Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFEBRUARY 24, 2004 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MA YOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At-Large VICE MA YOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District HARRY E. DIEZ, EL, Kempsville - District 2 MARGARET L. EURE, Centerville - District I REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne- District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT, At-Large RON A. VILLANUEVA, At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L. LILLEY, Ci.ty Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMCA, City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTttOUSE DRIV VIRGINIA BEACtt, VIRGINIA 23456-8002 PHONE: (75 7) 427-430: FAX (757) 426-566f E MAIL: Ctycncl~ vbgov, con February 24, 2004 JOINT BRIEFINGS: CITY COUNCIL and SCHOOL BOARD - Einstein Lab 1:00 P.M. School Administration Building NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Diane Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Accountability . HEALTHCARE PLAN Susan Walston, Chief of Staff Barbara Bailey, Mercer Consulting II. CITY APPOINTEE BRIEFING - Conference Room 3:00 P.M. o REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR'S ANNUAL REPORT Jerald Banagan, Real Estate Assessor III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room 4:30 P.M. Ae Bo CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL Co RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber 6:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf 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 February 3, 2004 2. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS February 1 O, 2004 G. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION o RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION: Carolyn Brown "CATCH OF A LIFETIME" H. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of Lake Joyce by CHARLES W. MOORE to construct and maintain a bulkhead and pier at 4433 Blackbeard Road. (DISTRICT 4- BAYSIDE) . Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple for extension of Elson Green Avenue and intersection improvements at Princess Anne Road re an elementary school and temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. o , o o o Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of two (2) parcels of real property (18.04 acres) at Providence Road and Reon Drive for $3,650,000 (Parcel A @ $3,300,000 & Parcel B ~ $350,000) from ROLAND E. and EVELYN B. HAR.GROVE and the ELLWOOD iL. SAHR FAMILY TRUST. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $367,800 from the federal revenue maximization initiative to the Department of Social Services' FY operating budget re providing human services programs approved by the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT). Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $11,500 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2003-2004 operating budget re training and equipping one hundred (100) new Volunteers for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an agreement between the Cit3~ and the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) to participate in the SPARC (Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities) home ownership program. Ordinance GRANTING the Virginia Beach School Board a Nonexclusive License (dated February 24, 2004) to construct, maintain and operate fiber optic cable facilities on the public rights-of-way. Ko RESOLUTIONS ° Resolution to APPOINT Jennifer V. Huelsberg to the position of Assistant City Attorney, effective March 1, 2004. o Resolution to AMEND and READOPT Interim Guidelines governing applications for land use development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). L° PLANNING Application of DAVID W. and MICHELE N. COUCH for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cape Henry Drive to incorporate this property into their residential lot at Sand Pine Drive. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL . Application of VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER, INC., a Virginia Corporation T/A BEACH FC for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer fields) at Shipps Comer and Holland Roads. (DISTRICT 6-- BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL o ° ° ° . Application of ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rental at 1650 General Booth Boulevard. (DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. re Flanagan's Lane at Princess Anne Road to construct single family dwellings in five (5) "villages": (DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE) a. The discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan's Lane bo Petition for a Variance to § 4.4 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at the intersection of Sandbridge Road Change of Zoning from A G-! and A G-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 anti P-l) Deferred: Staff Recommendation: Planning Recommendation: DECEMBER 9, 2003 CONSIDER MERITS APPROVAL Applications of ALCAR, L.L.C. at Nimmo Parkway and Rockingchair Lane: ao Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District b. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Deferred: Staff Recommendation: Planning Recommendation: DECEMBER 9, 2003 OCTOBER 28, 2003 DEFERRAL APPROVAL Applications of KENNETH A. HALL to expand their property at 3500 Holland Road: (DISTRICT 3 -- ROSE HALL) Change of Zoning District Classification from I-I Light Industrial District to B-2 Community Business District b. Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and service Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of MPW/LKW, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to Conditional 0-1 Office District at 2005 Pleasure House Road. (DISTRICT 4- BAYSIDE) Recommendation: APPROVAL o Application of JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District and R-SD Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District at Oceana and Virginia Beach Boulevards. (DISTRICT 6- BEACH) Recommendation: APPROVAL Mo APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS - (a)Plumbing/Mechanical (b)Building Maintance COMMUNITY POLICY and MANAGEMENT TEAM-CSA AT-RISK YOUTH FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE-HREDA HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD MINIORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PARKS and RECRI~ATION COMMISSION PLANNING COUNCIL PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Oo NEW BUSINESS ABSTRACT OF VOTES DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY February 10, 2004 P. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) Agenda 02/24/04\sb www.vbgov.com February 24, 2004 JOINT BRIEFINGS: CITY COUNCIL and SCHOOL BOARD - Einstein Lab 1 '00 P.M. - School Administration Building . NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Diane Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Accountability . HEALTHCARE PLAN Susan Walston, Chief of Staff Barbara Bailey, Mercer Consulting II. CITY APPOINTEE BRIEFING - Conference Room 3:00 P.M. o REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR'S ANNUAL REPORT Jerald Banagan, Real Estate Assessor III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room 4'30 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber 6:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf 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 February 3, 2004 2. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS February 10, 2004 WHEREAS, Carolyn Brown's love of fishing began as a child in Ormond Beach, Florida, where she spent Summer clays learning her craft from older, experienced fishermen on the pier; WHEREAS, Fishing became a lifelong learning experience and obsession for her that has produced a remarkable saltwater fishing career and netted her the distinction of being one of only a handful of Level III Master Anglers in Virginia, an accomplishment that requires catching twenty-five fish, each meeting the Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament award minimum lengths or weights; WHEREAS, Carolyn Brown, an Art Teacher at Lynnhaven Middle School, serves as the only female member of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission Recreational Fishing Advisory Board; and, WHEREAS, Her fishing career has recently been capped by the record-breaking catch of a 63-pound Striped Bass off the coast of North Carolina; NOW, THEREFORE, The Virginia Beach City Council hereby recognizes: CAROL YN BROWN for her impressive accomplishment in breaking the Virginia Striped Bass state record. FUTHER, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City Council calls upon the citizens of Virginia Beach to recognize and congratulate Carolyn Brown on the "catch of a l!'fetime" which is a true 'fish story ". Ma~ Member Zou Ric, R~ R e e v~~b e r~ Peter~JJ. Schmj~J[,. Council,,~lember R n~unci~ Member Council Member l~ose~,il_~or~, (~ut~il Member S. McClanan, Council Member dames ~. Wj~od, ~oUncil Member ~ Me, era E.~berndorf Mayor G. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION Ho RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION: Carolyn Brown AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION "CATCH OF A LIFETIME" I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES , Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of Lake Joyce by CHARLES W. MOORE to construct and maintain a bulkhead and pier at 4433 Blackbeard Road. (DISTRICT 4- BAYSIDE) . Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple fbr extension of Elson Green Avenue and intersection improvements at Princess Anne Road re an elementary school and temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. o Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of two (2) parcels of real property (18.04 acres) at Providence Road and Reon Drive for $3,650,000 (Parcel A ~ $3,300,000 & Parcel B ~ $350,000) from ROLAND E. and EVELYN B. HARGROVE and the ELLWOOD L. SAHR FAMILY TRUST. . Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $367,800 from the federal revenue maximization initiative to the Department of Social Services' FY operating budget re providing human services programs approved by the Community and Management Team (CPMT). o Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $11,500 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Fire Department's FY 2003-2004 operating budget re training and equipping one hundred (100) new Volunteers for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). o Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City and the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) to participate in the SPARC (Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities) home ownership program. o Ordinance GRANTING the Virginia Beach school board a Nonexclusive License (dated February 24, 2004) to construct, maintain and operate fiber optic cable facilities on the public rights-of-way. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ITEM: Encroachment Request to construct and maintain a bulkhead and pier for Charles W. Moore at 4433 Blackbeard Road MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 1 1 1 1 1 Background: Mr. Charles W. Moore desires to construct and maintain a bulkhead and pier in Lake Joyce at 4433 Blackbeard Road. Considerations: City staff has reviewed the requested encroachment and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. The Department of Public Works supports the utilization of "hardened slope stabilization" methods including bulkheading, grouted rip-rap and rip-rap with filter cloth to minimize and prevent soil loss along bank slopes associated with open drainage ditch, canal and lake systems. These methods are successful in areas with soil types classified as highly erodible, specifically during major rainfall events which create high velocities and wave action along bank slopes due to high winds. There are other properties adjacent to Mr. Moore's property which also have bulkheading and piers. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat and Pictures Recommended Action: Approval of the Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate:~~ City Manager.~~ L ,'~~'~, Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF LAKE JOYCE, BY CHARLES W. MOORE, HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Charles W. Moore desires to construct and maintain a bulkhead and pier within the City's property located at the rear of 4433 Blackbeard Road. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2- 07, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BYTHE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Charles W. Moore, his heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a bulkhead and pier in the City's property as shown on the map entitled: "EXHIBIT a PLAN VIEW FOR C. W. MOORE 4433 BLACKBEARD RD. VA. BEACH, VA 23455 "a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference ~ 9 is made for a more particular description; and 2O BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly 2 ~ subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City 22 of Virginia Beach and Charles W. Moore (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and 2 ~ incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee 25 is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as Charles W. Moore and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted bythe Council ofthe City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~day of ,2004. APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS S I GNATURE DEP~~NT 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 CA- I~O '13 PREPARED: 1/16/04 PDEJESU/MOORE/ORD. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES 1. UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 (A) (3) AND 58.1-811 (C) (4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~'q~ day of ~f~hAJ ., 20a~/ , by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and CHARLES W. MOORE, HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNE S S E TH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Section 1 Lot 19 Block 1 Baylake Pines" and being further designated and described as 4433 Blackbeard Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455; and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a bulkhead and pier, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in conslmcting and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City property known as Lake Joyce, "The Encroachment Area"; and 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 GPIN 1479-79-5283 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: "Plan View for C. W. Moore 4433 Blackbeard Road, Virginia Beach, Va. 23455," a copy ofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (3 0) days atter the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Waterfront Operations/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way permit, the Grantee must post sureties, in accordance with their engineer' s cost estimate, to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amotmt 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 ofthe insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office orthe Engineering Division ofthe Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such 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. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, Charles W. Moore, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by his signature and seal duly affixed. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk Charles W. Moore STATE OF ~/A CITY/COUNTY OF VA ~EAc.-IA , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~'r_.,~ day of ~-Aq - 0~--'f , 2 004- , by Charles W. Moore. Notary Public My Commission Expires: .5,:~ ~oo.