said plat; thence South 71 degrees 56' East 261.97 feet along the northern side lot line of Lot C as shown on said plat to a pin; thence South 18 degrees 04' West 412.44 feet along the eastern side lot lines of Lots A, B and C as shown on said plat to a pin in the southeastern corner of Lot A as shown on said plat; thence South 52 degrees 30' East 570.10 feet, more or less, to the center line of a ditch as shown on said plat, said ditch dividing the property of the grantor herein conveyed and the property now or formerly owned by Woodrow White located on the eastern side of the property of the grantor herein conveyed; thence along the center line of said ditch North 25 degrees 50' East 961.05 feet, more or less, to a point in the southern right-of-way line of the Proposed Indian River - Courthouse Road and thence along a curve to the left of the southern right-of-way line of the Proposed Indian River - Courthouse Road, said curve having a radius of 3,764.72 feet and an arc distance of 832.89 feet to a point; thence South 87 degrees 46' West 3.13 feet to the point of beginning. LESS AND EXCEPT those certain parcels described and designated as "0.507 AC. TO CONVEYED TO LOT `C"' and "0.459 AC. TO BE CONVEYED TO LOT `B"' as shown on that certain plat entitled "Subdivision of Property of Charles C. Hickman, et ux, DB 482, P. 21, MB 25, P. 70, MB 88, P. 45, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Va." which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid in Map Book 146 at page 44. ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT that certain piece or parcel of land designated and described as "Take Area = 7,413.290 sq. ft." as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Parcel 060, General Booth Blvd., Property of Charles C. Hickman and heirs of Ruth S. Hickman, deceased", which said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid in Map Book 166 at page 18 and which piece or parcel was conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by deed of Charles Carlton Hickman, widower, dated May 11, 1983, and recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid in Deed Book 2259, at page 1541. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Booth Ferrell Associates, a Virginia general partnership by deed from Nimmo Land Company, a Virginia general partnership, dated May 9, 1991 and recorded May 10, 1991 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia 8 Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 2985 at page 1924. Deed of Correction dated June 19, 2006 and recorded June 22, 2006 as Instrument No. 20060622000946700. 328993v4 Item K.4. -51 - ITEM # 57216 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of January 22, 2008, Ordinance upon application of NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. for the Modification to a Conditional Change of Zoning request (approved by City Council on October 25, 2005 for S & J LLC) ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. FOR THE MODIFICATION OF A REQUEST APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 25, 2005 (S & J, L.L.C.). Ordinance upon application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. for the modification of a request approved by City Council on October 25, 2005 (S & J, L.L.C.). Property is located at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road (GPINs 1489387919, 1489396043; 1489395071). DISTRICT 4 _ BAYSIDE. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: William R. "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, John E. Uhrin, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None .Ianuary 8. 2008 29 G3 Nantucket (SD) Drive District Modification Of Conditions the Bay. LLC 5 � 6 s �':7• _ ?si CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. for the modification of a request approved by City Council on October 25, 2005 (S & J, L.L.C.). Property is located at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road (GPINs 1489387919; 1489396043; 1489395071). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE. MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: The site was rezoned from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District and granted a Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings on October 25, 2005. Due to the current decline in the residential market, the applicant now requests to utilize the existing building for interim uses such as retail and an eating and drinking establishment, which will not serve alcohol, will not have live entertainment, and will close at 11:00 pm. In order to use the existing building and add an eating and drinking establishment to the permitted uses the applicant must modify Proffers 1, 3 and 4 of the 2005 Change of Zoning. Once the market improves, the applicant plans to develop the site with the proposed multi -family project. On January 8, 2008, the City Council deferred this item to January 22 to allow the applicant to add a proffer pertaining to an expiration date for the eating and drinking establishment. The applicant has added Proffer 7, which notes that the "eating and drinking establishment use in the existing building shall not continue beyond June 1, 2011." ■ Considerations: The applicant's request for an interim use of the property for retail and restaurant uses is acceptable, as the uses are compatible to the surrounding area. Staff, however, remains somewhat concerned with the applicant's desire to maintain the existing access on Shore Drive for this proposed interim use. The proffers approved in 2005 require the entrance on Shore Drive to be closed and access to the site to be provided on Stratford Road. Since safety on Shore Drive is a top priority for the Bayfront Area, the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division desires closure of the existing entrance on Shore Drive as proffered with the 2005 rezoning of the site. There are two primary safety issues: (1) the median break on Shore Drive across from the entrance is designed for Emergency Vehicle Use Only for the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Squad, and does not have left turn lanes at the median break, and (2) the existing building on Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 the site is approximately 30 -feet from the entrance on Shore Drive, and due to the position of the building, there is no opportunity for vehicles to stack on the site while waiting to move off the site. Absent the issue of the Shore Drive access, however, this proposal is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The exterior building materials reflect the materials used on adjacent commercial uses and within the residential neighborhood adjacent to this property, and will provide an overall aesthetic improvement to this site. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-5 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 % N City Manager: NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Modification of Proffers of a Conditional Rezoning from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District approved by the City Council on October 25, 2005 (S & J, L.L.C.) ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3762 Shore Drive GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14893879190000; 4 - BAYSIDE 33,976 square feet 14893960430000; 14893950710000 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The site was rezoned from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District and granted a Conditional Use Permit for multi -family dwellings on October 25, 2005. The applicant would like to utilize the existing building for interim uses such as retail and an eating and drinking establishment, which will not serve alcohol, will not have live entertainment, and will close at 11:00 pm. In order to use the existing building and add an eating and drinking establishment to the permitted uses the applicant must modify Proffers 1, 3 and 4. Once the economy improves the applicant plans to develop the site with the proposed multi -family project. The approved Conditional Rezoning has five proffers: PROFFER 1: When the Property is developed, 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 VINTAGE QUAY", dated May 30, 2005, 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. NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 1 PROFFER 2: When the Property is developed, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Stratford Road. PROFFER 3: The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY Bishard Development Retnauer Design Associates", 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 brick and synthetic shake cedar siding. PROFFER 4: There will be no more than eighteen (18) residential units and no less 2400 square feet of enclosed commercial space not utilized for residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. The only commercial uses permitted in the building are: a. retail shops; b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores; c. business studios, offices and clinics; and d. medical and dental offices and clinics. 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 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant building and parking area SURROUNDING LAND North: . Duplex and Single -Family Dwellings / R -5R Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: Shore Drive East: . Boat sales and service/ B-2 Community Business District West: . Design business and Residential / B-2 Community Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The majority of the site is developed with impervious cover. There is CULTURAL FEATURES: very little landscaping on 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) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Shore NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 2 Drive in front of this site is a four lane divided major urban arterial roadway. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 150 foot divided right-of-way with a multi -use trail. According to the Department of Public Works, the right-of-way at this location is sufficient to meet the requirement of the Master Transportation Plan. A right of way reservation/dedication may be required on Stratford Road to upgrade the roadway to current standards. This requirement will be determined during detailed site plan review. The entrance depicted on Shore Drive is aligned with the median crossover for the Ocean Park Rescue Squad Station. Traffic Engineering does not consider this a safe ingress / egress point and cannot approve the entrance on Shore Drive. The existing entrance must be closed and moved further west for these interim uses. Access can also be provided from Stratford Road. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Shore Drive 35,100 ADT' 30,700 ADT Existing Land Use — 211 ADT Proposed Land Use 3— 274 ADT 'Average Daily Trips Zas defined by 18 residential condos and 2,400 s.f. of commercial s as defined by a proposed 2,000 square foot restaurant and 400 square feet of retail WATER and SEWER: This site is connected to City water and sewer. Pump station #306, the receiving pump station for this site, has capacity issues and may required system modification. The applicant shall submit a full engineering hydraulic analysis of Pump station #306 and the sanitary sewer collection system to ensure future flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: School populations are not affected by the modification. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being a part of the Primary Residential Area — Shore Drive Corridor. The area of the proposed development falls within the "Mixed Zone" as identified in the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. This portion of Shore Drive possesses a mix of uses, primarily single-family and duplex units, office and commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan generally supports resort type uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural and other uses in this area. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers except with respect to the entrance on Shore Drive. The existing proffered rezoning depicted the entrance on Shore Drive to be closed and access to the site to be provided on Stratford Road. The proposed interim uses will generate slightly more traffic than the proffered rezoning. Safety on Shore Drive is a top priority for staff. Traffic Engineering is requesting closure of the existing entrance on Shore Drive due to the several safety issues. First the median break on Shore Drive across from the entrance is designed for Emergency Vehicle Use Only for NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 3 the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Squad, and does not have left turn lanes at the median break. As part of the Shore Drive Capital Improvements Project the median break will be reconfigured to allow only a left turn from the Ocean Park Rescue Squad building. In the interim staff is concerned users of the site will utilize the median break to access the site presenting an unsafe situation since there are no left turn lanes at the median break. The second issue is the location of the existing building on the site. The building is approximately 30 -feet from the entrance on Shore Drive. Due to the position of the building there is no opportunity for vehicular stacking on the site, thereby causing another safety issue. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the options for these interim uses. Traffic Engineering offered a solution in the form of closing the existing entrance and installing an entrance farther west on the site. The applicant wants only to install the minimum amount of improvements on the site during the interim use. While a retail use could occupy the site by -right staff believes it is in the best interest of the applicant and the City to accomplish a compromise regarding the entrance. Staff is willing to recommend deferral of on-site improvements such as curb and gutter around the parking areas and off-site improvements such as sidewalks along the rights -of -ways during the interim use of the property. The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The Shore Drive Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and offered the following comments: • Please provide sidewalks along Shore Drive; and • Please insure the proposed building modifications are of a neutral color in keeping with adjacent properties. This proposal is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The exterior building materials reflect the materials used on adjacent commercial uses and within the residential neighborhood adjacent to this property. 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 VINTAGE QUAY", dated May 30, 2005, 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. PROFFER 2: When the Property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Stratford Road. NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 4 PROFFER 3: The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY Bishard Development Retnauer Design Associates", 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 brick and synthetic shake cedar siding. PROFFER 4: When the property is redeveloped, there will be no more than eighteen (18) residential units and no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed commercial space not utilized for residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. PROFFER 5: Until the Property is redeveloped, if the existing building is to be utilized for any commercial use it shall be renovated, the exterior of the building shall be upgraded with an earth -tone EIFS exterior and landscaping shall be planted substantially in accordance with the "SOUTH ELEVATION FROM SHORE DRIVE / EAST ELEVATION FROM W. STRATFORD RD. INTERSECTION", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Landscape Elevation"). PROFFER 6: The only commercial uses permitted in the building are: a. retail shops; b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores; c. business studios, offices and clinics; d. medical and dental offices and clinics: and e. an eating and drinking establishment not exceeding 2000 square feet in total floor area; which cannot sell any alcoholic beverages; which cannot have any live entertainment; and which will close daily by no later than 11:00 PM. PROFFER 7: When the "existing building" is renovated as described in proffer 5, if a portion of the building is used for an eating and drinking establishment, as described in proffer 6(e), the eating and drinking establishment use in the existing building shall not continue beyond June 1, 2011. 