~1 :~ oo ~ STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of__ ,2 ,by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of~ ,2 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICI~ CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT t~TY REAL ESTATE AGENT M.~H'iN6": -~" 'i ', ,-, ! .)A Po 4' U. S. ARMY CORl:x:j OF ENGINEERS (" JUN Z"r 200] 8Y 2) &. 2,?'+' ~/~, ~ P_ooF To ~ e. ~o ~,) . ______~SCALE_' !"= 30' IN ~ ~-e -T'o)/c E -"" --- CITy OF VA STATE' vA APPL ZC,~,T TON ElY SHEET ~ OF ¢ DATES/~ , . _ LAKE JOYCE #4433 GPIN 1479-79-5283 R/W e· · BLACKBEARD.DGN M.J.S. ./ / LOCATION MAP SHOWING ENCROACHMENT AT 4433 BLACKBEARD PROPERTY OF C.W. M SCALE' 1" = 100' PREPARED BY PAN ENG. CADD DEPT. JAN. 21, 2004 I,()( )KIN(; Wl'kS'l' FR(}M CENTER ( )F EXIS'I'IN(; 1~I ~I,KI IEAl). EXISTIN(; C()RRI I(;ATEI) S'i'EEI~ I~l II,Ki lEAl) ~1'( ) BI,', (,171' ( )FI" BEI,()W NE~V 1];I !I,KtIFL,~I) EI,EVA~i'i( ~N 1.( >~ )KIN(; WI.~.~S'i'' N( )'1'1,; EXI:',;'I'I N( CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Extension of Elson Green Avenue and Intersection Improvements at Princess Anne Road for Elementary School 2005, CIP 2-179 Authority to Acquire Property and Easements (Temporary and Permanent) By Agreement or Condemnation MEETING DATE: Background: This project first appeared in the 2002/03 CIP. Considerations: This project is for the construction of approximately 1,600 linear feet of two lane roadway, providing for the extension of Elson Green Avenue from Princess Anne Road to provide access to Elementary School 2005. This project provides a safe means of access to the proposed elementary school, which is scheduled to open in September 2005. Intersection improvements, including a signalized interchange at Princess Anne Road and Elson Green Avenue, are included with this project. This project is being constructed together with the Elementary School 2005 (CIP 1-090) project, which is being administered by the School Division's Office of Facilities Planning & Construction. The Department of Public Works is requesting that City Council grant the authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, all of the property and easements (temporary and permanent) associated with the Access Road (Elson Green Avenue) for Elementary School 2005, CIP 2-179. This project requires the acquisition of 119,464 square feet (2.7425 acres) of right of way. The Construction of the school has begun and the Schools Facility Group desires to construct the road project as soon as possible. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Deny the request for authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, the property and easements (temporary and permanent) associated with Access Road (Elson Green Avenue) for Elementary School 2005, CIP 2-179. Recommendations: Approve the request for authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, the property and easements (temporary and permanent) associated with the extension of Flson Green Avenue, the access road for the Elementary School 2005, ClP 2-179. Attachments: Ordinance Location Map Recommended Action: .,~ Submitting Department/Agency: Facilities Planning & Construction, ''k ~ Public Works/Real EstateC:~ City Manage VBCPS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE FOR EXTENSION OF ELSON GREEN AVENUE AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT PRINCESS ANNE ROAD CIP 2-179 AND THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS, EITHER BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION WHEREAS, in the opinion ofthe Council ofthe City of Virginia Beach, 11 Virginia, a public necessity exists for the construction of this important roadway 12 improvements project to provide adequate traffic capacity, to provide access to a new school, to improve the City's transportation network and for other related public purposes for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach: 16 NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by 19 purchase or condemnation pursuant to Section 15.2-1901, et seq., Code of Virginia of 20 1950, as amended, of all that certain real property in fee simple, including temporary and 21 permanent easements (the "Property") as shown on the plans entitled "Extension of Elson 22 Green Avenue and Intersection Improvements at Princess Anne Road CIP 2-179" (the 2.3 "Project"), and more specifically described on the acquisition plats for the Project 2 4 (collectively the "Plans"), the Plans being on file in the Engineering Division, Department 2 5 of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 26 Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or 27 cause to be made on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are PROPOSED ELSON GREEN AVE EXTENDED 2.7425 ACRES TO BE ACQUIRED PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL EASEMENT 0.026 AC. El_SON GREEN.DGN M.J.S. LOCATION MAP SHOWING EXTENSION ELSON GREEN AVENUE INTERSECTION AT PRINCESS OF AND IMPROVEMENTS ANNE ROAD SCALE: 1" = 400' PREPARED BY P,/W ENG. C,~DD DEPT. )AN. 15, 2004 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Purchase of Two Parcels of Real Property Totaling 18.04 _ Acres Located on the South Side of Providence Road at the Intersection of Providence Road And Reon Drive for $3,650,000 From Roland E. Hargrove, Sr. and Evelyn B. Hargrove and EIIwood L. Sahr, Trustee for the EIIwood L. Sahr Family Trust. MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 Background: Several months ago, Roland E. Hargrove, Sr. and Evelyn B. Hargrove (the "Hargroves") and EIIwood L. Sahr, Trustee for the EIIwood L. Sahr Family Trust ("Sahr") offered to sell the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") a parcel of real property containing approximately 16.48 acres located on the south side of Providence Road at the intersection of Providence Road and Reon Drive ("Parcel A"). The Hargroves also offered to sell the City a parcel of real property containing approximately 1.56 acres adjacent to Parcel A ("Parcel B"). The total acreage for Parcel A and Parcel B is approximately 18.04 acres. The purchase price for Parcel A is $3,300,000 and the Parcel B purchase price is $350,000 for a total purchase price of $3,650,000. The City's Open Space Subcommittee, which is tasked with the responsibility of screening, evaluating and recommending the acquisition of parcels of property in furtherance of the open space initiative, recommended acquisition of the property. Considerations: This property will provide the City with much needed open space for future multi-purpose ball fields. Public Information: Notice of this ordinance will be handled through the normal agenda process. Alternatives: Purchase the property or reject the offer to sell the property to the City. Recommendations: Staff recommends that Council adopt the ordinance and authorize the purchase of the property from the Hargroves and Mr. Sahr for $3,650,000 in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached to the ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance, Exhibit A, Summary of Terms Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works~,~ City Manager:<::::~ <.) ~__~ ,~~) ~,,~ ORDINANCE NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF TWO PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY TOTALING 18.04+/- ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PROVIDENCE ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROVIDENCE ROAD AND REON DRIVE FOR $3,650,000 FROM ROLAND E. HARGROVE, SR. AND EVELYN B. HARGROVE AND ELLWOOD L. SAHR, TRUSTEE FOR THE ELLWOOD L. SAHR FAMILY TRUST 13 WHEREAS, Roland E. Hargrove, Sr., and Evelyn B. Hargrove (the "Hargroves") and EIIwood L. Sahr, Trustee for the EIIwood L. Sahr Family Trust ("Sahr") own a 16.48_+ acre 15 parcel of real estate ("Parcel A"), and the Hargroves own an adjacent 1.56_+ acre parcel of 16 real estate ("Parcel B") located on the south side of Providence Road at the intersection ]7 of Providence Road and Reon Drive (Parcels A and B collectively referred to as the "Property"); 19 20 WHEREAS the Hargroves and Sahr desire to sell the Property to the City of Virginia Beach (the "City"); 21 22 WHEREAS, the City's Open Space Subcommittee has identified the Property as parcels to be considered for acquisition as part of the City's open space initiative, and has 23 recommended that the Property be acquired for such purposes; 24 25 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City Council") is of the opinion that the acquisition of the Property would further the City's open 26 space initiative; 27 WHEREAS, the Hargroves, Sahr and City staff have worked with the City Attorney 28 to draft two Purchase Agreements which set forth the responsibilities and obligations of the 29 parties upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to all parties; and 3O WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available in the Open Space Acquisition CIP account (ClP 4-004). 32 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 33 VIRGINIA: 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 shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. 3? 2. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute on behalf of 38 39 4O the City of Virginia Beach, two (2) Purchase Agreements for the Property, for the aggregate sum of $3,650,000(Parcel A @ $3,300,000 & Parcel B @ $350,000) and in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto. 41 3. That the City Manager or his designee is further authorized to execute all 42 documents that may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the purchase of the 43 44 Property, so long as such documents are acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. 45 46 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 47 ,2004. 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 CA-9041 F:\Users\VValldej\W P\BZA\Harg rove.ord.wpd date:February 9, 2004 R-2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: orks/Real Estate APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office.,_) SUMMARY OF TERMS .AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY 18.04+ ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PROVIDENCE ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROVIDENCE ROAD AND REON DRIVE OWNER: Parcel A (16.48 acres) Roland E. Hargrove, Sr., Evelyn B. Hargrove and Ellwood L. Sahr, Trustee for the Ellwood L. Sahr Family Trust Parcel B (1.56 acres) Roland E. Hargrove, Sr. and Evelyn B. Hargrove BUYER: City of Virginia Beach SALE PRICE: $3,650,000 payable as follows: $3,300,000 for Parcel A ($1,650,000 upon execution of Agreement of Sale and $1,650,000 at Settlement) by check; and $350,000 for Parcel B at Settlement by check. SETTLEMENT DATE: On or before April 16, 2004. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: At its sole cost and expense, the City will remove an underground storage tank upon the Property after Settlement. Property must be conveyed free and clear of all leases, tenancies and right of possession of any and all parties other than the City. F:\Users\VValldej\WP\BZA\Hargrove.sum. wpd ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Ordinance to Appropriate $367,8000 in Federal Funds to the Department of Social Services' FY 2003-04 Operating Budget to To Provide Human Services Programs February 24, 2004 iiii Background: To maximize revenues, on November 7, 2002, the City of Virginia Beach entered into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Social Services to identify unclaimed administrative costs and pursue federal reimbursement. A review of the records in the Department of Social Services, Court Services Unit, Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse Services (MH/MR/SAS) and the Pendleton Child Service Center resulted in a number of retroactive claims being submitted to the federal government. To date, the City has received $1,611,291 from the federal government and recurring annual revenues of $750,00,0 are projected based on the present legislation. Federal funds received under this Revenue Maximization initiative must be used to enhance or expand human service programs; use determinations are made by the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT). The CPMT is chaired by the Assistant to the City Manager and is comprised of the Directors of Social Services, Public Health, the Court Services Unit, and the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse. Additionally, there are representatives of the Virginia Beach School System, two City Council appointees, and representatives from the city departments of Finance and Management Services. The CPMT has recommended the use of $367,800 for the following services: (1) Purchase of Alpha Smart computers for Social Services- $12,800; (2) Purchase of six vehicles for the Child Protective Services program within Social Services- $120,000; (3) Purchase of parental capacity evaluations for Social Services- $10,000; (4) Purchase of additional utilization review hours for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) -$20,000; (5) Consultant for the Local Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan- $40,000; (6) Overtime payment for the Youth Intervention team-S21,000; (7) Emergency support services for MH/MR/SA- $124,000; and (8) Training for the department of Social Services-S20,000. Considerations: The CPMT has reviewed and approved the funding of these services. I I I IIII III IIIIII IIIIII iiiiiiiii "" :~: :'% CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH %, AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Community Emergency Response Team Grant MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: The Community Emergency Response Team program (CERT) was established in the summer of 2002 by President Bush as part of the Homeland Security initiative. The program utilizes local volunteers to support community emergency preparedness efforts as well as providing basic emergency intervention within neighborhoods to augment municipal service during large- scale manmade or natural disasters. The use of CERT volunteers during Hurricane Isabel in September of 2003 was widely applauded as an effective extension of City services. CERT volunteers offered residents immediate access to decision-making skills and physical skills to prepare for and deal with the effects of the disaster. · Considerations: This grant from Virginia Department of Emergency Services provides funding to continue the Virginia Beach CERT program for a second year. During the previous year over 100 people were trained as CERT volunteers. This grant of $11,500 is based on a State disbursement formula of $115 allocated 'for each new member brought on the team. CERT Team coordinators plan to recruit 100 new volunteers in the coming year. There is no local match required for this program. · Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. · Alternatives: This grant provides funding 'for services that could not be provided by traditional municipal emergency service providers without significant increases to staffing and equipment budgets. · Recommendations: Accept and appropriate $11,500 to train and equip 100 additional CERT volunteers. · Attachments: Ordinance Grant Award Letter Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department City Manage~/~_. ?~~ ~ H :\GO\Ord Res\C E AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $11,500 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET FOR T~INING AND EQUIPPING 100 NEW VOLUNTEERS THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 That $11,500 is hereby accepted from the Federal 11 Emergency Management Agency and appropriated to the Fire 12 Department's FY' 2003-04 Operating Budget for the purpose of 13 training and equipping new volunteers, with federal revenue 14 increased accordingly. 15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 16 Virginia on the day of , 2004. CA9112 H:kGG\OrdRes\CERT Grant ord. doc R-2 February 16, 2004 Approved as to Content Department of Manageraent Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency City A~torne/s Office COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA MICHAEL M. CLINE State Coordinator JANET L. CLEMENTS Deputy Coordinator Department of Emergency Management January 15, ZOO4 10501 Trade Court Richmond, Virginia 23236-3713 (804) 897-6500 (TDD) 674-2417 FAX (804) 897-6506 L. RALPH JONES, JR. Deputy Coordinator Mr. James K. Spore City Manager Virginia Beach City Municipal Center, Building #1 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Mr. Spore: We are pleased to notify you that Citizen Corps Grant funds have been approved for your locality in the amount ot: $11,5oo for Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). Payments will be processed by January 31, :2004, dependent on the return of the enclosed Local Award Agreement form, signed by designated local'" official. .. .. As a limited amount of federal funding was received for this project, awards were based On the number of proposed'trainees for your jurisdiction for the current grant period. All grant recipients are responsible for using program funds in accordance with the grant guidelines and according to the approved budget. This is a federal grant administered by the Commonwealth through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and it requires no local match. In accordance with the federal requirements for the Citizen Corps grants, the following conditions apply to the project: Due to the extended application period requested by localities following Hurricane Isabel, the performance period is seven months. The performance period extends to August 25, 2004. All funds must be committed no later than August 25, :2004, - and all funds must be expended no later than November 25, :2004. · Localities must provide the Commonwealth with a worh schedule including milestones for the approued project within 30 days of receipt of this letter. All requirements Outlined in the grant must be completed within the grant period. .~ . Progrommotic ond finonciol reports for the project need to be submitted by · April 10, 2004, July 10, 2004, ond October 10; 2004. Final closeout reports are due December 10, 2004. "Working to, Protect People, Property and Our Communities" Mr. James K. Spore January 15, 2004 Page 2 · We will follow up with more guidance on the quarterly reporting and other grant requirements. Once again we congratulate you on your award and thanh you for your participation in this program. ~)e Ioo1~ forward to worhing with you in developing preparedness programs in your community. As we receive details on the :2004 Citizen Corps funding, we will also forward that information to you. If you have any questions regarding the administration of this award or its finances, please contact Heather King, CERT Coordinator, at (804) 897-6500, extension 6594, or hhing@vdem.state.va, us or I_eigh Estes, Grants Administrator, at (804) 897-6500, extension 6518 or lestes@udem.state.va.us. If you have any Citizen Corps program questions, contact Suzanne Simmons, Citizen Corps Program Manager at (804) 897-6518, or ssimmons@gou.state.ua.us. Sincerely, Michael M. Cline MMC/mmb Enclosure C: Suzanne Simmons Heather King Leigh Estes Citizen Corps - Local Award Agreement By accepting $ 1.1,500 in Citizen Corps Funds from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), the City of Virqinia Beach Jurisdiction agrees to adhere to all terms and conditions set forth in the grant. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM iiii i ITEM: Ordinance to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an agreement with the Virginia Housing Development Authority to Participate in the SPARC Home Ownership Prograrn MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 Background: The promotion of an increased rate of home ownership, as well as home ownership opportunities for Iow and moderate-income residents is a goal of the City's Depad:ment of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. Currently, the Department operates programs to promote home ownership both on its own and in partnership with other organizations. The Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA)is the State Housing Finance Agency with the mission of providing funds for affordable housing. VHDA has made available on a competitive basis Iow interest mortgage financing for ho~me ownership opportunities for Iow and moderate income persons under a program known as SPARC (Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities). Virginia Beach has been authorized for up to $1 million of this funding. This will provide 10-12 Virginia Beach moderate income househollds the opportunity to make home ownership a reality. The City Council approved a prior agreement with VHDA for SPARC in January 2002. This agreement resulted in approximately 17 Iow and moderate households receiving SPARC funds to become homeowners. Considerations: Under the SPARC Home Ownership Program, the City's Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation will be authorized to facilitate the application of individuals for mortgage loans that will be made by VHDA to the individuals, if approved. The City will not receive or disburse VHDA's funds. The City's role will be limited to identifying potentially qualified applicants; committing resources currently available as appropriate to the applicant's situation; and referring the applicant for consideration for a VHDA loan. The City will not be involved in the approval or denial of applications for a VHDA loan. The attached ordinance authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with VHDA to participate in the SPARC Home Ownership Program. The agreement will be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to execution. The ordinance does not appropriate any funds, since no funds will flow to the City. Public Information: All public information will be handled through the normal agenda process. Alternatives: Without approval of this ordinance, the City will not be able to participate on the program with VHDA. Recommendatio, n: Approval of the Ordinance is recommended. Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action' Approval of the Attached Ordinance ~ v~. , Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Housing & Neighbo~~. ~)~s~rv I~A'~on City Manager: ¢..~~~ ~(~ , ~~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SPARC HOME OWNERS HIP PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach through its Department of Housing and 9 Neighborhood Preservation currently operates several programs to promote home ownership for low :1_ 0 and moderate income persons; WHEREAS, the City desires to continue promoting its goal of home ownership :1.2 among its citizens with low and moderate income and in areas with low home ownership rates :1_3 through all available resources; 14 WHEREAS, the Virginia Housing Development Authority ("VHDA") has reserved funds which can be made awailable to qualified Virginia Beach citizens with low and moderate 16 income through the participation of the City in the VHDA's Sponsoring Partnerships and :1. ? Revitalizing Communities ("SPARC") Home Ownership Program; 18 WHEREAS, the City's participation in the SPARC Home Ownership Program requires the execution of an agreement with the VHDA; and 2O WHEREAS, the City's Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation has 2:1. determined that the City's participation in the SPARC Home Ownership Program will provide an 22 additional and much needed financing source for home ownership opportunities for its citizens with 23 low and moderate income. 24 NOW, TltEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 2 s VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA' 26 That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City 2 ? and the Virginia Housing Development Authority to participate in the operation of the SPARC 28 Home Ownership Program in substantially the same form as attached hereto and under such 2 9 additional terms and conditions as may be acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney. 3 0 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ~ day of 31 ,2004. CA-9077 C:\Documen~s and Scttings\mnolting\i~ocal Scttings\Temp\SPARC04.ord.wpd 2/3/I)4 Af~,V~D AS..~FO CONTENT: De~of.;~using & Neighborhood Preserv~.tion APPROVED AS TO LEGAL · ,. City Attorney O VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPARC PROGRAM - Round 3 HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECT PERMANENT MORTGAGE FINANCING COMMITMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of this 23rd day of January, 2004, is made by and between the VIRIGNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") and City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter referred to as the "Sponsor"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Sponsor has applied to the Authority for mortgage loan financing for purchasers of single family dwelling homes (the "Homes") on the property described in the Sponsor's application (the "Application"), which is incorporated herein by reference; and below: WHEREAS, the Authority desires to provide such financing subject to the terms and conditions set forth Reservation of Funds; Underwriting of Mortgage Loans. Subject to the terms and conditions herein, the Authority hereby agrees to reserve funds in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) to be used to provide mortgage loans under the Authority's SPARC Program. The Sponsor hereby accepts such reservation. The mortgage loans to be financed with the Reserved Funds shall be originated by the Authority's Originating Agents (the "Originating Agents") in accordance with the Authority's Rules and Regulations for Single Family Mortgage Loans to Persons and Families of Low and Moderate Income (the "Rules and Regulations"'). In order to be approved for financing under this Agreement, each application for a mortgage loan must satisfy and comply with all of the criteria and requirements in the Rules and Regulations and in this Agreement. . Reservation Period. Subject to the provisions hereof, the Reserved Funds will be reserved for the Sponsor until January 31, 2005; provided that if any portion of the Reserved Funds are not committed for mortgage loans by January 31, 2005, such portion of the reserved Funds shall no longer be reserved for the Sponsor, except as the Authority may otherwise notify the Sponsor in writing. Rate of Interest and Term of Mortgage Loans. The interest rate(s) on the mortgage loans to be made from the Reserved Funds will be determined by the Authority at the time funds are reserved for each individual borrower and shall be as follows: $1,000,000 at one half percent (.50%) below the applicable rate for the Authority's tax-exempt bond program. $0 at one percent (1.0%) below the applicable rate for the Authority's tax-exempt bond program. The term of such mortgage loans shall be thirty (30) years. Location and Completion of Homes. The Homes financed from Reserved Funds shall be of the type and number and shall be located as described in the Application. In the case of Homes to be constructed or rehabilitated by the Sponsor, such Homes shall be constructed or rehabilitated in accordance with this Agreement, the plans and specifications (or, in the case of rehabilitation, such other descriptions of work to be performed on the Hotnes as shall be acceptable to the Authority), and the minimum property standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The sales prices (as determined in accordance with the Authority's Rules and Regulations) of the Homes shall not exceed the applicable maximum amounts allowed by the Authority for its tax-exempt bond program. o Eligibility of Purchasers. All purchasers must meet all the Authority's eligibility and underwriting requirements for its tax-exempt bond program. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Rules and Regulations, all purchasers of Homes financed from Reserved Funds (a) shall not have had a present ownership interest (as defined in the Authority's Rules and Regulations) in his principal residence at any time during the three years preceding the date of execution of the mortgage loan documents and (b) shall have annual gross incomes not in excess of the applicable maximum amount allowed by the Authority for its tax- exempt bond program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event Sponsor has elected in the Application to target persons or households with annual gross income below such limits, Sponsor shall comply with such election. . Reduction of Amount of Reserved Funds. Upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Sponsor, the Authority may at any time, and from time to time, reduce the amount(s) of the Reserved Funds in the event that the Authority determines that it is (i) unlikely that mortgage loans will be committed by December 3 l, 2004, (ii) or that the Sponsor has failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement. Upon request of the Authority, the Sponsor shall provide such information and records as the Authority may require in order to determine the status of Sponsor's prior and anticipated use of the Reserved Funds. . Announcements and Publicity. The Sponsor shall coordinate in advance with the Authority all announcements and other publicity relating to the Homes or the financing pursuant hereto. Authorized Officer(s). The following person(s) is/are authorized, on behalf of the Sponsor, to engage in all transactions and dealings with the Authority under this Agreement: The Authority reserves the right to designate from time to time one or more contacts at the Authority and, if so designated, Sponsor :shall direct all communication with the Authority to such contact(s). . Designation of Originating Agents. Within 30 days of the date hereof, the Sponsor shall designate one or more Originating Agents who will, and have agreed to, originate the mortgage loans funded pursuant to this Agreement. In the event of failure by the Sponsor to so designate any Originating Agents, the Authority may exercise its rights under Section 6 hereof. During the course of the performance of this Agreement, Sponsor shall immediately notify the Authority of any additions or deletions from the designated list of Originating Agents. In the event that, at any time during the term of this Agreement, no Originating Agent shall be so designated or any and all Originating Agent or Agents so designated shall not be willing to continue to originate mortgage loans hereunder, the Authority may exercise its rights under Section 6 hereof. 10. Confidential Information. The Sponsor shall not, without the prior written approval of the Authority, require any mortgage loan applicant to execute any waiver or consent for the release to the Sponsor of any of such applicant's personal information or any other information or records relating to applicant or the loan application or to execute any other document authorizing the Sponsor to act on behalf of such applicant in connection with the loan application. Sponsor shall at all times respect the privacy of the mortgage loan applicants and shall not improperly interfere in the loan application process. 11. Miscellaneous. This Agreement constitutes the entire and final agreement between the. parties with respect to the Reserved Funds and supersedes all prior negotiations. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by both parties. This Agreement shall be constructed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. All provisions contained herein are severable and should any provision be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Acceptance of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be effective unless an executed original signed by an authorized officer of Sponsor is returned to the Authority within 30 days from the date hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, by their duly authorized representatives, as of the day and year first above written. (Sponsor) By: Its: Date: VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: D~Id. L. Riteno Managing Direct r o~f evelop~nent CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Granting to the City of Virginia Beach School Board a Nonexclusive License to Construct, Maintain and Operate Fiber Optic Cable Facilities in the Public Rights-of Way MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: The City of Virginia Beach School Board desires to connect various school and administrative facilities by means of fiber optic cable, which will be clustered throughout the City and tied into the Wide Area Network (WAN) used by the Virginia Beach City Public Schools. This will require the fiber optic cable to be run under the City's right-of-way. Such use of the public rights-of-way requires consent of the City Council. · Considerations: According to the School Board, the proposed work will enable immediate elimination of rnonthly recurring charges for network services to clustered locations, resulting in significant savings for the Board as well as provide greater potential for future applications and services. The Schools' network infrastructure needs are driven by School Board goals, interactive distance learning, curriculum delivery, student information systems, computer networks for students and teachers, and state initiatives, such as on-line SOL testing. · Public Information:: There are no special advertising requirements or any requirement for a public hearing. · Alternatives' The City may require a formal franchise instead of the proposed license agreement; however, the license agreement allows for greater flexibility. Given the relatively minor impact of the proposed work on the City's right-of-way and the fact that the grantee of the license is the School Board, the license agreement is the more appropriate of the two options. · Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance approving the License Agreement. · Attachments: (1) Ordinance; (2) Summary of Agreement (Full Agreement on file with City Clerk) Recommended Action: Adoption of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Chief Information Officer City Manager:~~/___ .~~ AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH A NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE FIBER OPTIC CABLE FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter "School Board") desires to install fiber optic cable 9 and other necessary appurtenances in and under the public ways of 10 the City; and 11 WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to allowing the School Board to 12 use the City's public ways, subject to the terms and conditions set 13 forth in a License Agreement dated February 24, 2004; 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 15 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 16 That the City Counc. il hereby approves the Agreement entitled 17 "City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and School Board of t.he City of 18 Virginia Beach, Virginia License Agreement" dated February 24, 19 2004, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office, and 20 hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute such 21 Agreement on behalf of the City. 22 23 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 24 Virginia, on this day of , 2004. 25 CA-9034 wmmkvbcpsordin, wpd R-3 February 4, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Chief InfOrmation Officer APPROVED AS. TO. SEGAL SUFFI~ENCY City Attorney's Office LICENSE AGREEMENT SCHOOL iBOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF TERMS Grantee: Nature: Virginia Beach School Board Allows use of City rights-of-way for fiber optic cable connecting various school and administrative sites. Twenty year initial term; Board may renew for additional twenty years Compen- sation: None. Use of Rights of-Way: Grantee required to abide by all City ordinances, constructions standards, etc. Facilities to be installed underground to the extent possible Construction: Grantee required to obtain all required permits, promptly restore City property after construction, and to comply with all City, state and federal standards, ordinances, laws, etc. Removal and Relocation: Grantee required to remove facilities at its expense within 120 days if necessary because of City construction (sewer, water lines, etc.). Grantee also required to restore or replace all trees, landscaping damaged or disturbed by work and to restore streets, sidewalks, etc. to original condition. K. RESOLUTIONS o Resolution to APPOINT Jennifer V. Huelsberg to the position of Assistant City Attorney, effective March 1, 2004. , Resolution to AMEND and READOPT Interim Guidelines governing applications for land use development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MEETING DATE: Resolution Appointing Jennifer V. Huelsberg to the Position of Assistant City Attorney February 24, 2004 Background: Section 2-166 of the City Code provides that "[t]he city council may, from time to time, upon recommendation of the city attorney, appoint such deputy and assistant city attorneys as it may deem necessary to serve at the pleasure of the city attorney." Consideration: The City Council on October 7, 2003, adopted an ordinance authorizing the City Attorney to employ an additional attorney to work in the area of commercial real estate. Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution appointing Jennifer V. Huelsberg to the position of Assistant City Attorney, effective March 1, 2004. Ms. Huelsberg will be working in the Real Estate Section, primarily in commercial real estate work and public/private partnerships. Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Approval ) /' / Submittingcity Manager:DepartmentJAgency: City Attorney~~ H:\GG\OrdResNAppointResARF.wpd A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JENNIFER V. HUELSBERG TO THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to ~ 2-166 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, Jennifer V. Huelsberg is hereby appointed to the position of Assistant City Attorney, effective March 1, 2004. 10 11 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2004 CA-9108 H- kGG\ResOrd\AppointRes, wpd R-2 February 5, 2004 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY- City Attor~yVt~ Off CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution Amending and Readopting Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AlCUZ) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: On February 10, 2004, the City Council adopted Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), which had been developed by the Task Force on Land Use in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones and recommended to the City Council by the Task Force on February 3, 2004. The Guidelines did not apply to applications filed before February 3, 2004. · Considerations: The proposed Resolution amends the Guidelines by deleting the exception for land use applications which have been filed as of February 3, 2004. As a result, if the Resolution is adopted, the Guidelines would apply to all discretionary land use applications coming before the Planning Commission or City Council for the development of property located wholly or partially in an AICUZ. · Public Information: This resolution has been advertised in the same manner as other City Council agenda items. · Recommendations: Adoption of Resolution · Attachments: Proposed Resolution; Amended Interim Development Guidelines Recommended Action: App~roval of Amended Guidelines Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~(~'~;~ ~_..,~~ A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND READOPTING INTERIM GUIDELINES GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES (AICUZ) WHEREAS, on February 3, 2004, the Task Force on Land Use in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones(AICUZ) adopted recommended "Interim Guidelines Governing 10 Applications for Development in Air Installations 11 Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)"; and 12 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the aforesaid 13 Guidelines on February 3, 2004; and 14 WHEREAS, the aforesaid Guidelines, as adopted, do not 15 apply to discretionary land use applications filed with the 16 Planning Department as of February 3, 2004; and 17 WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to 18 amend the aforesaid guidelines by deleting the exception 19 for applications which have been filed as of February 3, 20 2004; 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 22 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA' 23 That the City Council hereby amends and readopts the 24 Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development 25 in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), as 26 hereinafter set forth: 27 28 Amended Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for 29 Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) 30 1. Purpose. 31 The City of Virginia Beach has agreed to engage with 32 the Navy in a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) to resolve 33 conflicts between development and jet aircraft operations 34 near NAS Oceana. This agreement necessitates a careful 35 balance between the City's commitment to act in a timely 36 manner on land use proposals in the affected area and the 37 City's commitment to partner with the Navy to carefully and 38 comprehensively work toward a mutually acceptable land use 39 solution. It is reasonably anticipated that the J~US 40 effort will take at least six (6) months and perhaps a year 41 to complete, such that this passage of time will work 42 against the interests of those citizens seeking quick 43 resolution to their land use issues. Accordingly, the City 44 Council of the City of Virginia Beach sets forth these 45 interim guidelines intended to move forward, for resolution 46 on their merits, those rezoning and conditional use permit 47 requests that are impacted by the AICUZ program but whose 48 impact is not deemed detrimental to the desired balance to 49 be struck through the JLUS effort. 50 2. Application. 51 (a) These guidelines govern the procedural aspects of 52 discretionary development applications (i.e., applications 53 for rezonings, conditional zonings and conditional use 54 permits requiring hearing by the City Council and Planning 55 Commission) pertaining to property located wholly or 56 partially within an Air Installations Compatible Use Zone 57 58 59 60 (b) These guidelines do not apply to the review of 61 subdivision plats, site plans or other forms of review of 62 proposed developments not requiring the approval of the 63 City Council nor to applications for discretionary 64 approvals on property entirely outside of an AICUZ area. 65 3. Guidelines. 66 (a) Infill development on tracts or parcels of less 67 than ten (10) acres, where all of the following conditions 68 are present should be considered by the Planning Commission 69 and City Council in the normal course and should be decided 7O on the merits of the application- (1) the existing zoning 71 is unreasonable; (2) the requested action would give rise 72 to development substantially similar to that on surrounding 73 properties; and ( 3 ) the reque s ted use i s the leas t 74 intensive necessary to achieve consistency with the 75 surrounding properties 76 (b) Development proposals for property wholly or 77 partially located in AICUZ areas and not meeting the 78 criteria set forth in subsection (3) (a) above should be 79 considered by 'the Planning Commission and City Council in 80 the normal course and should be decided on the merits of 81 the application where all of the following conditions are 82 present- (1) the property is not located, wholly or 83 partially, within an Accident Potential Zone; (2) the 84 development proposal represents the lowest reasonable 85 density or intensity for the property, given its location 86 and surrounding land uses; (3) the property is not located, 87 wholly or partially, within a noise zone greater than 70 dB 88 Ldn (except where the uses proposed are deemed compatible 89 with their location in such noise zone pursuant to Section 90 221.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance); and (4) all 91 appropriate noise attenuation measures specified by Section 92 221.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance are provided. 93 (c) Ail other applications should be deferred by the 94 Planning Commission or City Council, as the case may be, 95 pending completion of the Joint Land Use Study. 96 97 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 98 Virginia, on the day of' , 2004. CA-9132 H:kOIDkordreskamendedinterimAICUZguidelinesres.doc R-1 February 18, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ' g {6ar ment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENt' Ci~ ~t-t-orne~Fs 6ffic&' Amended Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) 1. Purpose. The City of Virginia Beach has agreed to engage with the Navy in a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) to resolve conflicts between development and jet aircraft operations near NAS Oceana. This agreement necessitates a careful balance between the City's commitment to act in a timely manner on land use proposals in the affected area and the City's commitment to partner with the Navy to carefully and comprehensively work toward a mutually acceptable land use solution. It is reasonably anticipated that the JLUS effort will take at least six (6) months and perhaps a year to complete, such that this passage of time will work against the interests of those citizens seeking quick resolution to their land use issues;. Accordingly, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach sets forth these interim guidelines intended to move forward, for resolution on their merits, those rezoning and conditional use permit requests that are impacted by the AICUZ program but whose irnpact is not deemed detrimental to the desired balance to be struck through the JLUS effort. 2. Application. (a) These guidelines govern the procedural aspects of discretionary development applications (i.e., applications for rezonings, conditional zonings and conditional use permits requiring hearing by the City Council and Planning Commission) pertaining to property located wholly or partially within an Air Installations Compatible U Z (AICUZ) se one r- ~..n.,~.~.., of February 3, S,.,l., ,..,. ,,~ ,. ~,,.,,. t, (b) These guidelines do not apply to the review of subdivision plats, site plans or other forms of review of proposed developments not requiring the approval of the City Council nor to applications for discretionary approvals on property entirely outside of an AICUZ area. 3. Guidelines. (a) Infill development on tracts or parcels of less than ten (10) acres, where all of the following conditions are present should be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the normal course and should be decided on the merits of the application: (1) the existing zoning is unreasonable; (2) the requested action would give rise to development substantially similar to that on surrounding properties; and (3) the requested use is the least intensive necessary to achieve consistency with the surrounding properties (b) Development proposals for property wholly or partially located in AICUZ areas and not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (3) (a) above should be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the normal course and should be decided on the merits of the application where all of the following conditions are present: (1) the property is not located, wholly or partially, within an Accident Potential Zone; (2) the development proposal represents the lowest reasonable density or intensity for the property, given its location and surrounding land uses; (3) the property is not located, wholly or partially, within a noise zone greater than 70 dB Ldn (except where the uses proposed are deemed compatible with their location in such noise zone pursuant to Section 221.