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 PROFFER 9: The Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions set forth herein replace and supersede the 2005 Proffers. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the exact mix of uses and the level of quality of the project. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 30, 2007 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 5 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. NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 6 19 -9t M. fitp. fill plillia 11M. 161 raiii I I I I llyll'oopli if 1 11,11 '11111? 1 1 1 XWd M= ,c A t731B�S tri PROPOSED SITE PLAN NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 7 NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 8 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) Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C.: Steven Bishard, Managing Member; John Bishard, Member; Ken Hunt, Member 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & ` See next page for footnotes Modification of Conditions Application Page 10 of 11 Revised 971/2004 NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 10 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) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C. MSA, P.C. ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than 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. NantucKgt by the,Bay,,L,L.C. B, _ r .; Steven Bishard, Managing Member y Applicant's Signature Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Modification of Conditions Application Page 11 of 11 Revised 9/1/2004 NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 11 Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Modification of a Request 3762 Shore Drive 3707 Stratford Road District 4 Bayside December 12, 2007 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary? Joseph Strange: The next item to be heard is item 11, Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. This is an application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. for the modification of request approved by City Council on October 25, 2005. The property is located 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road, District 4, Bayside with eight proffers. Barry Knight: Welcome back Eddie. Barry Knight: Thank you again Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, and for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm representing the applicant. For many decades, this site was the home of a boat sales and a service business, Colley Marine business on Shore Drive. In late 2005, two years ago, the clients that I'm representing today as contract purchasers of this property, which at the time was zoned Unconditional B-2 Commercial, rezoned the property to Conditional B-4 Commercial with proffers and a very beautiful plan for a mixed used condominium with first floor retail and parking. That first floor retail was 2,400 square feet. That rezoning significantly limited the permitted retail on this property from the Unconditional B-2 retail to just those uses listed. If you look on page 2 of the write up proffer number 4, it lists those retail uses that are permitted on the property, retail shops, florist, gift shops, stationary store, business studio, offices and clinics, medical and dental office and clinics. Subsequent to that rezoning, which this Commission approved unanimously and City Council approved, the applicants closed on the property and purchased the property, the Colley Marine closed in 2006. They have proceeded to get site plan and building plan approvals. The point is they have full site plan approval to construct their development. It is called Vintage Quay. They can actually go out and break ground and start construction in a matter of a couple weeks. The problem that we are confronted with is the market issues that we are all familiar with at this point in time. It would not be prudent from a business standpoint for them to go forward and start development today. The Vintage Quay mixed use development approved site plan is good through 2012. That plan involves closing the entrance on Shore Drive. That will happen with that redevelopment of the site. Sidewalks will be put in. That is on the site plan as well. It will be happening with the redevelopment of this site. However, the elimination of the entrance is a problem today, with what we're trying to do, and what this is all about. My clients went in and said, "we need to use this property for a period three years, or it could be four". But somewhere between now and 2012, this redevelopment is going to happen. So, we're looking at a limited use of the property for the current building that is there. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 2 So, we can get through this market period. We looked at boat sales. There are a lot of people who want boat sales on this property again. However, the proffers don't permit that. We have been approached by a number of people to do that. We have a tenant under lease for 3,000 square feet in the 4,000 square foot building. I want to point out there is an error in the traffic information in the write up on page 3, where the asterisk are talking about proposed land use using more traffic. The figures are that the current building, which will be refurbished, and that is one of the parts that we're dealing with today, that building has slightly under 4,000 square feet. The retail tenant that we have under lease will occupy 3,000 square feet of that building. And, that we can do by -right. We can put someone else in the other 1,000 square feet on one of the other uses by -right. We were approached by a user for an ice cream parlor called McCones. They will occupy 1,000 square feet, just actually under 1,000 square feet, in the building. And, that use is one that everyone we talked to said it would be great. It would be a good use and a good location. We'll be happy to have it. And, that is the reason why we're here, and that is for an ice cream parlor. And, because of that fact, we have to come back and modify the proffers to add that one use, which you all see. It is a very specific use. No alcohol. No live entertainment, limited hours of operation, the whole nine yards. And, that is what got us here. Now, the whole idea here is to invest as little as possible, but to upgrade the appearance of the site for this interim use. We've given you nice elevations of how the building's exterior is going to be renovated and how we are going to landscape it. We're going to restripe the parking lot. Those costs alone are in the neighborhood of $50,000. But they could be absorbed, again with the three, maximum four year period we're looking at before we demolish everything and build what we already have approved to be built. The idea that has come forth about closing the entrance, the entrance on Shore Drive, which we have to have for the tenant that we have an unconditional lease on for retail. We cannot do it. It will cost upwards of $50,000 to move to close it and move it to the western part of the site, which again economically makes absolutely no sense for what we are doing here with this interim use. There are a number of issues that we talked about. First of all, Colley Marine operated here with that entrance for many years. People ride through here at 45, 50, and 55 mph, which use to be the speed limit here, and I grew up on this street. Now, realistically, we should be looking at even lower speed limits than 45 coming through here, and most of the time that is what we're dealing with. To suggest that it is "unsafe" is basically a symptom of our society. We're deciding things at the lowest common denominator, the worse possible driver. Clearly, today we wouldn't approve a curb cut at this location. But that has been there for decades. It is the best scenario, but it certainly isn't something that is not going to cause catastrophic loss of life. And, it will go away when the property is redeveloped. We do concur with the concerns about the median break, one that wasn't put there by the applicant or the predecessor in title to the Colley Marine. That is there for the rescue squad, the rescue squad and fire department. The fire department has moved. So, it is just the rescue squad. That can be closed tomorrow. We don't have any say so over it and don't have a problem with it. We will be happy for that to happen. Again, with what we're doing, we aren't in any position to invest any money to close it for the city, so the idea of changing the alignment so it eliminates the ability for people to cross over here, we have no dog in that fight, no complaint about that whatsoever. Please Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 3 do so. Not a problem for us at all. But that is something that the city can do whenever it may wish to do so. The utilization of this building for retail florist or any of those things is a matter that we can do by -right, and remember we are only doing this as an interim use. Not because we expect it to be there for more than three years. Again, it could be four, but by 2012 everything that is here is gone and we're building the approved multi unit condominium with retail. So, the other thing that is very clear, and I don't know if I had a hand in the statistics being wrong here. There is no doubt about the fact that 18 residential condominiums and 2,400 square foot of commercial will generate more traffic than 4,000 square feet of commercial that is there today, up which 3,000 will be retail. All this is about is an ice cream parlor. And, that, in our opinion is not going to cause any loss of life. We are perfectly willing to put up signs and to strips this area so that it is a right -in only and a right -out only. So, there is no traffic coming across. But as long as this is here, the enforcement of that is going to be difficult, but we don't control that. But we have no problem with it being a right -in only and right -out only. The volume of traffic that the uses of this property as proposed is certainly not going to endanger people to the extent that you're dealing with pretty busy people with boats on trailers coming and out of here, although I suspect most of them would have been smart enough and real smart enough to use the access to Stratford for that purpose, but the retail tenant has to have access as part of the lease. The contingent tenant is the ice cream, and that is what we proffered to do with the ice cream parlor. We've spent $50,000 to upgrade the site, but we cannot deal without the entrance on Shore Drive. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, I'm sure that they need the cut in the middle for the rescue probably so they can make a left and right. However, if you want to put a boatyard again, you can use that? Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: As long as it is there. Again, it is up to the city. Dorothy Wood: That is what I was asking. Eddie Bourdon: Yes ma'am. It is up to the city to eliminate this, to put signage up. It is not up to us. Dorothy Wood: But what I'm saying is you wouldn't have to change your entrance if you kept it as boat sales? You can do that? Eddie Bourdon: No. The boat sales are not one of the things that were permitted with the change in the proffers. Dorothy Wood: If you wanted to put something that was then you could. Eddie Bourdon: There is an argument to be made that in 2 years we can try to keep it. We're not looking for argument. We're just trying to find an appropriate interim use. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 4 Cool and Eclectic, our friends can go in here by -right. I'll say that and not to be funny, but the point of it is the property can be used for the uses that are in the original proffer as it is. We recognize this. My client recognizes this. It is not an attractive site there. They are going to fix it up. But they're doing it with an eye towards the economic realities that this is an interim use. I'm not here to argue with Ric that ideally this goes away. We know it is. It is going away. We're going to take it away. But in the interim use it makes no sense economically for 1,000 square foot of leased space to spend that kind of money to relocate that entrance. Dorothy Wood: Well, one more question sir. If the real estate market turns around next year, I think that everyone would be happy, then you might go on and do the project. It might not wait four years. Eddie Bourdon: No. Three years is the likeliest scenario. It would require, which I understand it and I didn't negotiate it, but there are provisions in the leases for buying out the leases, but at the end of three years then it wouldn't cost us anything for us lease it and just redevelop the site. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Mr. Bourdon? So, the building itself is about 4,000 square feet. Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. David Redmond: 1,000 feet is what? Ice cream parlor? Eddie Bourdon: McCone's Ice Cream Parlor. David Redmond: What is the other 3,000 square feet? Eddie Bourdon: It is a retail use. David Redmond: What sort of retail use? Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. It is a children's apparel, children's retail store. David Redmond: Okay. So there will be children there? Eddie Bourdon: There won't be unless they drive. It will be their parents that will be. David Redmond: You have to try them on unless you bring a doll. I would think you would need to try them on the children. How many free parking spaces are available on that site? Do you know? Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: It is going to be restriped. I'm not sure that we know the total number of parking spaces. There is more parking there then is necessary. David Redmond: The reason why I'm asking is because I understand your point about Colley Marine. The difference, however in my view is a boat dealership is a very low volume, very high profit type of business. An ice cream parlor is quite the opposite. There is only so much profit to be made on a $2.00 cone of ice cream. And, the purpose of that is to generate as much traffic as possible. So, Ric? Where is Ric? Hi Ric. Can You come up for a second? Ric Lowman: Sure. David Redmond: If you would, speak a little bit to what the traffic volumes are in that roadway? I don't want to opinion out all of this stuff if you don't have your notes with you, but the write up says the capacity is about 30,000 cars and about 35,000 cars are on it today. Ric Lowman: That number is correct. Barry Knight: Identify yourself for the record Ric Lowman: I'm sorry. Ric Lowman, City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering. That number is correct. The 35,000 vehicles per day, so, it is a fair assumption to say that Shore Drive is at or over capacity. And again, the 35,000 is not seasonable adjusted. So, we do deal with seasonal variations on Shore Drive. Do you want me to answer the question that you brought up about the safety? David Redmond: Yes. Please. Ric Lowman: The entrance as it exists right now would not be approved. If that came in today to us as an entrance for a retail facility that facility wouldn't be approved, I guess for a number of reasons. The first issue as he was discussing was the median opening. Again, it is not their fault that the median opening is there. And, there are signs there that say no left turns. It is emergency use only, but that is not going to stop anybody especially if they're already heading that way and they have nothing else to do except to turn. So, in speeds on the roadway are of high speeds. The speed limit is 45 mph, but speed studies have shown that it is a little bit higher then that just ambient conditions on Shore Drive. But, the other issue, and again this is something that I mentioned that this entrance wouldn't be approved if it came into day for any sort of facility, is that the building is 30 feet from the face of the roadway. We require 30 feet for just entrance area of radius to bring cars in safely. Not to mention a building being 30 foot from the roadway, so that is part of the Public Works standards. We have real issues with interaction of cars coming off of Shore Drive at somewhat high speeds because there is no turning area. You have to be going pretty slow when you come in there, or you're going to hit the building. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 6 David Redmond: Thank you. Ric Lowman: Sure. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? You have the floor. Do you want to ask Mr. Bourdon's some follow questions? David Redmond: I invite Mr. Bourdon to address that if he wants. Fair is fair. This question is for you Mr. Bourdon. It appears to me that there are three entry points into that property. Is there something magical about that? Eddie Bourdon: Let's start with that, and I'll go back to the idea that people are going at high rates of speed. There are entrances on Stratford Road. Our retail tenant requires access from Shore Drive. Bottom line! From a standpoint of their perspective, and I think it would be the perspective of many, but not all. Obviously, everybody could disagree that access is crucial to the success of that business at that location. The entrances on Stratford are there. They will remain. With the redevelopment there will be one entrance on Stratford and that will be it. The traffic on Shore Drive? The ULI Study recommended, if I'm not mistaken that speed limits on this part of Shore Drive should be reduced. It should be a pedestrian friendly area with low speed limits, and that is what I think the community wants to see in this location as well. The reality is that there is some diversion versus traffic engineering wanting to get as many cars through here as fast as possible because we don't have Old Donation Parkway and Shore Drive is a major east/west corridor. So, we got that problem that we always deal with on Shore Drive and always deal with in this particular area of Shore Drive, but as one who travels that portion of Shore Drive all of his life, and it is an area, if you're going through there at 45 mph, it is late at night or at times when this facility is not open for business. I totally disagree with the idea that this is unsafe scenario because the building is 30 feet back from the entrance. It is not an optimal situation sure. But it is back to what I initially said it is designing for the lowest common denominator, drivers who are not paying attention to what they're doing. And that is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with that. But we elevate it when we start talking about how unsafe things are. The reality is that it has been there for decades for a retail business including service of boats, and is it optima? No. Is it going to cause loss of life for this interim use of retail and ice cream parlor? We would suggest that it will not. And, people will use the rear entrances to come out and to get to the median break. I will not argue at all about the fact that this median break should go away. That to me is a dangerous scenario. A right -in and a right -out here, I don't buy that it is a "dangerous" scenario. People trying to cut across and go eastbound on Shore Drive. There is a problem. That goes away with this going away. You come out here to this major intersection and you take your left and go across. Again, it is not any disrespect to Rick, but he and I have talked about it a length. They are looking to try to get the best possible scenario. If we were redeveloping the property, that exactly what you would get but for the interim use, the cost involved it's just economically makes zero sense. That is where we are. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 7 Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Mr. Livas and then Mr. Horsley. Henry Livas: Yes. You keep mentioning the lease restrictions that require an access off of Shore Drive. Does it require access at that specific location or anywhere off of Shore Drive? Eddie Bourdon: It requires anywhere on Shore Drive, to relocate the entrance would cost up to $50,000. And for a three year lease, there is no way you can re -coop that cost. Henry Livas: But that is the only disadvantage in moving the entrance? Eddie Bourdon: The other disadvantages is that you spend $50,000 to close an entrance, put a new entrance in, and then you turnaround in three years and eliminate both entrances. So, in multiple ways it makes no sense as we have the right to use the property with that entrance for the retail uses, and the only thing that we can't do is the ice cream. So, the issue comes down is to the ice cream going to cause grave danger to the public versus using it for 1,000 square feet because three-fourths of it is going to be used for retail under the proposal or otherwise it all goes to retail. That is what it boils down too. But moving it, again, great idea if we're doing it long term but we are. Not to dispute, it would be better to move it but it just doesn't make sense in this scenario. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: I think you just answered my question. You can do everything you want to do except for the ice cream parlor like it is. You wouldn't even have to jump for us. The only reason you come before us is for the ice cream parlor because that is not in the proffers. Eddie Bourdon: Correct. And, coming before you, and not that we wouldn't do everything that is in the proffers in terms of redoing the exterior, the appearance of the building, the landscaping. I wouldn't suggest that these people wouldn't do that because they are long term residents of our city. They would do that. But, that is the only reason why we are here. And, we're doing a lot of other things. This is not rebutting staff. It has been a great process with staff. They've helped us in every way. They understand what we're trying to do and what we're trying to accomplish. Donald Horsley: So, we if don't approve this you will just try to extend the retail? Eddie Bourdon: If City Council doesn't approve the entrance, that's right, then the building will be refurbished and the other 1,000 square feet will be used for another retail. Donald Horsley: Some type of retail. So, you will still have the entrance there. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 8 Eddie Bourdon: Correct. That is correct. Again, it is not trying to be difficult. It is just pure simple economic bottom line. This is not a long term investment in this particular use of this property. Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas and then Mr. Henley. Jay Bernas: Clear something up for me. Eventually, you're going to have one entrance on Stratford Road. And, you're going to have retail in that location, so that retail is going to have to survive with that entrance on Stratford Road. Now, if you close the entrance and you pay for the improvements along Shore Drive, and just build that entrance for Stratford Road, you wouldn't be losing any money. You would just be pre -building those improvements in the right-of-way. Eddie Bourdon: You can't do that because of the other sub -surface improvements that have to be made. And, the other thing would be the retail, Jay, on the mixed use building is right here. Okay. It is not back over here. The retail is right smack on the corner. But you get a four-story building, and then your retail component is sitting right in this corner, so, your visibility, which is part of your access your visibility, and I'm not a real estate person but that is everything you hear, but because that retail is here on the east end of that building, right in the corner of the building, people come out will see it. The signage is right there so it is easy, and as most of you have already recognized to pull in here and go like this. But the retail here is hidden behind this part of the building and that is part of the problem. You need a sign out here, which we will need to have to let people know that the retail is there. We're dealing with the building we're dealing with. We're not tearing it down. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley? Al Henley: Eddie, on the west side, I believe that used to the old storage for boats and so forth. What would that area be used for? Would there be permanent parking? Eddie Bourdon: I don't believe that we will need to use it for parking. We have ample parking otherwise, but it is potentially an area that we would be using for parking if we need it. I don't believe we need it. Al Henley: Initially, I personally think that entrance should be closed. But, however, in order to help your clients out, and I hate to see that they lose this lease, in order to help them out would it be agreeable, and I'm going to ask staff as well, if this particular entrance rather than we move it, and I understand the expense of ripping that out, closing up, putting in curbing gutter and landscaping and whatever in there but also eliminating the proposed entrance on Shore Drive to be relocated, which your not serving any purpose, and you're going to close one. What is another 50 feet? If the entrance as we know it today is barricaded off with say guardrail, and temporary closed off, because we know sooner or later that is going to happen anyway. And, that will eliminate the problem of any rear end collisions and the safety issues that we've discussed. And, that Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 9 way the customers coming off of Stratford would come in and make a circle where they can use all of that parking in the front, restripe those areas for additional parking. You already said it has more parking than needed. But I was just trying to think and help your clients out. As coming in would be a circle. One entrance in and of course back out on Stratford. Would that help the situation? Eddie Bourdon: I just want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Make it right - in only and no exit? Al Henley: No. Put a barricade across that entrance. Barricade if off completely. Therefore you are eliminating the expense of tearing that entrance out by your client, and replacing it with curbing gutter because we all know that entrance has to go away. Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. You're saying eliminate the entrance on Shore Drive? Al Henley: Right. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. The primary reason is we can't do that. I'm song if I didn't make that clear. The lease on the 3,000 square feet of retail requires that we have an entrance on Shore Drive. So, that lease, which is our primary lease is paying 80 percent of the rent goes away without the entrance on Shore Drive. Al Henley: Who is requiring that lease? Is it your client or is the owner of the property? Eddie Bourdon: We have leased 3,000 square feet of retail, signed executed lease. That is a part of their lease. Al Henley: But you said ice cream parlor Eddie Bourdon: That is the retail. Al Henley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: So, the ice cream parlor came in second. We were already in the process of going forward with the retail and they wanted it for an ice cream parlor. We approached the staff. What do you all think about this? And, to a person it is a good use and the people on Shore Drive. No one had a problem with the use. Then we started going through this process and then this idea. Correct me. Again, I am not arguing that anybody did anything they shouldn't have done by doing their jobs, we don't want that entrance because now we can say we don't like that entrance because we're doing a change. So, that is why we're here and we can't do that. Secondly, personally, you got more experience then I probably at this Mr. Henley, but I still think as long as that curb cut is there with some kind of a barricade, you still run the risk of people who have seen the curb cut and putting on their brakes, and trying to turn in there and realize they can't Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 10 get in there. So, but I don't think we get to that point. We have to have the entrance on Shore Drive for our primary tenant. Al Henley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange has a question? Joseph Strange: Would the lease work if you had a right -in but no exit out? Eddie Bourdon: That is what I thought Mr. Henley was asking. I'm going to have to talk to my client. What we have talked about and what my client's have talked about yesterday was staff was doing this, and I think I mentioned this but it is right -in only and right -out only. I don't know if there is a concern about the right -out. I think the concern was about the right -in. I don't know the answer to that question. I'll have to ask my clients. We can talk about that, and I think you got one other thing on the agenda, and I don't want to get behind that. We can talk about that for a moment or two. If you would like, and I don't think we can do that, but I'm not saying we can't. Joseph Strange: I don't know if you should talk about it. I was just throwing it out there. Eddie Bourdon: I thought that what Mr. Henley was talking about. Joseph Strange: Those were just my comments. Eddie Bourdon: I think the main issue is this. I truly do. If you eliminate what you think is the big danger, I think that is the primary cause of that traffic crossing over. Joseph Strange: I was just thinking that maybe a right -in but no right -out would keep it from stacking up a little bit. Eddie Bourdon: On site. Joseph Strange: Yes, on site. It wouldn't stack up there and that might help the situation a little. Eddie Bourdon: My clients are here and they are hearing this conversation. So, I will go back and speak to them. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon at this time? Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: Could you repeat that? Is that just a right -in and no right -out? Eddie Bourdon: That is what Mr. Strange has suggested, that we do just a right -in into the site with no exit onto Shore Drive from the site. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 11 Dorothy Wood: You mean you are going to put a sign? Eddie Bourdon: The same thing you would do for a right-in/right-out. You will have to strip the area. Striping isn't very expensive, but you put signage that would prohibit the turn out of the site, which is a little bit easier to police then the median break, but still the perfect solution is obviously that once it is redeveloped and there is no entrance at all. Barry Knight: Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: So that would satisfy both tenants, the ice cream parlor and the retail use? Eddie Bourdon: Well, the ice cream parlor isn't an issue as far as the access to Shore Drive. Kathy Katsias: Right.. You wanted to cuts on Shore Drive originally. Eddie Bourdon: Well, no ma'am. Kathy Katsias: The City. Okay. Eddie Bourdon: No. The city is trying to be helpful suggesting closing this one and putting a new one to the west. We were never asking for anything on Shore Drive. Again, it was constructive, but it doesn't fit in this scenario that we're facing. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley? Do you have another question? Al Henley: It was my understanding that staff was the reason for the right turn in that was really the safety issue rather then a right turn out. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not going to speak for Ric. You can ask Ric. Their concern is with the crossover, but they realized that is not our issue. They are also concerned with the crossover so people coming out and going eastbound out of our site. We have, again no aversion to doing whatever we can do on our site to limit or keep that from taking place. The issue of people of slowing down and turning right into the property is one that we cannot address, and with this circumstance and the ice cream parlor is what we're talking about in tradeoff. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: With all due respect. My concern is that I don't see what you lead any of us to believe that some alternative scheme, right-in/right-out would be any easier to enforce then u -turns at that median break. You can stripe however you like. People are going to in and out of that however they feel like it unless you got a cop standing out there making them stop. It is not going to make any practical difference on that today. Requiring someone to take a right out from the other side, from my view, is simply not Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 12 going to be effective. People want to come from the other side. They're just going to come from the other side. Eddie Bourdon: I don't think your traffic engineering department has that level of criticism with respect to people's driving. I think, that if you put the signs up, and you put the striping up, the traffic engineering folks have acknowledged that it would be helpful. It would be beneficial. To say it would solve all and people will ignore it, I'm not saying that. But to suggest that everyone will, which I don't know if that is what you were intending. David Redmond: No. No. I wasn't. Not everyone makes a u -turn where they're not suppose to, at that median break either, but some do, and there are going to be plenty of folks who simply will ignore the signs and drive however they want in and out of it. And, so, I think to suggest that somehow that would solve the problem, I think that concerns the staff, and.concerns me, and concerns some others, I just don't know if that is an effective solution. Eddie Bourdon: The median break, once again isn't this applicant's concern. David Redmond: I know. Barry Knight: Are there any more questions at this time. Thank you. I'll open it up for discussion among the Commission members. Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: Was Mr. Bourdon going to ask about that right -in? Barry Knight: It may be a little premature. Maybe he could ask him now. We can discuss it. That is an option that we want to present to him we have already discussed it. Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Ric, do you mind? Ric Lowman: Sure. Janice Anderson: Thanks. Ric Lowman: Ric Lowman, City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Mr. Bourdon said that he would provide some striping, and I want to understand that your main concern is the right -in to his property that is already there. Ric Lowman: Yes ma'am. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 13 Janice Anderson: Is it because the building is so short and that you only have 30 feet or is it because of the curb cut? Ric Lowman: It is because the building is so close. If the building was 60 feet back and you could have an aisle between where cars pull off and where cars are going to be going around the building, then it would be a totally different issue. We have those drive aisles in front of building all over the place but there is no drive aisle. Basically, the room in front of the building is suppose to be used as the acceleration for cars coming off in the drive aisle, and those two uses just don't make sense. I don't want to get down in the weeds of the operation of the facility but if you have a car coming across going from one side to the other, again trying to exit onto Stratford Road, any kind of circulation there isn't going to work if you have a car coming off of Shore Drive because the building is right there. Janice Anderson: Because the building is right there, but if he did some striping. Like right now there is no striping so when you come in you don't know where to go. You can right or left. But if there was designated striping like I think he is talking about to move You off, would that help? Ric Lowman: Again, I'm just throwing operations out. You're basically making a 180 degree turn if you're going to follow that and go around. I don't know if we have the aerial picture. If you strip it to do that, it is 180 degree turn. If they're saying that they'll strip this and you can't go out, then everyone is going to be forced around the back of the building because there just isn't any room in there to take this parking and bring it across to that exit. It just doesn't work. You have too much going on in that 30 foot with a fixed object. The building is not going to give. Maybe it will give a little bit. Janice Anderson: I guess there is no flow behind the building. There is no circulation all around? Ric Lowman: It doesn't look like there is much Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon? Wait a second. We're going to keep Mr. Lowman going. Ms. Anderson, do you have any more questions for Mr. Lowman? Janice Anderson: That was just my concern. Because I kind of agree that the curb cut causes some problems there, which I don't think we can put on the land owner. So, I was trying to see if we could somehow, with striping or some kind of solution to bring it in where that right turn can come in safely. I would like to see if we could do that instead of requiring him to close that and open another one just for a temporary basis when it is going to be closed eventually. You don't see any? Ric Lowman: We made a comment, and I'm not going to tell that it is a grave situation, the use of it. I will tell you that it is unsafe. So, I want to strike a happy medium. I don't want to portray it as a grave situation. It is an unsafe situation and that we certainly Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 14 wouldn't have preferred. We wouldn't recommend it to you as traffic engineers, as professional engineers, I would not recommend it. I'm not claiming that it is a grave situation. I'm trying to get that deep into it. Janice Anderson: I see exactly what you're saying. The building is too close. Barry knight: Mr. Bernas? Did you have your hand up? Jay Bernas: For discussion. Barry Knight: Fine. Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Yeah. Ric? You're okay. Thank you though. Barry Knight: Hold up a second. Did you have a question of Mr. Lowman? Joseph Strange: Yes. I did have a question. Barry Knight: Ric? Mr. Strange would like to talk to you again. And, Mr. Lowman is still up. Joseph Strange: I guess the question I have is if you had a right -in no right -out, and traffic would go in and then go to the left and go around the building, would that help prevent some of the stack up that you're concerned about out onto Shore Drive. I mean, go around to the left there. Ric Lowman: If they had to come and go all the way around and there was no chance for a car to come from this side of the lot to this side of the lot, then that would, be better. I would say it would be better. Again, but there better be some pretty positive improvements to make sure that nobody could come this way because if you do, then you could be in for more trouble because now you're encouraging people to pull off and go left around the building and they're not expecting a head on car to come around. Joseph Strange: Of course, I'm not a traffic engineer, but I was thinking that most of the traffic during the summertime would be for people that was going to the ice cream parlor, which they would go all around the building anyhow if they had to and come back around to there. You see, that would prevent any kind of pile up right there at the entrance. We're trying to look for a temporary solution. Ric Lowman: Sure. Joseph Strange: Then they would have to exit back out to Stratford Road. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 15 Ric Lowman: It would require some very positive reinforcement of nobody coming from the west because again signs are not positive reinforcement. Striping is not positive reinforcement. Joseph Strange: How about the little parking bumpers that you stick out so people pull up to a little parking bumper. Ric Lowman: We could get down to the details if that is what they decided to do. We can try to work it best as we could but it is going to be expensive for them. Joseph Strange: If they did that, would it be a positive situation? Ric Lowman: It would have to be a positive. Joseph Strange: You say that would at least help the situation. Ric Lowman: It would help the situation. Let me just add this. We said that moving it to the west would help all situations. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Lowman? Okay. Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: So, anybody coming west to go to the ice cream parlor would enter and would make a left on Stratford and come in. Ric Lowman: Yes ma'am. Kathy Katsias: So, would there not be a bottle neck with the people exiting and the people entering on Stratford? Wouldn't that create more problems? Ric Lowman: No. Not if these entrances were wide enough. And there are two of them. Kathy Katsias: Okay. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Lowman? Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bourdon? We will allow you to come back. Is there something that you like to add? Hold on. We have a question from Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: I still have some points that I want to make. First off, I can look at that aerial and look at the plan, and I don't need to really know the traffic count or the median. I'm not so really concerned about the median break because I think probably the vast majority of people are, as Mr. Bourdon suggests, are law abiding and will abide by the no u -turn sign. There are a lot of cars traveling on that corridor every single day. And some of them at pretty healthy speeds, because I travel it almost every day but not every day. And, my concern is that if you pull in to that entrance on Shore Drive as close as it is to that building, particularly when you have cars parked there. If there are no cars Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 16 parked there in this aerial. An ice cream shop and retail shop necessarily generate traffic. That is what they are intended to do. That would be the purpose of having all the entrances to this property at is only three-quarters of an acre by my count. And, I do not believe it is our responsibility in land use planning to support the applicant's lease negotiations. It does not matter to me that they negotiated an entranceway on Shore Drive. Go back and renegotiate. We are not responsible for any retail lease. I can look at that, and to me it appears unsafe. And, whether they negotiated an entrance off of Shore Drive or not in lease negotiation, I just don't see that as our responsibility. I don't see why the entrance points to the three-quarter acre establishment like this one would work where they are off of Stratford. Now, can the applicant avail himself with some other type of retail use? Sure. By -right? Sure. Keep that entrance off of Shore Drive, sure? It probably wouldn't generate as much traffic as the ice cream parlor, which is why we are where we are. I'm always the guy who says we got to stop running around trying to shut down entrances to things. It irritates me as a consumer. I can never get anywhere sometimes. But you can get to this site. There are a few places that have kinds of issues with regards to safety that Shore Drive does. If he wants to avail himself to some other .use, we can't make him close it until he does this redevelopment. This redevelopment will end up getting closed up anyway, and there was a reason why that was included in the original proffers. So, I'm going to introduce a motion to support the application with the staff s recommendation that the entrance off of Shore Drive be closed. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Redmond. Mr. Bourdon, do you have something you care to add? Eddie Bourdon: I just wanted to address the issue of it being a right -in only scenario. The lease for the retail space was executed because the access to Shore Drive is there, and it is perfectly permitted for the retail use. So, it is not a situation trying to bail out anybody's lease issue that was leased to them before we were approached by the ice cream parlor, and the access there is perfectly permissible and will stay there for the retail use. I think that Dave understands that but I just wanted to make sure that I was clear. We are willing to explore with staff between here and Council the potential for this being right -in and right -out only coming this direction, although it is not a 180 turn, it is certainly more than a 90 degree turn. Coming this way would be a pretty simple movement. More than likely the only impediment to that is that this area back here is not paved to standards, and having traffic go through here, which is another entrance back here on Stratford does make sense on first flush with having to repave this area for this interim use is probably again, economically going to make it problematic, but we may be able to work something out in that regard between here and Council. We will explore that with the staff in that interim period. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley? Al Henley: I have another question for you. I'm still trying to work something out for you. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 17 Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate everybody spending so much time on this one on a beautiful afternoon. Al Henley: This is going to be my last question for comment. So, here it goes. There seems to be a lot of concern because of the entrance that is there. I realize that it has been there for decades. But where we are going right now doesn't look too good. My last comment is the radius on the extreme east side. If that radius was torn out, and maybe a new question because it is going to require some money to do this, take that radius right back, tear it out, and move it back say 20-25 feet, and staff will work the details out. The radius on the west side is in other words, shift that whole entrance over. Therefore, because that entrance is lined up perfectly and it is only 30 feet from the entrance of the building, if that entrance was shifted, it would eliminate that 180 turn off of Shore Drive and allow people quickly to exit Shore Drive and get into the property. I'm not sure if that is going to be cost. prohibited or it is a workable solution but whether the entrance can still be there, just shift it over. I would be willing to support that, and then the details would be worked out by the staff. Eddie Bourdon: Let me just say this. This is not going to be an entrance. There is going to be parking in this area. And, I do absolutely understand completely the logic. It is absolutely accurate. It would be preferable, and we are willing to explore it between here and Council, but I think the cost of having to redo this curbing, and extend that is basically going to be the same as putting in a new entrance. So, I guess my common sense, and I may be wrong about that, but I think that is probably going to go be cost prohibited, and so at the end of the day, we are and what it boils down to is the entrance stays for retail use of the entrance, and that is where it is staying, and there be the ice cream parlor. That is what it really boils down to. If the feeling is, and again, I think it may work out. We may be able to do the right -in only but there are some issues and costs that we don't have, so I can't sit here and tell you yes, we can do that but there might be a potential way to make that work, which everything that we're doing here is incrementally trying to make the situation somewhat safer. But I begin to start with a whole point is I don't think anything out there is "unsafe". It is all how we start that discussion from where we begin it. I know you spent a lot of time. We're not going to expect to get a full resolution today but at least everyone understands. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bernas has a question. Jay Bernas: On that point, are you interested having this deferred so you can clean it up some? Eddie Bourdon: No. You got specific proffers. We need to move it on to City Council. We will work with staff between now and try to see if there are any other tweaks we can make. Every step that we've done so far we are doing things, and Ric and I talked that we are making things safer but optimal? I don't think we can get to that point with staff Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 18 because staff s review is that it just needs to be closed. All we can do is just to make it better. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. I'll open it back for discussion. Mr. Bernas first. Jay Bernas: In general, I don't think anyone has an issue with the use. It is really about the entrance. For me, I'm not willing to sacrifice what our traffic engineer is telling us that they would not approve this if this came up for a site plan. It is a safety issue. If they're not going to approve it and they are saying there is a safety issue on Shore Drive where there are a number of other safety issues, I don't think it would be prudent for us to save the developer $50,000 in lieu of public safety. I would have been more agreeable to possibly deferring this. I mean there were a lot of good ideas, I think, thrown out here, but with the way the application is now, it is difficult for me to vote in favor with the entrance. I agree with staff's recommendation that the entrance be moved farther west and closing this entrance but as it stands now, I just don't feel like that saving them $50,000 versus public safety really is a good deal. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: Well, the way that I see it is the fact that if we disapprove this application as submitted that cut is going to stay there, and they are going to have retail it anyway. It is not going to change a thing from what it is right now. It is going to be there and there is not anything that we or anybody else can do about it. So, if we disapprove the application as submitted, then we are just approving for them to use it as retail with the curb cut the way it is. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. So, if we disapprove this, that curb cut is going to stay. And they are going to use it as retail. They are just going to do away with the ice cream parlor. Barry Knight: I don't think it's a point of us disapproving it Mr. Crabtree. I think it's the point of us approving as it is proffered, which means that curb cut goes away or we approve with a recommendation to revisit the proffer between now and Council. I believe those are the two options that we are looking right now. Is there any other discussion? I'm sorry. Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the application with the staff s recommendation to close the entrance on Shore Drive and recommend that the applicant, and thank you for your willingness to pursue this, that the applicant meet with staff on and review the various options with regard to that entrance before Council. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: A point of clarification. Does that mean not give them any entrance off of Shore Drive? You said close. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 19 David Redmond: Close the entrance off of Shore Drive. Henry Livas: Without an option of slipping down to another location? David Redmond: Correct. I am making a motion that we approve the application with the staff's recommendation that the entrance on Shore Drive be closed. Take it to Council what they can come up with staff. And, that would be our recommendation. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor. The Chairman is looking for a second. Is there a second to Mr. Redmond's motion to approve the application as it is presented to us? Mr. Bernas? Do you second it? Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve and it was second. I'll open it up for discussion. Donald Horsley: I have one question of either Jack or Karen or somebody. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: What can he do on this retail? What can he sell? Every thing but ice cream? Karen Lasley: An ice cream parlor is considered a restaurant. That is why he can't do that by -right. But he could do any type of retail. Donald Horsley: He can have a store there and he can sell Dixie cups where he is not serving ice cream so as long as it is not a sit down parlor? Karen Lasley: Yes. The retail is very broad. Donald Horsley: That is what I thought. But it is not quite broad enough. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: Thank you. My comment, I think is probably coming along, and I have agreement with what Jay said earlier. I think the only request here is to add an eating and drinking establishment that is not going to sell alcohol. And, the main thing is whether that is an agreeable use or a compatible use around the neighborhood because it is limited to what the prior application where it should just be retail stores. I believe that a restaurant or something like an ice cream store would be compatible next to a residential area. The issue with the entrance, I think is because of the existing building that we have there, and I'm not in agreement to have them move it 50 feet down just for a temporary time, when they agree to close it totally when they redevelop the site. What I would like to see, and I would make a motion to go ahead and approve it with the addition of the eating and drinking establishment, and I would approve the entrance as is for a temporary use of not more than three years, but I would like to see some type of striping. I don't have that in front of me. And, that is what makes me kind of anxious. I Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 20 would like that worked out between now and Council because that is one thing that Jay had suggested maybe a deferral so that we can like it. I, rather Planning try to work out the striping or where the cars are going to go whether to push it to Council, but if you need to go to Council. I understand. That would be my suggestion is that we get a deferral so we can look at some other options because I do believe that this application would warrant a temporary use of the existing entrance if we could just make it safer. Eddie Bourdon: I think your staff agrees. It is not to take anything away from you all wanting to see it. These clients and have worked with staff throughout this process. The economics are what we are all dealing with. And, we have a lease that is 3,000 square feet that we have to deliver that premises for the retail use. The ice cream parlor is driving this train, so we have to move it forward because we don't have a lease with the ice cream parlor. It is a contingent lease. So, we are more than willing to continue the dialogue with staff to find ways to make it safer then it is currently is within the confines that we discussed at length. Otherwise if it was a normal situation, I would be deferring this all day long. It is not. It is an interim. Just to keep the stock the leave. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: I would like to second Jan's motion. Barry Knight: Let me ask Jan, if she would to make that as a substitute motion. Do you make that as a substitute motion? Janice Anderson: Yes. Barry Knight: So, there is a substitute motion on the floor made by Jan Anderson, seconded by Dot Wood. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Barry Knight: I'll open it among the Commissioners before we vote on the substitute motion first. Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: Just as long as the eating establishment is in accordance with this first paragraph that there will be no alcohol served, no live entertainment. We don't want the eating establishment to be turned into something other than an ice cream parlor. Janice Anderson: I'm in agreement. David Redmond: Did I understand you to put a three year time limit on that? Janice Anderson: Yes. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 21 Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Okay. There is a substitute motion on the floor made by Jan Anderson and seconded by Dot Wood. Is everybody clear that were voting on the substitute motion, which if it carries the other motion goes away? Is there any clarity on that? Mr. Bernas? Jay Bernas: Is there an opportunity to ask Ric one more question? Barry Knight: No. Jay Bernas: Ric, can I ask you one more question? Ric Lowman: Ric Lowman, Traffic Engineering. Jay Bernas: I know you've met with them on several occasions. Do you think there is another solution between now and Council? Ric Lowman: I'm going to tell you the obvious solution is to move the entrance. You get rid of all your safety concerns. I'm not standing here if that happens. You will make it safer. But again, we wouldn't approve it. You asked me if we would approve it for that type of facility, turn it over to high traffic on Shore Drive. We would not approve the entrance except if it was moved. Jay Bernas: So, I guess my question is that there is essentially no hope for any of the ideas that we were talked about today. There is no feasibility in any of those that you would change your mind about anything between now and Council? Ric Lowman: It would make it safer then it would be if they did absolutely nothing. Jay Bernas: The only way you approve is moving it? Ric Lowman: Yes. As a professional engineer, my recommendation would be to move it and get rid of all the safety issues, every single one of them. Jay Bernas: So, anything they would do to make it safer you would still not approve it? Ric Lowman: Not if it came to me as first site plan approval. No sir. Barry Knight: Okay. Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Ric, I so appreciate your work over the past few years. I really enjoyed working with you. You're a very smart young man. The only reason why I'm seconding this motion is the economy right now is not the best it's ever been. And, I would like to see the man be able to get some use out of his property, and I really don't feel like my second of this is anything against you or your recommendations. It is purely the economy. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 22 Ric Lowman: I appreciate that. It's been a pleasure working with you the past couple of years. I've mentioned it to the developers as well and to Mr. Bourdon, there are two issues there, and it comes down to basically what Jay has said earlier, which was do we have to spend the $50,000, and I'm not going to say $50,000 is the number because I really don't know. It comes down to do we make them do that to reconcile the safety issues. I understand the economics. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. We've dealt on this for some time. So, I would like to see the applicants get to use this because just a vacant piece of property is an eyesore. I agree with staff that it is an issue of some concern. However, I like Jan's motion to work with staff to see if some striping or signage or something can take place. Realizing that in probably three years the whole situation is going to go away, and we're going to have a bigger and better use that is going to be in there. With that, I just want to make sure that I had a comment that everyone understood me. Barry Knight: Thank you. We're going to vote on the substitute motion first made by Jan Anderson and seconded by Dot Wood. If the substitute motion carries, the motion to approve the first motion goes away. If the substitute motion fails, then we'll vote on the first motion. So, if everyone is clear, we're voting on the substitute motion. I'll cal for the question. Ed Weeden: By a vote of 6-4, the application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. has been approved fro a temporary use for three years as an eating and drinking establishment and possible striping. Joseph Strange: My vote didn't register. Barry Knight: What was Mr. Strange's vote? It wouldn't make any difference on the outcome. Bill Macali: But his vote does need to be recorded. AYE 6 NAY 4 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS NAY CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS NAY KNIGHT NAY LIVAS AYE REDMOND NAY STRANGE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 6-4, the application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. has been approved fro a temporary use for three years as an eating and drinking establishment and possible striping. Joseph Strange: My vote didn't register. Barry Knight: What was Mr. Strange's vote? It wouldn't make any difference on the outcome. Bill Macali: But his vote does need to be recorded. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 23 Barry Knight: Give us your verbal Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: I vote "NAY". Ed Weeden: NAY? Joseph Strange: Yes. Ed Weeden: By a vote of 6-5. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all for your patience. You all have a wonderful holiday. I do want to ensure you that we will continue to work with staff. It will be safer. 1A BEAc�G °� - R C)� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 'L aha INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE W. ,_mot cam, S. OF OUR NPS �O In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -6915 TO: Leslie L. Lilley Kay r� FROM: B. K Y Wilso DATE: January 11, 2008 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Nantucket by the Bay, LLC The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 22, 2008. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 30, 2007 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/bm Enclosure cc: Kathl en Hassen PREPARED BY: M SYKES, $OURDON. W A14ERN & LEVY. P.C. FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, 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 30th day of October, 2007, by and between NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of three (3) parcels of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately f .78 Acres which are more particularly described as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcels are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a modification to a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to modify conditions to the Zoning Classification of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has requested Grantee to permit this modification of the previously proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions dated May 31, 2005 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia as Instrument #20051103001781020 (hereinafter "2005 Proffers"), to reflect amendments applicable to the land use plan on the Property; 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: 1489-38-7919 1489-39-6043 1489-39-5071 1 PREPARED BY: MSWES, BOURDON. 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 proposed modification of conditions to the zoning, 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 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 modification to the existing zoning conditions with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted, which conditions have a reasonable relation to the proposed modification and the need for which is generated by the proposed modification. 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 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 VINTAGE QUAY", dated May 30, 2005, 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. 2. When the Property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Stratford Road. 3. The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY Bishard Development 111 PREPARED BY: M SYK£S. $OURDON. M AMERN & LEVY. P.C. Retnauer Design Associates", 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 brick and synthetic cedar shake siding. 4• When the Property is redeveloped, there will be no more than eighteen (i8) residential units and no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed commercial space not utilized for residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. 5. Until the Property is redeveloped, if the existing building is to be utilized for any commercial use it shall be renovated, the exterior of the building shall be upgraded with an earth -tone EIFS exterior and landscaping shall be planted substantially in accordance with the "SOUTH ELEVATION FROM SHORE DRIVE / EAST ELEVATION FROM W. STRATFORD RD. INTERSECTION", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Landscape Elevation"). 6. The only commercial uses permitted on the Property are: a. retail shops; b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores; C. business studios, office and clinics; d. medical and dental offices and clinics; and e. an eating and drinking establishment not exceeding 2000 square feet in total floor area; which cannot sell any alcoholic beverages; which cannot have any live entertainment; and which will close daily by no later than ii:oo PM. 7. When the "existing building" is renovated as described in proffer 5, if a portion of the building is used for an eating and drinking establishment, as described in proffer 6(e), the eating and drinking establishment use in the existing building shall not continue beyond June 1, 2011. 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. 