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance); and (4) all appropriate noise attenuation measures specified by Section 221.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance are provided. (c) All other applications should be deferred by the Planning Commission or City Council, as the case may be, pending completion of the Joint Land Use Study. L. PLANNING 1. Application of DAVID W. and MICHELE N. COUCH for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cape Henry Drive to incorporate this property into their residential lot at Sand Pine Drive. (DISTRICT .5 - LYNNHAVEN) . Application of VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER, INC., a Virginia Corporation T/A BEACH FC for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer fields) at Shipps Comer and Holland Roads. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) . Application of ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rental at 1650 General Booth Boulevard. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) . Applications of ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. re Flanagan's Lane at Princess Anne Road (DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE) a. The discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan's Lane b. Petition for a Variance to § 4.4 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at the intersection of Sandbridge Road Chang,: of Zoning from .4 G-1 and .4 G-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 and P-l) 5. Applications of ALCAR, L.L.C. at Nimmo Parkway and Rockingchair Lane: a. Change. of Zoning District Classification from .4 G-1 and A G-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District b. Conditional Use Permit for Open Space . Applications of KENNETH A. HALL to expand their property at 3500 Holland Road: (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District to B-2 Community Business District b. Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and service . Application of MPW/LKW, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to Conditional 0-! Office District at 2005 Pleasure House Road. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) o Application of JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District and R-SD Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District at Oceana and Virginia Beach Boulevards. (DISTRICT 6'- BEACH) THE BEACON SUNDAY,: FEBRUARY 8, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 15'' 2004 ' NOTICE OF. PUBLIC HEARING V rg nia Beach City Council will meet in the ,Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, February 24, 2004, at 6:00 P.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 1. Deleted 2, · John S. Waller, F.L.P. Application: Change of Zoning District Classifi- cation from 0-2 Office and R-SD Residential Duplex to Con.ditional I-1 Light Industrial on property at the southeast corner of Oceana Boule- vard and Virginia Beach Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. 3. Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc., a Virginia Corporation T/A Beach FC Application: Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer fields) on the.south side of Shipps Corner Road. DISTRICT 5- LYNNHAVEN David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cape Henry Drive. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE 5. MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Application: change of Zoning District Classifica- tion from R-lO Residential to Conditional 0-I. Office at 2005 Pleasure House Road. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 6. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Application: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentai at 1650 General Booth Boulevard, Suite 107. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL 7. Kenneth ^. Hall APplication: ChanEe of 7oning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial to B-2 Community Business at 3500 Holiand Road. 'The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. 8. Kenoeth A. Hail Application: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and service at 3500 Holland Road. All interested citizens are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk BEACON: FEBRUARY 8 and FEBRUARY 15, :_)004 11042943 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, February 24, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 1. Deleted 2. John S. Waller, F.L.P. Application: Change of Zoning District Classid- cation from 0-2 Office and R-5D Residential Duplex to Conditional I-:L Light Industrial on property at the southeast corner of Oceana l~,oule- vard and Virginia Beach Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan ide~tifi,;s this site as being within the Primary Residential. Area.' 3. Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc., a Virginia Corporation T/A Beach F¢ Application: Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer fields) or, the south side of Shipps Comer Road. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN 4. David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cape Henry Drive. DISTRICT 4- BAYSIDE 5. MPW/LKW, L.L.(;. Application: ChanCe of Zonin~ District Classi~ca- tion from R-lO Residential to Conditional 0-1 Office at 2005 Pleasure House Road. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. DISTRICT 7 ~ PRINCESS ANNE 6. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Application: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rental at 1650 General Booth Boulevard, Suite 107. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL 7. Kenneth A. Hall Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial to B-2 Community Business at 3500 Holiane Road. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being witl~in the Primary Residential Area. 8. Kenneth A. Hall Application: Conditional Use Permit for motor vehich.~ sales and service at 3500 Holland Road. All interested citizens are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Smith,, MMC City C~erk BEACON: FEBRUARY 8 and FEBRUARY 15, 2004 11042943 Map Not to Scale David & Michele Couch Street Closure J#J DATE J REQUEST J ACTION 1 12/12/81 1 08/09/94 2 05/28/91 3 08/08/89 3 12/28/00 4 08/01/83 5 05/28/91 6 08/01/83 Street Closure Rezoning from R-10 to B-4 Street Closure Conditional Use Permit (gas pumps) Rezoning B-4 to PD-H2 (A-18) Street Closure Street Closure Street Closure Granted Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted Granted Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch - Street Closure (portion of Cape Henry Drive) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 Background: Application of David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cape Henry Drive beginning at a point 1020 feet west of Sand Pine Drive and running 100 feet in a westerly direction. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Considerations: The applicants are requesting to close a 5,032 square foot portion of Cape Henry Drive adjacent to the rear property line of their single-family home and to incorporate the property into the residential lot. No improvements are proposed within the closed area, other than a fence. There are several Live Oak trees located within the area proposed for closure and it is the applicants' intent to preserve all of these trees. The trees are located close to the northern boundary of the area proposed for closure and provide an excellent screening between the single-family home and the condominium complex to the north. The City has determined that there is no current or future need for this portion of right-of-way. There is a scenic bike trail being planned for the Cape Henry Drive right-of-way to the east of this site. This bike trail will start at West Great Neck Road, running along the Cape Henry Drive right-of-way and will turn north at Jade Street, just east of the subject site. Therefore, this portion of right-of-way is not needed for the bike trail. The incorporation of this portion of right-of-way into the adjoining single-family residential lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals to support and strengthen the residential identity in this area. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this portion of right-of-way is not needed for future road improvements and its incorporation into the residential lot will ensure maintenance and enhance the applicants' property. Staff and the Viewers recommended approval. There was no opposition to the proposal. David W. and Michele N. Couch Page 2 of 2 Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 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 Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are Dominion Virginia Power facilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. A ten-foot wide public drainage easement satisfactory to the Department of Public Works shall be dedicated over the existing swale that runs along the northern boundary of the site. 5. A perpetual tree preservation easement shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for the existing Live Oak trees located in the area of the street closure. 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. Attachments: Ordinance Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 ORDINANCE NO. IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN' STREF, T KNOWN AS "PORTION OF CAPE HENRY' DRIVE, TO BE CLOSED 5,032 S.F., 0.11 ACRES" AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "PLAT SHOWING OF PORTION OF CAPE HENRY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED LOCATED BEHIND LYNNHAVEN COLONY, SECTION 5, PART 2, VA. BEACH, VIRGINIA": WHEREAS, David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this; Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: GPIN: 1489-98-4987, 1489-98-4905, 1489-98-1949, 1489-99-5136 32 SECTION I 33 34 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject 35 to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this 36 ordinance: 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "PORTION OF CAPE HENRY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED 5,032 S.F., 0.1 1 ACRES" shown as the cross-hatched area on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING OF PORTION OF CAPE HENRY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED LOCATED BEHIND LYNNHAVEN COLONY, SECTION 5, PART 2, VA. BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 1": 20', dated June 21, 2001, Rev. 2/10/04 prepared by Midgette & Associates, P. C., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION II 52 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 53 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 54 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final detemfination regarding 55 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined 56 according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street 57 Closures," approved by City Council. 58 Department. 59 60 61 Copies of said policy are available in the Planning 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 62 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way 63 proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are 64 Dominion Virginia Power facilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private 65 utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 66 4. A ten-foo~t wide public drainage easement satisfactory to the Department of 67 Public Works shall be dedicated over the existing swale that runs along the northern boundary of 68 the site. 69 5. A perpetual tree preservation easement shall be dedicated to the City of 70 Virginia Beach for the existing Live Oak trees located in the area of the street closure. 71 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the 72 above stated conditions within one year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted 73 above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City 74 Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void. 75 76 SECTION III 77 78 1. If the ipreceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before February 23, 79 2005, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 80 2. If all conditions are met on or before February 23, 2005, the date of final 81 closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 82 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the underlying 83 fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that 84 may be requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are approved by the City 85 Attorney's Office. 86 86 SECTION IV 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 OF 89 VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and DAVID W. COUCH and MICHELE N. COUCH as 90 "Grantee." 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 91 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this ~ day ., 20O4. of CA-9043 January 28, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Plann~a'rtment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ..4Z< r- © '~ ~>~o ...j--tO X © 24.47' 24.47' S16'28'09"E ,.<: LESNER VILLAS CONDOMINIUM PHASE 1 M.B. 247, PO. 15 N16'10'11"W 75.48' o "'o EXHIBIT A H03-212-STC-2004 DAVID AND MICHELE COUCH Agenda Item # 2 January 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke The following report ,is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. bocati~ REQUEST: Street Closure for a portion of Cape Henry Drive LOCATION: ThE; portion of Cape Henry Drive beginning at a point 1020 feel: north of Sand Pine Drive and running 100 feet in a westerly direction. David & Michele Couch COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SIZE: 5 - LYNNHAVEN 5,000 square feet J DAVID AND MICH'ELE COlU~CH Agenda Item, # 2 Page 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING' NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: North: South: East: West'i · Condominiums / B-4 Resort Commercial District with Shore Drive Overlay District · Single-family homes / R-10 Residential District with Shore Drive Overlay District · Condominiums / B-4 Resort Commercial District with Shore Drive Overlay District · Cape Henry Drive ThE; site is an unimproved right-of-way that is currently maintained by the City as a grassed area. There are several Live Oak trees located within this right-of-way, ThE; site is outside of the AICUZ area surrounding NAS Oceana. The applicants are requesting to close a 5,000 square foot portion of Cape Henry Drive adjacent to the rear property line of their single-family home and to incorporate the property into the residential lot. No improvements are proposed within the closed area, other than a fence. There are several Live Oak trees located within the area proposed for closure and it is the applicants' intent to preserve all of these trees. The trees are located close to the northern boundary of the area proposed for closure and provide an excellent screening between the single-farnily home and the condominium complex to the north. . DAVID AND MICHELE COUCH Agenda Ite~?:i?# 2 Pa'gle..2 ll l[l I ~ .lll~[ . lJ il ' ] ' [~,. · ii · · Major Is.sues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. Current and/or future need for the right-of-way Consistency of any proposed development for the property with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Shore Drive corridor as primarily a neighborhood corridor and careful attention to the health and well being of the established neighborhoods along it is paramount. The character of Shore Drive is defined by the unique positive relationship between its residential and commercial components. The Viewer's Committee and Planning Staff recommend approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses ,each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The City has determined that there is no current or future need for this portion of right-of-way. There is a scenic bike trail being planned for the Cape Henry Drive right-of-way to the east of this site. This bike trail will start at West Great Neck Road, running along the Cape Henry Drive right-of-way and will turn north at Jade Street, just east of the subject site. Therefore, this portion of right-of-way is not needed for the bike trail. DAVID AND MI6.HELE CO.UCH Agenda Item?