9. The Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions set forth herein replace and supersede the 2005 Proffers. The Grantor further covenants and agrees that: All references hereinabove to the B-4 (SD) 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 3 PREPARED BY: M SYKES, BOURDON. RM ARM & LEVY. P.0 approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the 0 PREPARED BY: SYKES. DOURDON, W AHERN & LEVY, P.0 conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. 41 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: Nantucket By The Bay, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company Tic / (SEAL) By: Steven Bishard, Managing Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st day of October, 2007, by Steven Bishard, Managing Member of Nantucket By The Bay, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. i Notary 'Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2010 Notary Registration No.: 192628 PREPARED BY: N IM AR & LEVY, P -C 0 EXHIBIT'W' PARCEL 1: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot 7, in Block 33, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 5, at Page 137. GPIN: 1489-39-7919 PARCEL 2: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot 6, in Block 33, as shown on that certain plat entitled, "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 5, at Page 137. GPIN: 1489-39-6043 PARCEL 3: ALL THOSE certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9, in Block 33, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 5, at Page 137. GPIN: 1489-39-5071 ModificationtoProffers/NantucketbytheBay/Proffer2_clean Rev_i.o8.o8 PREPARED BY: SYK£S, BOURDON, M AR£RN & LEVY. P.C. 7 Item V -J.4. PLANNING -31 - ITEM #56549 Attorney Edward Bourdon, Pembroke Office Park; Building One, 281 Independence Boulevard, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant and requested DEFERRAL until August 14, 2007. His clients have spoken to Kenneth Lacy, President — Lynnhaven Woods Civic League, re storm water runoff and will make arrangements to meet with the Lynnhaven Woods Civic League. Upon motion by Council Lady McClanan„ seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of August 14, 2007, Ordinance upon application of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. for a Conditional Change of Zoning re the construction of a ten (10) unit residential condominium ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANTIY, INC. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONFROMR-7.5 TO CONDITIONAL A-12 Ordinance upon Application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, south of I-264 (GPIN 1487939540). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL Council Lady McClanan reiterated the concern and reduced the Conditional Use Permit from a ten (10) unit to a six (6) unit residential condominium. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOIL Committee met on April 26, 2007, and was of the opinion that there are no other reasonable uses for the property that are compatible with the Navy's AICUZ Program guidelines. A maximum development potential of the site, six (6) unit residential condominium is not unreasonable. This application is within the 65-70 dB DX[ Noise Zone. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Oberndorf, John E. Uhrin, Rosemary Wilson and James Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Ron A. Villanueva Dyer, Barbara M. Mayor Meyera E. L. Wood Juno 72 NW7 Item V -L 10. PLANNING ITEM #56702 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. for a Conditional Change of Zoning re the construction of a ten (10) unit residential condominium: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONFROMR-7.5 TO CONDITIONAL A-12 Ordinance upon Application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, south of I-264 (GPIN 1487939540). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL Voting: 10=0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: William R "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: August 14, 2007 uonairionai I-onrng (.page: trom R 7.5 to A-12 iC• J � SCJ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance upon Application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, south of 1-264 (GPIN 1487939540). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant has received a donation of this parcel for the purpose of creating affordable housing. The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-7.5 property to A-12 Apartment District for the purpose of constructing six (6) unit residential dwellings. On June 12, 2007, the City Council deferred this application at the request of the applicant. ■ Considerations: The existing R-7.5 site is approximately 3.2 acres, of which 1.82 acres is buildable under the City Zoning Ordinance. The 1.82 acres, under the density of the existing R-7.5 zoning, would yield 6 single-family units. The applicant is requesting a conditional rezoning to A-12 Apartment District to allow for six (6) affordable multi -family dwelling units — the same number of units allowed under the existing zoning. The only reason the applicant is requesting the property be rezoned pertains to the type of dwelling unit being proposed; instead of single-family units, the applicant is proposing townhouse style units, which are not permitted in the R-7.5 Residential District, but are allowed in the A- 12 Apartment District. The site is located within the 65 to 70 dB DNL AICUZ. Also, under the amendments to Article 18 of the City Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on January 8, 2008, the site is within Sub -Area 3 of the 65-70 AICUZ. Section 1804(c) of the ordinance specifies that for discretionary applications for residential development within Sub -Area 3, the same standards apply as in the 70-75 dB DNL and Greater than 75 dB DNL AICUZ, i.e., no discretionary development application for a residential use may be approved if there is any reasonable non-residential use of the subject property. If no such use exists, the South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Page 2of2 City Council may allow the proposed use of such property at the lowest density that is reasonable. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Committee determined that the residential development for the site is acceptable under the criteria of Section 1804(c) for Sub -Area 3, as the proposed density is at 6 dwelling units, which is the same density that the existing zoning yields, and there is no other reasonable AICUZ-compatible use of the site. There is no change in density being proposed. The report of the MOU Committee is attached. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request. ■ Attachments: MOU Committee Report Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen *�,-- City Manage 1 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF 2 SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 3 FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION 4 FROM R-7.5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL 5 A-12 APARTMENT DISTRICT 6 7 g WHEREAS, South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity (hereinafter the 9 "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for a change of zoning district 10 classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on 11 3.2 acres of property located Zurich Arch, in the Rose Hall District (hereinafter the 12 "Property"); and 13 WHEREAS, the application contemplates the development of six (6) single-family 14 dwellings on the Property; and 15 WHEREAS, the Property is located within Sub -Area 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise 16 Zone; and 17 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1804 of the City Zoning Ordinance, it is the 18 policy of the City Council that no application for a change of zoning of property for a 19 residential use within Sub -Area 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone shall be approved 20 unless the City Council finds that no reasonable non-residential use can be made of the 21 property, in which event the City Council may allow the proposed residential use of such 22 property at the lowest density that is reasonable; 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 24 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 25 That the City Council hereby finds that: 26 1. No reasonable non-residential use can be made of the Property; and 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 2. The proposed density of development contemplated by the application is the lowest density that is reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the application. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the application is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Conditional Zoning Agreement dated October 23, 2007, which Agreement was exhibited to the City Council this date. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the day of January, 2008. CA -10610 R-1 January 14, 2008 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning epartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: r� City Attorney's Office 2 REPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NOW COMMITTEE January 10, 2008 SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from R- 7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, south of 1-264 (GPIN 1487939540). Comprehensive Plan - Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop residential dwellings. AICUZ is 65 to 70 dB Ldn. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL. SUMMARY: The applicant has received a donation of this parcel for the purpose of creating affordable housing. The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-7.5 property to A-12 Apartment District for the purpose of constructing a six (6) unit residential condominium. Habitat for Humanity will provide permanent condominium management for this community. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) COMMITTEE: The site is located within the 65 to 70 dB DNL AICUZ. Also, under the amendments to Article 18 of the City Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on January 8, 2008, the site is within Sub -Area 3 of the 65-70 AICUZ. Section 1804(c) of the ordinance specifies that for discretionary applications for residential development within Sub -Area 3, the same standards apply as in the 70-75 dB DNL and Greater than 75 d6 DNL AICUZ, i.e., no discretionary development application for a residential use may be approved if there is any reasonable non-residential use of the subject property. If no such use exists, the City Council may allow the proposed use of such property at the lowest density that is reasonable. The existing R-7.5 site is approximately 3.2 acres, of which 1.82 acres is buildable under the City Zoning Ordinance. The 1.82 acres, under the density of the existing R-7.5 zoning, would yield 6 single-family units. The applicant is requesting a conditional rezoning to A-12 Apartment District to allow for six (6) affordable multi -family dwelling units — the same number of units allowed under the existing zoning. The only reason the applicant is requesting the property be rezoned pertains to the type_ of dwelling unit being proposed; instead of single- family units, the applicant is proposing townhouse style units, which are not Report of MOU Committee Habitat for Humanity January 10, 2008 Page 2 permitted in the R-7.5 Residential District, but are allowed in the A-12 Apartment District. After discussion, the MOU Committee determined that the residential development for the site is acceptable under the criteria of Section 1804(c) for Sub -Area 3, as the proposed density is at 6 dwelling units, which is the same density that the existing zoning yields. There is no change in density being proposed. Additionally, the MOU Committee determined that due to the location of the site, bordered by residential development on two sides and 1-264 on one side, there is no other reasonable use of the property available. In sum, the MOU Committee finds that the proposal meets the criteria provided for this site in Section 1804(c) of the City Zoning Ordinance. REVISED SUBMISSION SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. January 22, 2008 City Council Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on Zurich Arch, south of 1-264. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14879395400000 3 — ROSE HALL 3.2 acres The applicant has received a donation of this parcel for the SUMMARY OF REQUEST purpose of creating affordable housing. The applicant originally proposed to rezone the existing R-7.5 property to A-12 Apartment District for the construction of a ten (10) unit residential condominium. After the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) meeting and the report by Planning Staff recommending a reduction of units from ten to six, the applicant has provided a revised layout depicting six (6) multifamily units. Habitat for Humanity will provide permanent condominium management for this community. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site SURROUNDING LAND North: • Across 1-264 is undeveloped property recently approved for a USE AND ZONING: church / 1-1 Industrial District South: . Across Zurich Arch is multi -family residential (townhomes) / A- 12 Apartment District East: . Single-family residential / R 7-5 Residential District SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 1 REVISED SUBMISSION West: . Across Zurich Arch is multi -family residential (townhomes) /A- 12 Apartment District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is treed. A portion of this site is floodway. Residential density credit is not allowed for any areas that are water, marsh wetlands, or the floodway portion of the floodplain. CHESAPEAKE BAY: This proposal lies with in the Resource Management Area. No Chesapeake Bay Board variance required. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Navy's Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program provides that additional residential use than the current zoning is discouraged within the 65 to 70 dB DNL. See letter from the Department of the Navy at the end of this report Additional comments pertaining to AICUZ are provided below in the Evaluation and Recommendation section of the report. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Zurich Arch is a residential street and Is not shown on the MTP or CIP. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Zurich Arch 32,869 ADT Zurich Arch is a residential Existing Land Use — street. Traffic Engineering 112 ADT has no traffic volume data Proposed Land Use S— on this local street. 235 ADT las defined by R 7.5 single-family Sas defined by A-12 multi -family STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: This is a low area with culvert under 1-264 in the northwest corner of the site. Drainage issues are a concern. WATER: This site must connect to City water. Hydraulic analysis is required to ensure potential water demand can be met. There is a 6 -inch City water line in Zurich Arch. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station 504and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an 8 -inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in the 24 -foot alley north of Rainier Court. POLICE DEPARTMENT: The applicant should provide a street lighting plan for review by City staff. It is strongly recommended that all external door strike plates shall be secured with a minimum two and one half (2 SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 2 REVISED SUBMISSION '/2) inch screws to improve the integrity and overall strength of door and frame against forcible entry. FIRE DEPARTMENT: No current Fire Department concerns. A complete review will be done during the site plan review process. DEPARTMENT of HOUSING UeNEIGHBORHOOD st a d N t wbl HBOill ae Oabitatfor Humanity ON: Housing y to provide six (6) unit of affordable d Neighborhood Preservation supports this req housing. DEPARTMENT of PARKS and RECREATION: It is recommended that a new shared use pathway be constructed within the north side of Zurich Arch right-of-way to connect to the school park amenities at nearby Lynnhaven Elementary School. These improvements would provide safer pedestrian connectivity for future residents. Parks and Recreation may be able to help coordinate or cost -participate in these improvements. SCHOOLS: School Current Capacity GenerationChange 2 Enrollment 0.7 L nnhaven Elementa 440 516 2 5 0.5 Plaza Middle 1201 1215 1.4 0.1 Green Run Hi h 1712 1798 1.6 ' "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). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for this area focus 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, (pp. 89-90). The Comprehensive Plan also notes that the City should strive to "Provide an adequate supply of safe, decent, attractive and diverse housing, with a range of values including owner -occupied and rental units, to accommodate the present and future needs of all Virginia Beach residents. Good ansind stale housing g and neighborhoods are also more than a path to economic prosperity. Decent, has a demonstrable positive and stabilizing effect on families and, especially, children," (pg. 237). EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 3 REVISED SUBMISSION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application as proposed. Evaluation: This application was filed over a year ago and was put on hold to handle issues revealed during the review process. The first issue dealt with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. After careful review, the property was determined to be part of the Resource Management Area and the building area is in the highland of the property. Chesapeake Bay staff gave administrative approval for this proposal. The existing R-7.5 site is approximately 3.2 acres, of which 1.82 acres is buildable under the City Zoning Ordinance. The 1.82 acres, under the density of the existing R-7.5 zoning, would yield 6 single-family units. The applicant is requesting a conditional rezoning to A-12 Apartment District to allow for six (6) affordable multi -family dwelling units — the same number of units allowed under the existing zoning. The only reason the applicant is requesting the property be rezoned pertains to the type of dwelling unit being proposed; instead of single-family units, the applicant is proposing townhouse style units, which are not permitted in the R-7.5 Residential District, but are allowed in the A-12 Apartment District. After discussion, the MOU Committee determined that the residential development for the site is acceptable under the criteria of Section 1804(c) for Sub -Area 3, as the proposed density is at 6 dwelling units, which is the same density that the existing zoning yields. There is no change in density being proposed. Additionally, the MOU Committee determined that due to the location of the site, bordered by residential development on two sides and 1-264 on one side, there is no other reasonable use of the property available. Staff concludes, based on the characteristics of the surrounding area, the Comprehensive Plan's guidance for this area, and the discussion of the MOU Committee in determining a reasonable density for this site within this AICUZ, that the most reasonable number of residential units for this site is six (6). The applicant has reduced the proposed number of dwelling units to six (6). Staff can recommend approval of this application based on this revised plan. 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 developed, it shall be subdivided and the layout of the townhomes shall be substantially in accordance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT OF ZURICH ARCH PROPERTY" dated 09/21/07, 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 the "Conceptual Plan"). SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 4 REVISED SUBMISSION PROFFER 2: ore than six (6) residential townhome units, as depicted When the property is developed, there will be no m on the Concept Plan. PROFFER 3: When the Property is developed, the residential structures depicted on the Concept Plan shall have the architectural design and appearance substantially as depicted on combined HABITAT titOR H led UILDIN Y" FRONT ELEVATIONS OF ZURICH ARCH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA and "BUILDING ROOF PLANS OF ZURICH ARCH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY" dated October 10, 2007 prepared by Kroskin Design Group which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations"). PROFFER 4: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration o applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable if the project were to receive a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval from the City Council. Staff suggested a reduction in the number of units would require a revision to the proffers. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 23, 2007, 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. SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 5 REVISED SUBMISSION tLL/� LL. LL. LL. LL N V)VlV)HN u'f�01Cpr'� m N1DMt� `aoOetin ` �t�OQ�01 P,� -H4414f-H L L L 6` L 0 0 0 0 0 0 s e+rlrrNrN ,N .. r-Nn1Vm Q ++ ++ *0 0 5 in a U C U W C. 0 oe CL I U Q SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 6 REVISED SUBMISSION MN511 Heid H�dnz _CC f II i iia- at � `u1 Fid t� x 41 4 _ �i� LTi 12Ij�� FR F-3 .�. I�1� C !Z,4vTac� rt, . PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 7 REVISED SUBMISSION # br an w*v eu n �W i } H 0 8 V HoiunZ 1 F PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 8 REVISED SUBMISSION Mapt H-7 Ma Noto Scale B- 2 -NV C N South Hampton Roads Habitat tor Humangy2 1 Conditionai zoning unage: rrom K /.5 iv n- f 1 04/24/07 1 Conditional Rezoning from 1-1 to 0-2 1 Granted ZONING HISTORY SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 9 REVISED SUBMISSION Z cW G W Q F -- co W of r D 0 co U m O m O O O L .0 2 c m R comm i moc oL_mz Em E mmm ° � y E ii -E° -'CL tl° 17 m m E I I I m C_ y> + Ems. 41 mca O L c°cmO�m4cm � c07 m a;_m 7 5Z sE> 7W W W m a c c m« m E m a mc�pm cCL m am °� o _` °o VL°O o°l S Em04000 i mm�o �cmro=�mem> o` cQcn° �Ln'm W oy LmamcCu Oa H Z o o E`m° Wcooc`i c �• m OyL Efmm c ZNcm Y O m4 UE E� amh Gn mC L •0 mo O'oL off? a mE.2 f> num' o3om EQcc Lcmm _G .•°.°c-.`mm� --m`' i'j=cc c m� Qs> o W\ m d a x`C 3m m ° coo .m47'la mmmmmm a 0= f C a N m L m C L O O O ill N .L. m c •� Q T m I 1 o m G c ; ry mm- o I a` m m° c S$ E `m ti O c m=Q I m mmZW' m=mmm L 0-1-1 eV° GV- m� Z O m`m==m H E U>�f6 fitm �Iwp VmngyNmmVm�cmH:�O`Loc m Qe000 I cn_mmW V`oEamm=m m`o�Npm ,f .5.05 m�a"cc W Gmm _ 3m m' U1 my $3m c mmc G v �nomm mt ao < -5 GE -:E S� != s I� Omar xmm�" y aJ may ti "c'cw�ma;mm�ml d Emm` O:E E C -.0 U� 0_ aaCm3m ytZZ l ml o c I n m mcmmCV m L" Ixct G° Y Ig ° m m til o SmO{ I v i s n c8 Go E SUS o: mn2 < U n L ti c` NOIlDrIddV 9NINOZgaua IWOURN03 A H Z W LU W F- H W O J Q 0 J SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 10 2 c m E G 17 m m E I I I m L Ems. O I m C a L L y L V O 7 o m W W am °� o _` ¢pi Ey m qe' a Kaci m o`y n 0`cE my oy Oa H Z o o W me ec N L cmi a UE E� i c m O'oL off? I -°� Q Q C n I I L W\ m d a ! 7 Q c a o` m m¢ ti O c m=Q I m ! J m c� = OI CL a3r GV- m� Z O m e G� n� C N m Qe000 I I m mN 'c wo° a0o m m LmaLymm Emm` O:E E C -.0 U� 0_ aaCm3m m G m1 Lo o c EL m I o SmO{ mm R N L f tic° o0E �' OG©E - 0 a3 .' o Om' to G V M m _ c m m n q m � y O m N T O. : t a G N a I � m G m o 4 u ty, O m 1` G y 0 0 w L _ Cc,yl m v m { V L O $ O V :n o�c:7' I �E U 21 O ' N ❑ U= C r N ❑r"� SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 10 REVISED SUBMISSION Board of Directors George "Chip" Slaven Jr., President Irwin Kroskin, R.A., Vice President Kimberly Painter, Treasurer Cathy Lewis, Secretary Dan Bell Michael Benedetto Bett Cornetta Ernest Hefferon James "Ken" Jolly Wendy Juren Greg Lyndon, J.D. John Nogosek George Parker Pat Roll Frederick Schmitt Paul Shelton Phil Stewart Ralph Thomann Matthew Weinstein Christine Work, LPC Steve Zahn, J.D. SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY January 22, 2008 City Council Meeting Page 11 Item #14 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Change of Zoning District Classification East side of Zurich Arch, South of I-264 District 3 Rose Hall May 9, 2007 REGULAR Barry Knight: We will now proceed into our public hearing portion. Today, we have three agenda items to be heard. We are going to hear these out of order today. We're going to hear agenda item 14 first, and then agenda item 16. The reason for that is we don't believe there will be near as much discussion on those two items as it will be on agenda item you are all here for. Mr. Secretary, will you please call agenda item 14 please? Joseph Strange: Sure. The first item is item 14, South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. An Ordinance upon Application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-12 Apartment District on property located on the east side of Zurich Arch, South of I-264, District 3, Rose Hall, with four proffers. Barry Knight: Welcome Eddie. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is my lucky day. For the record, I'm Virginia Beach Attorney Eddie Bourdon representing the applicant South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc., and the president, as well as the director who will be speaking briefly. First thing I want to do is pass around the elevation of the buildings and the building materials. This, as was read, is a conditional rezoning from unconditional R- 7.5 to Conditional A-12 with a proffered plan to develop a 10 unit residential condominium where the American dream of home ownership will come true for 10 hard working deserving families in Virginia Beach. Each of the ten units will be owned by the family, which occupies that unit. The condominium, which will govern the property, will be permanently managed by Habitat for Humanity helping to ensure that the proper upkeep and maintenance of these 10 units will take place in perpetuity. The property itself is located on the south side of I-264 and on the east side of Zurich Arch, which is a public right-of-way that serves the Plaza Apartment complex. As you can see on the composite map, it is a very uniquely and oddly shaped piece of property. The developable portion of the property is here. It is basically a triangular shape piece of property. This is Zurich Arch. The property, which is currently zoned to be developed as single-family residential, however, due to the unique size and topographic challenges of the property, you could not put a public street on to that property and divide it into lots with the current zoning. The best you could hope to do would be four, very large, in terms of area but strangely shaped single-family lots on that piece of property. Habitat, which was donated this piece of property a couple of years ago has worked with staff and Item #14 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Page 2 with the environmental folks, and this is a development that will fit on this property. It doesn't need any variances for two five -unit buildings and a road that services it. It is not a public right-of-way. It will be maintained by the condominium association and put in by Habitat for Humanity as the developer of the property. The units, and you can see the large front yards as they kind of squeeze together as you get back on the property. The interesting thing here is that these units closest to Zurich Arch, they're 25 foot setbacks on the property line, however, it is over 50 feet to the edge of the curb in the road. They are setback very nicely from the public right-of-way. Similarly, these units are set back close to 100 feet from the road that serves the condominium, 75 feet from the edge of the parking pad. It gets closer as you get back to the back units. These units, once you pass the parking area, are 25 feet back from the road in the area here, and they are a little over 30 feet back from the road. You've seen the elevations. This is what we are talking about constructing. We got over 1.8 acres of developable land and a very strange configuration but is how much is developable. The proposed density is ten -units works out to 5'/z units per acre. That is not a high density by any stretch. In fact, it is the same density you will have in R-5 residential district. But you can't develop this type of project in a R-5 Residential District because of the attached nature of these town homes. The topographic, as I mentioned before, precludes us from putting in a standard city street with a bulb cul-de-sac at the end of that street. Directly across from this property, the Plaza Apartments are located. These apartments are developed at 12 units per acre, and these are developed at 18 units per acre. The density, overall within this area, is more than doubled that is proposed for this property with these 10 units on 1.8 acre. In other words, 1.8 acres across the street would have over 20 units in them. The development that we are proposing is 1.4 acres of open space. Associated with these ten units. As you can see, when you look at the plan or the shape of the property. It is a much needed project, within the City of Virginia Beach, and it is well designed. The property is in the lowest noise zone around NAS Oceana. It is in the 65dB. And according the AICUZ Overlay that we adopted over 17 months ago, this was an area that was essentially to be unaffected by those ordinance requirements. In other words, it is not the 70dB to 75dB noise zone. It is not in the 75 and above noise zone. It is not or near any of the APZs. But, however, the Navy because of their OPNAV Instructions is commenting on every application that involves a non -compatible use under OPNAV, no matter where it is or what noise zone it is in. What could the Navy concern about this property's use at this location possibly be? It is not in the Interfacility Traffic Area. It is nowhere near it. By adding lights on the ground, obviously is not a concern to touch, and go landings at Fentress Airfield, with regard to this piece of property. It is not in a crash risk area. The bigger crash risk probably exists from the interstate that we abut. The only conceivable issue present is noise. We will certainly do noise attenuation on these units. We will certainly need to because the almost constant noise level from 1-264 will be at a decibel level that higher is than the 65dB average day/night noise level. The single event noise will be larger but the average dB level right next to the interstate is going to 65 or greater anyway. Last night, City Council voted to buy some property in the 65dB noise zoned in the Interfacility Traffic Area. The AOS Property, and you all heard me make a presentation on that a few months ago. That was a very good precedent Item # 14 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Page 3 and a very good thing to do. It shows the city's commitment to protect that Interfacility Traffic Area, the area where there is a legitimate concern regarding protecting Oceana. However, ladies and gentlemen, this property is in the same 65dB noise zone as is over 80 percent of our resort area. Nowhere near any Interfacility Traffic Area. At the Oceanfront, we have a plan that is going to redevelop the Oceanfront, and zoning has been approved at the Oceanfront at 36 units per acre, in the same noise zone. We're dealing with a need for a Convention Center Hotel right next to the Pavilion, in the 70 and above noise zone. How many units is that which are incompatible? Folks? This is an area this application makes exceedingly good sense for and recognized the letter that is in your file, which was sent by the Navy close to two years ago but, there objection to 10 units, in our opinion, doesn't hold water. We need this project. It is one that is for the good of everyone. It cannot be developed as 6 units economically, put in the road, and put in all the things that need to be done, you can't do it. You can't do it and keep the housing affordable for the people we are trying to serve. We appreciate the staff working with us for the last two years on this project. We appreciate their comments about the desirability and their support for the project. And, I do understand certainly that the only reason that it exists from the idea that 10 units is too many is the issue with the Navy. I'm sorry they aren't here or that issue wasn't able to be resolved. I'm sorry that I wasn't available to discuss it with them when they had a meeting. But, we think that is certainly a project that worthy of your affirmative vote. And with that, I`ll be happy to answer any questions. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon at this time? Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: Speaking in support of the application is John Morgan Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record. John Morgan: Good afternoon. I'm John Morgan. I'm the Executive Director of Habitat of Humanity South Hampton Roads. Habitat for Humanity, who partners with community volunteers and businesses to build high quality affordable housing for working lower income families making 30 to 60 percent of the areas median income. These unique partnerships greatly rewards not only for the families but also for the communities in which they are built. Do you know that a 100,000 people in South Hampton Roads live under the poverty line and 70 percent of them are children? Do you know the median costs of a two bedroom apartment is $805.00 a month and the minimum wage earner would have to work 118 hours a week to afford rent. One of the most important rewards is that homeownership helps build successful children. Compared to children of renters, the same age, race, income, etc, the children of homeowners are 25 Item #14 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Page 4 percent more likely to graduate from high school, 116 percent more likely to graduate from college, 20 percent less likely to become teenage mothers. They are less likely to have alcohol and substance abuse problems. They save taxpayers thousands in public expenditures by reducing juvenile delinquency, teenage pregnancy, etc. They are 59 percent more likely to own a home within ten years of moving from their parent's household. What a wonderful investment in the future of our children and our community. We're there today to ask you to rezone a piece of property so that Habitat and our volunteers can make that investment for 10 lower income families in your community. As I mentioned earlier, Habitat builds decent, safe affordable housing for lower income families making 30 to 60 percent of the areas median income. We sell these houses to qualified families at no profit and zero percent interest. This allows us to keep their payments at between $400 to $500 per month for the principal, taxes and insurance. Our houses cost us approximately $65,000 to build. On this piece of property, the development of the infrastructure will be approximately $400,000 to $500,000. We can make this investment for 10 town home units and still keep the homes affordable, which will be between $105,000 and $115,000 a piece. Developing that property for anything less than ten units, would make these homes unaffordable with a 30 to 60 percent median families that we serve. We're not asking you to recreate anything different or special for the Lynnhaven Woods neighborhood. As you have seen, the aerial view of the site location is right across the street from Zurich Arch, where there are multi -family residential town homes zoned A-12, and one block down at Coral Gables zoned A-18. Our lot has 1.82 buildable acres, which currently would yield six residential units. Surely, four additional units on this size property and in this neighborhood, would not cause any additional problems, and will actually upgrade the community. There are hundreds and hundreds of hard working lower income individuals in Virginia Beach community that are unable to afford decent safe affordable housing in which to raise their families. Jet noise is not a problem for them but the dream of raising a family in their own home is. Please help us make this dream come true for 10 deserving families in your community. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Morgan? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Matthew Weinstein. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record. Matthew Weinstein: My name is Matthew Weinstein. I'm a resident of Virginia Beach. I own a business that operates at the Beach. I'm Chairman of the Covenant of Virginia Beach, which is a consortion of 22 churches all located in Virginia Beach that acts as a building partner with Habitat for Humanity. We build, raise money and we're going to try to do this project. I'm also on the Board of Directors of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity and I serve as a member of the Virginia Beach Workforce Housing Roundtable. I am familiar with the work recently done by you all and City Council with regard to development of a work force housing program. I am very appreciative of that. Item #14 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Page 5 It is in that spirit that I come to you today. I know the neighborhood very well. We had a townhouse donated to Habitat, which we restored last year. We put one of our families in it in that neighborhood on Rainier Court. I also feel strongly about the use of all 10 units if possible. I would seriously ask for your consideration. We are limited in land, and that has been our great challenge over the last four years. For the first time in three years, today we are starting a project that is new construction on a piece of land that was donated. And, that project is on Aragona Boulevard, and we could not have done that without the assistance of the City. They helped us get that property and we're very grateful. In this case, I'm sort of asking you for that help today. If we can get ten families in, we do not know when our next property will come around. We don't have property on the horizon. And, you are more aware than I am about what's happening to the cost of land in the City over the last 6 to 12 years. So, in that spirit, I come to you today to ask for your consideration. Also, I would like to make a point again that has been made by my predecessors. These are working families. Four of those units are also going to be structured in such a way that makes them handicapped accessible. A number of the folks that fall into that category of deserving families income wise, many times do have handicaps. I thank you very much for your patience and consideration. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Weinstein? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: That is all of our speakers. Barry Knight: We have none in opposition. Joseph Strange: None in opposition. Barry Knight: Okay. I'll open it up amongst the Commissioners. Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Knight, if it is appropriate, I would like to make a motion that we support the 10 units. I fully support the United States Navy, and most of you know, I never voted against them but in this one case, I believe that our Habitat for Humanity is one of the best groups that we have in our city. Owning a home is an American dream. These people deserve the dream. This group, Habitat for Humanity, has just done wonderful things in the City. Mr. Bourdon, I appreciate you working with them, and I appreciate the Board of Directors, who are here today. As a proud owner of the pirate ship from your toolbox bash, I certainly do support you, and I'm happy to make the motion to support the ten homes. Barry Knight: Very well said. Thank you Ms. Wood. There is a motion on the floor. There is a second by Mr. Horsley. I'll open it back up for discussion. Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: I am in agreement with Ms. Wood. Besides the great things that they do and the need of the community, I believe that changing the zoning to A-12 is actually appropriate. Our agreement of understanding with the Navy in this position even states Item #14 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Page 6 that when zoning is what we don't see, it is not reasonable, then we can change it to something that is reasonable. I think the R-7.5 here is not reasonable rezoning for this piece of property. It is not going to connect to the adjoining R-7.5, it is going to connect to the A-12, so that is how you're going to access it, and I think it would be wrong to put single-family homes that is connecting through A-12 and A-18 property. Especially, this property is challenged in its shape and its ability to build on it. I'm just glad that Habitat has acquired the property to build these homes on it. So, I believe even with our agreement with the Navy, our agreement of understanding that the current zoning is improper, and the reasonable zoning would be A-12. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: Yes. This happens to be in my district. I'm concerned about the piece of property and the things surrounding it. And being a retired Navy member myself, I strongly support the Department of Defenses stand. However, in reading the letter that we received from the Department of Defense and the Navy to this, there is really, in their letter no great strong objection to the City approving this application. It is more of a matter of formality I think, than it is a strong disagreement with doing this. Habitat of Humanity is going to improve this property. It is a much better use of the property than what is being done. And the use, as it stands now, the surrounding neighborhoods has to benefit from this by an example to include the residents surrounding the neighborhood to bring it up to a higher standard. And, because of these things, I'm going to go ahead and support this even though it is going against my grain, as far as the military is concerned. But, I don't really think the military has that strong of an objection to it. Therefore, I am going to support the application. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Is there any other discussion? There is a motion on the floor to approve by Dot Wood and seconded by Don Horsley. Since there is no other discussion, I'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS ABSENT KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Item # 14 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Page 7 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved the application of South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. has been approved. Barry Knight: Thank you. L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB) HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL'S SCHEDULE February 19, 2008 Virginia Beach Convention Center 7 - 9 PM City-wide Town Meeting Stormwater Plans and Funding If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 *********** Agenda I/22/08st www.vbgov.com CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH BRIEFINGS: SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS A CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY Jeannine Perry, Project Manager— V O I Continental DATE: January 8, 2008 M B L D Research C E L PAGE: 1 E D H Association, Inc. C R A W S I E J L N U N I AGENDA T E D N O A D H U L W ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E Z Y L N N O R E S O P E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D U BRIEFINGS: A CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY Jeannine Perry, Project Manager— Continental Research Association, Inc. B WEB SITE- REAL ESTATE Jerald Banagan, ASSESSMENTS Real Estate Assessor C EMERGENCY OPERATIONS Chief Steve Cover, Fire Department II/QIU IV/ VNI/ E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED CERTIFIED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y SESSION B S T A I N E D F MINUTES Informal/Formal Sessions 12/112007 APPROVED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y B S T A I N E D G/H-I PUBLIC HEARINGS: ELECTION PRECINCT CHANGE at No speakers BUCKNER 2 CAPITAL BUDGET re Urban Area No speakers Strategic Initiative I/J-I Ordinance to AMEND Sect 10-1 of City ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Code moving Buckner Precinct Polling CONSENT Place to Green Run Baptist Church 2-a Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments: Dana R. Jacksoninto Island Lake 2400 ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Windward Shore Drive. DISTRICT S CONDITIONED, LYNNHAVEN BY CONSENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH James B., Jr./Terri L. Ewing/Glen A./M. ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Y Y Nicole Williams intoLake Rudee at 726 CONDITIONED, Kennedy Avenue. DISTRICT 6- BY CONSENT V 0 I BEACH DATE: January 8, 2008 M B L c D ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y C E Y L Y Y PAGE: 2 E D H CONDITIONED, C R A W S I E J L N U N I AGENDA T E D N 0 A D H U L W ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 P E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D b James B., Jr./Terri L. Ewing/Glen A./M. ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nicole Williams intoLake Rudee at 726 CONDITIONED, Kennedy Avenue. DISTRICT 6- BY CONSENT BEACH c 11' Street L.C. into a portion oftVh Street/ ADOPTED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Atlantic(Ocean Ave. DISTRICT 6- CONDITIONED, BEACH BY CONSENT 3 Ordinance to CREATE a new Capital ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Budget item'APPROPRIATE $3,213,780 CONSENT from DHS/ UASI re Hampton Roads Overlay Regional Interoperability Network (ORION). 4 Ordinance toAPPROPRIATE $48,000 re ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y City's share of costs forTBA pre- CONSENT apprenticeship programfor future employment in residential construction 5 ResolutionSUPPORTING multi -modal DEFERRED TO 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y accommodatims for interim improvements 01/08/2008 to r -o -w re enhance safety for pedestrians/ cyclists 6 Resolution toEXPRESS SUPPORT for ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Regional Waste Management Study re CONSENT Landfill #2 expansionAUTHORIZE Virginia Beach portion of Study reSPSA needs for future 2018 to 2050. K-1 Variance to §4.4(b) of the Subdivision APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ordinance that all lots meetCZO for RJP, CONDITIONED, L.L.C., at 204 6Td Street. BY CONSENT DISTRICT 5— LYNNHAVEN 2 FOR PETE'S SAKE, L.L.C. CUP re APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y riding academy/horses for hire or CONDITIONED, boarding at 2428 London Bridge Road. BY CONSENT DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 3 HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH CUP re APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y columbariumat 5350 Providence Road. CONDITIONED, DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE BY CONSENT 4 NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. DEFERRED TO 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Conditiond CZO approved October 25, 01/22/08, BY 2005 for S & J LLC at 3762Shore Drive/ CONSENT 3707 Stratford Road 5.a Ordinances toAMEND: Sect 405/1802/1803/1804/1805/1806/1807 ADOPTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y of CZO/ADDING redevelopment of property inAICUZ b Official Zoning MapADDING 65 — 70 dB ADOPTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DNL Noise Zone CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Comp Plan incorporating 65 — 70 dB DNL ADOPTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Y Y Noise Zone/Interfacility Traffic Area/Map of Sub -Areas 1/2/3 V O I APPOINTMENTS DATE: January 8, 2008 M B L D Reappointed C E L PAGE: 3 E D H 3 year term C R A W S I E J L N U N I AGENDA T E D N O A D H U L W ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E Z Y L N N O R E S O P E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D c Comp Plan incorporating 65 — 70 dB DNL ADOPTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Noise Zone/Interfacility Traffic Area/Map of Sub -Areas 1/2/3 L APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD Reappointed 3 year term 01/01/2008 — 12/31/2010 Michael L. Clark Appointed 3 year term 01/01/2008 — 12/31/2010 Dr. Carolyn Huntley O'Toole HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION Reappointed 3 year term 01/08/2008- 12/31/2010 Linwood 0. Branch, III, Michael Cloud Butler, Henry M. Ryto, Sylvia N. Strickland, Arthur Webb, Gerrie King West Appointed 3 year term 01/01/2008 — 12/31/1010 Jim Davis M/N/O ADJOURNMENT 7:21 PM PUBLIC COMMENTS No speakers CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I DATE: January 8, 2008 M B L D C E L PAGE: 4 E D H C R A W S I E J L N U N I AGENDA T E D N 0 A D H U L W ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 P E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D CITY COUNCIL'S JANUARY 2008 SCHEDULE January 15, 2008 January 22, 2008 February 19, 2008 City-wide Town Meeting Workshop 4— 6 PM Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning Virginia Beach Convention Center 7 - 9 PM Starmwater Plans and Funding