# 2 Rage 3 (2) The incorporation of this portion of right-of-way into the adjoining single-family residential lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals to support and strengthen the residential identity in this area. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Conditions I , The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. , The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. , The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are Dominion Virginia Power facilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. . A ten-foot wide public drainage easement satisfactory to the Department of Public Works shall be dedicated over the existing swale that runs along the northern boundary of the site. 5. A perpetual tree preservation easement shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for the existing Live Oak trees located in the area of the street closure. 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. DAVID AND MICHELE COUCH Agenda Ite~!# 2 P:ag;e. 4 Supplemental Information'~l Zonin~ History Mmp Not to ScmJ~ David & Michele Couch DATE 1 12/12/81 1 08/09/94 2 05/28/91 3 08/08/89 3 12/28/00 4 08/01/83 5 05/28/91 6 08/01/83 REQUEST Street Closure Street Closure Rezoning from R-10 to B-4 Street Closure Conditional Use Permit (gas pumps) Rezoning B-4 to PD-H2 (A-18) Street Closure Street Closure Street Closure ACTION Granted Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted Granted Granted DAVID AND MICHELE COUCH Agenda Item~# 2 ; p:a.~e5 Public A enc¥ Comments Public Works There are no underground drainage structures in the area proposed for closure. A ten- foot drainage easement is recommended for the existing drainage swale located along the northern boundary of the area proposed for closure. Pub#c Utilities I Water: I No public water lines exist in the area proposed for closure. I Sewer: I No public sewer lines exist in the area proposed for closure. Private Utility Comments Preliminary comments from Dominion Virginia Power indicate that there are facilities that will require an easement within the area proposed for closure. Virginia Natural Gas and HRSD have indicated they have no facilities within the area proposed for closure. DAVID AND MI6HELE COUCH Agenda Item~i# 2. Page...6 EXhibitS~ Exhibit/~ Aerial of Site Locatior DAVID AND MI¢:HELE Couch Agenda Itemii~# 2 Page .7 Exhibit E Survey of Area t¢ be Close( ~ ~3 ~,, 0 O' Z 0 bJ ~o~.~ Z~rn M.[ [,0 l..g I.N g L "Od 'LI~Z: 'EI'~ I m '~ I L 3SVHd i ~ co 1 PInlNtPtOC]NOO SV-19iA ~3NS3q ~ m DAVID AND MIC.HELE COUCH Agenda Ite~i;':# 2 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, b[~siness, 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 rTecessary) List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entit? 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 that have a parent-Su.bsidiary~ or affiliated business entit,~ relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) [] Check here if the property owner is NOTa corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. 'f'"~' See next page for footnotes Street Closure Applicafjon Page 13 of ~4 Exhibit ( Disclosur Statemer DAVID AND MI¢.HELE COUCH Agenda Itemi!?# 2 Page 9 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement I1 .......... DiScLOSuRE' .s'TA'TEM£NTI ~ I~:NAL DISCLOSURES List ali known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with..respe~--t to the requested property'use~ including but not limited to the providers, of architectural' services, real.estate services, financiat services., and ~egal. sen~tces: (Attach list'if necessary) 1. Mid_qette & AsSOCiates~ P.'C~., Enc~ineers. Surveyors' and Planners, 708. Battlefie_~ Boulevard.S.., Buildin0 M; Suite 105, Chesa~eake..Viminia23322: 2. Leslie R. Watson, Wolcott: Rivers P.C., One Columbus .Center, Suite. 11.00~ Vimi}!i~ Beach. Viminia 2~62;..and 3. R~obert ·Miller. MSA, Inc.,. 5033 R0use.Ddve,..Viminia Beac.h~ VA..23467 ~ ,Parent-subsidiary relationShip" means "a relationship.that exists when· one' corporation, directly or indirectly .owns shares possessing, mom. than· .50. percent of the voting power of another, cor~ation:' See State and. Local. GoYemment Conflict of Interests Act,.Va~ COde § 2.2-310~1. '= "Affiliated business·entity relatiOnship" means "a relationship, ·other than parent-subSidiary relationshiP:;, that exists when (i) one. business entitYhas a contmllingownership interest, in: the other· business·entityi (ii) a...Controllfng owner in one entity .is also a.'contmlling owner t'n the.other:entity,, or(ill)there iS'Shared management or control .~n the: 'business. entiUes, Factom: that., should:: be considered in. dete~i~3ing the existence of.an.affiliated business entit¥.'mlati0n~htp include that the same :.person or:subStantially the.same person.'.own:.o~:manage, the't1~o entities;.there are common or' comn~ngled':funds. Or assets; the.. b~siness' entities s~ the. useof 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 'Go.vemment. COnflict.of Interests :Act, Va, Code' § 2.2-31.01. . ..~.111 ii i IIIql I II fill "'" ......... "' ....... ERTIFICATiON:: I. ceftin' that..'~e:.~f°rmation c0ntain~..'h~retn is .t~.:. and: acCUr~ ! understand.:~at,:'upon ~eiPt"of"~flcati0n (postC~rtt).thattl3e. appl!~tion.has ~.. · 'scheduled'for pUbl:ic..headng, '1. ~.respon.sibte fo~ obtainlngand posting, the required sign .on:the' SUbject Prop~::.at'.::lea~3o daYS: prior.tO.:.theisched'uled'publi¢.heating..'. ". ....... ........ ~t Ctosure ~ Pege 13 'Rav~ed' Z DAVID AND MICHELE COUCH A~enda It°~!i# 2. ;:' :'.: pa~!i;l:0 Item #2 David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch Application of David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cape Henry Drive District 5 Lynnhaven January 14, 2004 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The first item on the consent agenda is Item #2, David W. Couch and Michele N. Couch. It's an application for a closure of Cape Henry Drive and that's in the Lynnhaven District with six conditions. Mr. Couch, are you here or is anyone representing? Would you please come forward sir? David Couch: Yes .ma'am. Dorothy Wood: State your name please? David Couch: David Couch. Dorothy Wood: Have you read the conditions and do you agree with them sir? David Couch: Yes ma'am I have and I do. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #2 David Couch for a closure? Thank you. Hearing none, Barry would please tell us about this one. Barry Knight: The applicants are requesting to close a 5000 square foot portion of Cape Henry Drive adjacent to the rear property line of their single family home and to incorporate the property into a residential lot. No improvements are proposed within the closed area other than a fence. There are several large live oak trees located within the area proposed for closure. And it is the applicant's intent to preserve all of these trees. In fact, condition number five is a perpetual tree preservation easement for the existing live oak trees. We feel like this is an appropriate Use for this land. We'd also like to commend the applicants on their efforts to preserve these trees. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Barry. Again, is there any opposition to this consent agenda item? Hearing none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda, Item #2 with six conditions. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do we have a second? William Din: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Will Din. Is there any discussion? Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item//2. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: So noted. Does anybody else have any comments'?. We're ready to vote. AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 8-0 with the abstention noted, this consent agenda item passes. 9 10 11 12 1-23-89 3-20-78 8-13-79 2-1-88 10-14-03 10-29-02 11-20-78 9-12-66 7-8-63 7-8-63 Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial) Conditional Use Permit (board horses) Conditional Use Permit (garden shop and nursery) Conditional Use Permit (service station) Modification of Conditions to 10-29-02 CUP Conditional Use Permit (church) Rezoning (A-1 Apartments to A-2 Apartments) Conditional Use Permit (modification to CUP for mobile home park granted 7-8-63) Rezoning (A-R Agricultural Restricted to M-13 Ma n ufactu ring/I nd u stria I) Conditional Use Permit (mobile home subdivision) Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted Adap H-lO Hop Not, ~;o Scele B-2 Va Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. CUP - Outdoor Recreation I# I DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 6-25-02 8-14-01 10-28-91 9-21-87 12-14-93 2-25-92 10-28-91 4-23-90 12-2-03 12-2-03 12-2-03 2-1-00 1-23-89 Conditional Use Permit (lodge for fraternal organization) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to A-12 Apartment with PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay) Rezoning (B-2 Business to AG-1 Agricultural) Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to B-2 Business) Conditional Use Permit (church) Conditional Use Permit (golf driving range) Rezoning (I-1 Industrial to AG-1 Agricultural) Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Industrial) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Industrial) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional B-2 Business) Conditional Use Permit (car wash) Modification of Proffers approved with 1-23-89 Zoning Change Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial) Granted Denied Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, a Va. Corp., T/A Beach FC -Conditional Use Permit (recreational facility of an outdoor nature - soccer fields) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc., a Virginia Corporation T/A Beach FC for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer fields) on property located on the south side of Shipps Corner Road, beginning at a point approximately 1100 feet east of Holland Road (GPIN 14953733290000). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Considerations: The applicant proposes to create six lighted soccer fields of varying sizes as well as a paved parking area of approximately 180 spaces. The parking area is shown entirely within the 120-foot Dominion Power easement that lies along the western border of the property. A small building for restrooms is shown adjacent to the parking lot. Although not specified on the plan, a building or shed may also be necessary for storage of recreational equipment. A three-foot berm is shown along the frontage of Shipps Corner Road outside of the reservation area. The berm will be landscaped with shade trees and evergreen shrubs. The berm is intended to contain soccer balls on the property and to aesthetically enhance the property. The eastern third of the property is considered wetlands and will remain undisturbed. A 100-foot buffer adjacent to the wetlands, which is considered the Resource Protection Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, must also be left in a natural state. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. · Recommendations: Virginia Beach Travel Soccer Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: . The applicant shall request a variance from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board if the Planning Director or his designee determines that this is required. . The fields shall be used only for practices and not for any other event that would draw spectators. No bleachers or spectator seating is permitted on the property. . A right-of-way reservation shall be provided along Shipps Corner Road as required for the Shipps Corner Road Bridge Replacement plan CIP 2-174 and as called for in the Master Transportation Plan. . Right and/or left turn lanes shall be constructed on Shipps Corner Road if Public Works Traffic Engineering determines that they are required during the detailed plan review process. 5. Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall be no higher than 14 feet and shall be directed downward and shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises and away from adjoining properties. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency' Planning Department ~ City Manager: (~'y-,.~,~")~__-,~'~ Ltt3'~ H09 - 211 - CUP - 2003 BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER, INC. Agenda Item # 9 January 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Ashby Moss The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for recreational facility of an outdoor nature (soccer practice fields) LOCATION' Property located on south side of Shipps Corner Road, approximately 1100 feet east of Holland Road ,~",~.. ~-~,o Va Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. ~ :2~.....~~ ?:. .. -¢:~..~:~.. ' (~'~,..~ ~~~~'"~;"'"'{'~' ,,, ~ ~' -~,? ". ~ ~' :~ ". ~o-~.' ' ./ , ~ '~'~ ~'~, k, ", ,,' CUP - ~t~r Recremion GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 14953733290000 6 - BEACH VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item# 9 page 1 SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 21.733 acres Formerly cultivated fields; the property is now vacant and zoned AG- 1 Agricultural District. North: South: East: West: · Across Shipps Corner Road, Cardinal Estates mobile home subdivision · Vacant land /I-1 Light Industrial District · Wetlands and natural drainage area / AG-2 Agricultural District · Vacant property / recently rezoned to conditional I- 1 Light Industrial District The eastern third of the property is wooded and contains wetlands leading to a natural drainage area that eventually leads to the Chesapeake Bay. Due to fertilizers, pesticides, and routine mowing, the fields cannot be located in the Resource Protection Area RPA. The plan must be modified to move the proposed fields outside of the RPA. If buffer restoration (planting of trees and shrubs) is provided within the seaward 70 feet of the RPA, the remaining 30 feet can be used for soccer practice fields. The western end of the property is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana, but the majority of the property is in the greater than 75 dB Ldn noise zone. Most of the property is also located within Accident Potential Zones 1 and 2. The Navy's AICUZ Program map, dated 1999, lists outdoor uses, including playgrounds, neighborhood parks, golf courses, and riding stables, as compatible in APZ 2 and conditionally compatible in APZ 1. As of the date this report was printed, the Navy has not provided comments on this request. , VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item. # 9 Page 2 S. ummary of Proposal The applicant proposes to create six lighted soccer fields of varying sizes as well as a paved parking area of approximately 180 spaces. The parking area is shown entirely within the 120-foot Dominion Power easement that lies along the western border of the property. A small building for restrooms is shown adjacent to the parking lot. Although not specified on the plan, a building or shed may also be necessary for storage of recreational equipment. Vehicular access is shown at a single point on Shipps Corner Road leading into the parking area. A variable width right-of-way reservation is also shown along Shipps Corner Road. The Traffic Engineering Division of the City's Department of Public Works is requiring right and left turn lanes on Shipps Corner Road due to the projected right and left turn volumes that exceed the minimum hourly turning vehicle volumes of 35 right turning and 30 left turning vehicles during any hour (Sections 3.11.2 and 3.11.7 of the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual). A three-foot berm is shown along the frontage of Shipps Corner Road outside of the reservation area. The berm will be landscaped with shade trees and evergreen shrubs. The berm is intended to contain soccer balls on the property and enhance the property aesthetically. The eastern third of the property is considered wetlands and will remain undisturbed. A 100-foot buffer adjacent to the wetlands, which is considered the Resource Protection Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, must also be left in a natural state. · , · ~.~., ~ ,l' "~;- '" · ' "' I"~:' '"' ..... ,{.,..~ _.::,,~ ....... ?. · Major Issues TM The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Compatibility of proposed use with Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) and Comprehensive Plan. · Compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item:'# 9 Page 3 This parcel lies within Strategic Growth Area #10 under the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The western portion of Area #10 where the subject property is located is planned for nonresidential uses to include a mix of light industrial, Iow-rise office and limited retail. Limited vehicular access points and parcel consolidation are encouraged to achieve a more unified well-planned development. As always, attractive, high quality design is encouraged, particularly as the development is seen from Dam Neck, Shipps Corner, and Holland Roads. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to conditions. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses most of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) Although the proposed soccer practice fields aren't listed as a desired use for Strategic Area #10 in the Comprehensive Plan, the severe AICUZ and environmental constraints on this property constrict many potential uses. Further, the few capital improvements that have been included in the applicant's proposal will not preclude an easy future "redevelopment" of the property when circumstances may allow for it. (2) Although the Navy has not officially expressed support for the proposal, parks and similar outdoor uses are listed as compatible and conditionally compatible in the Accident Potential Zones that are present on the subject site. The applicant VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item.# 9 Page 4 has also agreed to use the fields for practices only and not to provide any spectator seating on the property. However, the proposal's weaknesses in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (2) The site plan shows soccer fields within the Resource Protection Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Although sports fields are pervious, they are limited in their ability to filter pollutants and sediments before reaching water. They are also typically chemically treated and heavily mowed. Since this area was previously cultivated, the RPA has been stripped of any natural vegetation other than grasses. Buffer areas provide the best protection for water bodies when they are vegetated with trees and shrubs and left in a natural state. Therefore, if the 70-foot seaward area is restored with trees and shrubs, the remaining 30-foot landward portion of the buffer can be used for sports fields. Traffic Engineering has determined that right and left turn lanes are required due to anticipated turning volumes during practice start and stop times. The turn lanes are not shown on the site plan. Since these weaknesses can be overcome through conditions attached to the Use Permit, Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions . 1. The applicant shall request a variance from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board if the Planning Director or his designee determines that this is required. 2. The fields shall be used only for practices and not for any other event that would draw spectators. No bleachers or spectator seating is permitted on the property. 3. A right-of-way reservation shall be provided along Shipps Corner Road as required for the Shipps Corner Road Bridge Replacement plan CIP 2-174 and as called for in the Master Transportation Plan. . Right and/or left turn lanes shall be constructed on Shipps Corner Road if Public Works Traffic Engineering determines that they are required during the detailed plan review process. . Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall be no higher than 14 feet and shall be directed downward and shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises and away from adjoining properties. i VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item:# 9 Page 5 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item'.'# 9 Page 6 Supplemental information~ Zoning History Map H-lO M~p Not to Scale Va Beach Travel Soccer B-2 R-SD I-1 CUP - Outdoor Recreation J# J DATE REQUEST J ACTION 1 6-25-02 8-14-01 10-28-91 9-21-87 12-14-93 2-25-92 10-28-91 4-23-90 Conditional Use Permit (lodge for fraternal organization) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to A-12 Apartment with PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay) Rezoning (B-2 Business to AG-1 Agricultural) Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to B-2 Business) Conditional Use Permit (church) Conditional Use Permit (golf driving range) Rezoning (I-1 Industrial to AG-1 Agricultural) Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Industrial) Granted Denied Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted Granted , VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item..# 9 Page 7 3 12-2-03 4 12-2-03 12-2-03 5 2-1-00 1-23-89 6 1-23-89 7 3-20-78 8 8-13-79 9 2-1-88 10 10-14-03 10-29-02 11 11-20-78 12 9-12-66 7-8-63 7-8-63 Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional I-1 Industrial) Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to conditional B-2 Business) Conditional Use Permit (car wash) Modification of Proffers approved with 1-23-89 Zoning Change Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional I-2 Heavy Industrial) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural to conditional 1-2 Heavy Industrial) Conditional Use Permit (board horses) Conditional Use Permit (garden shop and nursery) Conditional Use Permit (service station) Modification of Conditions to 10-29-02 CUP Conditional Use Permit (church) Rezoning (A-1 Apartments to A-2 Apartments) Conditional Use Permit (modification to CUP for mobile home park granted 7-8-63) Rezoning (A-R Agricultural Restricted to M-13 Manufacturing/Industrial) Conditional Use Permit (mobile home subdivision) Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Proqram (CIP): Shipps Corner Road in the vicinity of this application is a two-lane undivided collector. The MTP designates future improvements of this road as an undivided road with a bikeway within a 70-foot right-of-way. The Shipps Corner Bridge Replacement Project, CIP 2-007, is listed in the current adopted CIP to replace the bridge located approximately 1,000 feet west of London Bridge Road with another two-lane structure. Although not in the current adopted CIP, the Shipps Corner Road project CIP 2-865 to widen this road to four lanes has been requested but not funded. i , , VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item# 9 Page 8 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z 6,20O - - 0 ADT Shipps Corner 7,617 Road ADT ~ 9,900 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use °- 180 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by agricultural fields 3 Estimated based on six fields with 15 team members on each field, two practice times per day Public Utilities IWater: There is a 12-inch City water main in Shipps Corner Road. If water is needed, this site must connect to City water. Sewer: There is no City gravity sanitary sewer in the vicinity of the site, and the site is not within an existing pump station area. Health Department approval is required for septic systems. Private grinder pumps and force mains may be an option. Public Safety I Police: I No comments. Fire and Rescue: I No comments. Private Agency Comments Dominion Power: Dominion Power is not opposed to the use of their easement for parking as long as no permanent structures or buildings are placed within the easement. Any obstructions blocking maintenance access to power facilities must be cleared immediately or a new easement must be granted to Dominion Power and the cost of relocating facilities must be paid by the property owner. Finally, any landscaping planted within the right-of-way must be in compliance with the list of acceptable species provided to the City of Virginia Beach. VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item. # 9 Page 9 F-.xhibi! Aerial of $ Locath Page 10 Z ~ Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan "Z VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item:.'.# 9 Page.11 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item # 9 Page 12 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement i ii i VIRGINIA BEACH TRAVEL SOCCER Agenda Item:Cf 9 Page 13 Item #9 Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. Conditional Use Permit South side of Shipps Comer Road District 6 Beach January 14, 2004 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #9 the Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. It's an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility of an outdoor nature on property located on the south side of Shipps Comer Road beginning at a point approximately 1100 feet east of Holland Road with five conditions. I believe these conditions have been modified today. Sir. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. For the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant Beach Football Club of Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc. We do agree with the five modified conditions that I believe you have. I want to thank both Mr. Scott and Ms. Moss for working with us, to do I think, to come up with a far more common sense way to deal with the issue. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: We're in full agreement with the five conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any opposition to Item #9, the Virginia Beach Travel Soccer, Inc.? Hearing none. Gene, would you please comment on that item. Eugene Crabtree: I'll be glad too. First off, let me say that these soccer fields and practice fields are drastically needed within the City. These are planned to be developed at no expense to the taxpayer. This property is once again within the noise zone of Oceana and the airfields and accident zones. So, therefore, being a practice field and used for this type of use is suitable with the Comprehensive Plan, and would be conditionally compatible with the Navy's Accident Potential Zone and potential noise zone in the future. The vehicular increase on Shipps Comer Road has been addressed and I think it's going to be no problem. There is a berm going up along the road and landscaping which will make it very nice and very neat. I think it would be attractive. Therefore, we think this is a very good land use for this and the Comprehensive Plan. So therefore, we have put it on the consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition? Hearing none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda, Item #9 with five conditions. Ronald Ripley: Before the motion is concluded, there were revisions made to two of the five conditions on Item #9. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do we have a second? William Din: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Will Din. Any discussion? Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item #9. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. So noted. Does anybody else have any comments? We're ready to vote. AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 8-0 with the abstention noted, this consent agenda item passes. Not. to Scale ise Rent-A-Car CUP - Auto Rental I # [ DATE I REQUEST IACTION I 1 06-10-03 2 01-12-99 3 08-13-91 4 08-13-91 5 09-08-86 6 O8-20-84 7 08-20-84 8 08-09-84 9 04-09-84 Change of Zoning (AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District) Conditional Use Permit (mini warehouse) Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to B-2 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to B- 2 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (O-1 Office District to B-2 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R- 8 Residential District) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to R- 8 Residential District) Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to B- 2 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to B- 2 Community Business District) Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted ITEM: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM i iiiii Enterprise Rent-A-Car- Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle rental) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rental on property located at 1650 General Booth Boulevard, Suite 107 (GPIN 24155410780000). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE. Considerations: The applicant is proposing to operate an automobile rental business within a currently vacant unit of the shopping center. The applicant wishes to rent approximately 20 vehicles to include cars, pick-up trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles. There is ample parking for the cars that will be available for rent. In particular, the parking area behind the building is under utilized. It is in this area that Staff recommends the vehicles for rent be parked and cleaned. "Light washing" and vacuuming of the vehicles will also be done in the rear of the unit, in the existing parking lot. Hours of operation are proposed as Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to noon, and closed on Sunday. The amount of projected traffic that will be generated by this facility is in keeping with a typical, permitted B-2 use allowed under the existing zoning. Staff does not believe that the motor vehicle rental operation will negatively impact existing businesses in the shopping center nor any of the surrounding properties, including the residentially zoned area. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is compatible with surrounding uses and it is the reuse of a vacant commercial unit. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. No onsite repairs or maintenance of any motor vehicle shall be permitted. 2. Parking of motor vehicles for rent shall be limited to the rear of the building. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Page 2 of 2 3. No vehicles for rent shall be parked within any portion of a public right-of- way. 4. Signage on the site must be in accordance with sign regulations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. This use permit is for the rental of motor vehicles only. Sale of motor vehicles shall not be permitted on the site. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ,~,,~f-~-----, City Manage --r.~'~~/~'--- A00-210-CUP-2003 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 January 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General information TM REQUEST' Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rental. LOCATION' Property located at 1650 General Booth Boulevard, Suite 107. Rent-A-Car ...n.e. ,.nse ".¥~ ). ,>'.~ CUP - Auto Rental GPIN' COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 24155410780000 7 - PRINCESS ANNE ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 1 SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 10.2 acres entire parcel. Specific unit (Suite 107)is approximately 1,200 square feet. Vacant unit within an existing shopping center. North: South: East: West: · Retail/B-2 Community Business District · Single-family dwellings / AG- 2 Agricultural District · Retail, restaurants, and proposed mini-storage / B- 2 Community business District · Vacant wooded site / AG-1 Agricultural District · Single family dwellings / R-5D Residential District · Retail, restaurants, and General Booth Boulevard / B-2 Community business District There are no significant environmental resources on the site as it is developed and almost entirely impervious. The site is in an AICUZ of greater than 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary The applicant is proposing to operate an automobile rental business within a currently vacant unit of the shopping center. The applicant wishes to rent approximately 20 vehicles to include cars, pick-up trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles. Hours of operation are proposed as Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, Saturday 9:00 am to noon, and closed on Sunday. "Light washing" and vacuuming of the vehicles will also be done in the rear of the unit, in an existing parking lot. There is ample parking for the cars that will be available for rent. In particular, the parking area behind the building is under utilized. It is in this area that Staff recommends the vehicles for rent be parked and cleaned. The amount of projected traffic that will be generated by this facility is in keeping with a typical, permitted B-2 use allowed under the existing zoning. Staff does not believe that the motor vehicle rental operation will negatively impact existing ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 2 businesses in the shopping center nor any of the surrounding properties, including the residentially zoned lands. The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Compatibility with surrounding land uses. · Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. ;~"~*:'~"~'~'~'~"~'"~"~'~""~'~~Comprehensive P~an The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the "South General Booth Boulevard Corridor" and within the Primary Residential Area. The Plan notes that a mix of retail and neighborhood serving office uses are suitable for this portion of the corridor. The Plan also notes, as a General Planning Principle for the Primary Residential Area to "Avoid further strip commercial development along major roadways by orienting most commercial activities at major roadway intersections with careful access management and by encouraqin.q re-use and redevelopment of existinq underdeveloped commercial sites." While this center cannot be considered 'underdeveloped,' the proposed use represents a re-use of existing facilities rather than a new development. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 3 Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The operation of the motor vehicle rental is appropriate within this existing shopping center. The parking lot is able to more than handle the addition of the proposed 20 rental vehicles, several employees and customers. All surrounding properties with existing residential dwellings are adequately screened or far removed from the operation. (2) The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and provides a convenient service to residents within the General Booth Corridor. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. No onsite repairs or maintenance of any motor vehicle shall be permitted. 2. Parking of motor vehicles for rent shall be limited to the rear of the building. 3. No vehicles for rent shall be parked within any portion of a public right-of-way. 4. Signage on the site must be in accordance with sign regulations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. This use permit is for the rental of motor vehicles only. Sale of motor vehicles shall not be permitted on the site. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-GAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 4 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 5 Supplemental lnformation Zonin_ History Map Not. t,o Scale Rent-A-Car CUP - Auto Rental DATE 06-10-03 2 01-12-99 3 08-13-91 4 08-13-91 I REQUEST Change of Zoning (AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District) Conditional Use Permit (mini warehouse) Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Change of Zoning (0-2 Office District to B-2 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 I ACTION Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 6 5 09-08-86 6 08-20-84 7 08-20-84 8 08-09-84 9 04-09-84 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (O-1 Office District to B-2 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District) Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District) Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District) Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Public A.qency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP);, General Booth Boulevard in the vicinity of the existing Kmart shopping center is a four-lane urban arterial roadway. The Dam Neck Crossings shopping center in which this rental car business will be located has two (2) adequate access points on General Booth Boulevard, one (1) of which is signalized. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity - Existing Land Use z - 65 ADT General Booth 35,000 31,700 Boulevard ADT 1 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 50 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 1,500 square feet of typical retail space 3 as defined by 20 motor vehicle rental operation Public Utilities IThis site has a City water meter that may be utilized and the parcel is I IWater & Sewer: currently connected to City sewer. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item .# 11 page 7 Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: No parking of cars will be allowed in marked Fire Lanes at any time. Storage of vehicles awaiting rental must not obstruct Fire Department access to structure. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 8 Exhibits '"~... Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location i ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item Cf 11 Page 9 Exhibit B Aerial Photograph IDI~TAII_~ i , ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 10 Exhibit C Site Plan Showing Suite to h~_ ,~tili:~c..d .. i ENTERPRISE RENT-A-GAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 11 T Exhibit D Disclosure Statement i , i i ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Agenda Item # 11 Page 12 Item # 11 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Change of Zoning District Classification 2005 Pleasure House Road District 4 Bayside January 14, 2004 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #11, which is Enterprise Rent-A-Car. It's an application of Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a Use Permit for a motor vehicle rental on General Booth Boulevard. This is in the Princess Anne District with five conditions. Yes sir? John Fagan: My name is John Fagan from Enterprise Rent-A-Car. We've read the conditions and we're comfortable with them. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Fagan. Is there any opposition to Item # 11 Enterprise Rent-A-Car? Hearing none. Ms. Anderson, would you please tell us about this one. Janice Anderson: Yes. Thank you Dot. This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of motor vehicles. It's going to be located in the K-mart Shopping Center right off General Booth Boulevard. It's going to occupy one of the vacant units in that shopping center. They are going to put approximately 20 cars on the site. All the cars to be rented will be parked in a small parking lot behind the shopping center so it won't be out in front of the shopping center. The hours of the rental car operation would be normal business hours like the rest of the occupants of the shopping center. During the week the hours will be 8-6 and on Saturday from 9-noon. Any washing and vacuuming of the cars will take place right there in the back lot behind the shopping center. We believe this is an appropriate use and especially when you take into consideration of our Comprehensive Plan that encourages a reuse or vacant commercial site throughout our City. We're recommending approval. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Jan. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this item on the consent agenda, Item #11 'with five conditions. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Do we have a second? William Din: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Will Din. We're ready to vote. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Item # 11 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Page 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0, this consent agenda item passes. December 9, 2003 MAYOR OBERNDORF' Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK' By a vote of 10 to 0 you have approved the Consent Agenda as read by the Vice Mayor. December 9, 2003 L.L.C. re Flanagan's Lane at Princess Anne Road in the Princess Anne 'District. CITY CLERK: to that. Your Honor, we do have one speaker. Captain Keeley is registered to speak in opposition VICE MAYOR JONES: Then, we will pull it. You say Captain Keeley is in opposition? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Captain Keeley is not in opposition to deferring it, correct? CAPTAIN KEELEY: Correct. VICE MAYOR JONES: Is that correct, Captain? CAPTAIN KEELEY: Yes, sir. VICE MAYOR JONES: Okay. Then, we will defer it. Consent for deferral for 60 days, Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. re Flanagan's Lane at Princess Anne Road in the Princess Anne District concerning the discontinuance, closure and abandonment portion. And, B, Change of Zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development and a petition for a Variance at the intersection of Sandbridge Road. I move for approval of the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Second. December 9, 2003 INFORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. The Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. That's the one I saw the -- COUNCILMAN REEVE: Yes, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: -- letter from the attorney. COUNCILMAN REEVE: A deferral for 60 days from today. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Deferral, 60 days. VICE MAYOR JONES: Is it for 60 days or does it coincide with the other ones that you're -- COUNCILMAN REEVE: to spread them out. Sixty days from today. I don't want all of a sudden ten of them coming at once. I want COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Well, we thank you for that. CITY CLERK: That will be the last Meeting in February. COUNCILMAN REEVE: Thank you, ma'am. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. FORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: Item M-Ii, consent to a deferral for 60 days, the Application of Ashville Park, - 64 - Item V-M. 11. PLANNING ITEM # 520?4 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council DEFERRED sixty (60) days until the City Council Session of February 24, 2004, Ordinances upon application of ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan's Lane, Conditional Change of Zoning and Petition for a Variance to 3~ 4.4 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at the intersection of Sandbridge Road: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ASHVILLE PARK, L.L. C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICA TIONFROMA G- 1 AND AG-2 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS TO CONDITIONAL PD-H2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (R-30 & P-l). Ordinance upon Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. for a Change Of' Zoning District Classification from A G-1 and A G-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 & P-I). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this propertyfor appropriate growth opportunities consistent with the economic vitality policies of the City of Virginia Beach. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Ashville Park, L.L.C. Property is located on the east side of Princess Anne Road, abutting the north and south sides of Flanagans Lane to its intersection with Sandbridge Road. (GPINS 2413071960; 2413066259; 2413167813; 2413363862; 2413464337; 2413570702; 2413555252; 2413754401). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Ordinance upon Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan 's Lane located 5350.2feet east of Princess Anne Road, running in a northeasterly direction a distance of3133.16feet. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve. Peter W. Schmidt, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Ron A. Villanueva December 9, 2003 Virginia Beach City Council December 9, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville - District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - District 5 CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. re Flanagan's Lane Item V-M. 11. PLANNING ITEM # 52034 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council DEFERRED sixty (60) days until the City Council Session of February 24, 2004, Ordinances upon application of ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment qf a portion of Flanagan's Lane, Conditional Change of Zoning and Petition for a Variance to 3g 4.4 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at the intersection of Sandbridge Road: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ASHVILLE PARK, L.L. C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICA TIONFROMA G- 1 AND AG-2 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS TO CONDITIONAL PD-H2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (R-30 & P- 1). Ordinance upon Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. for a Change qf Zoning District Classification from A G- 1 and A G-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 & P-I). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this propertyfor appropriate growth opportunities consistent with the economic vitality policies of the City of Virginia Beach. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Ashville Park, L.L.C. Property is located on the east side of Princess Anne Road, abutting the north and south sides of Flanagans Lane to its intersection with Sandbridge Road. (GPINS 2413071960; 2413066259; 2413167813; 2413363862.: 2413464337; 2413570702; 2413555252; 2413754401). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Ordinance upon Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan 's Lane located 5350. 2feet east of Princess Anne Road, running in a northeasterly direction a distance of 3133.16feet. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Ron A. Villanueva December 9, 2003 ...........................................Supplement a'l':"' '"information' Zoning History Mal~ KI3, LIS No ~ot to $cole ztshville Park, LLC i ! ! / ~ I I I ~ ~ /! // ,/ 11 i /I { / ~"~ / / ~ , ~ t/ / / ,//./ /' AG-I Com~ a~eZoning AG-I # DATE [REQUEST I ACTION 12-10- 91 8-27-86 2-12-73 8-12-03 12-11- 89 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) Rezoning ((R-3 Residential to AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural) Conditional Use Permit (Small Bore Rifle and Pistol Range) Rezoning (AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R- 20 Residential and Conditional P-1 Preservation) and a Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion) Conditional Use Permit (Rental) Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 20 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Department of Planning Director's Office (757) 427-5801 Fax (757) 426-1762 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM February '18, 2004 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: James K. Spore, City Manager Robert J. Scott, Planning Director ~ DISPOSITION OF TWO ITEMS ON CITY COUNCIL'S FEBRUARY 24, 2004 AGENDA At its special meeting of February 17, 2004, the City Council voted to reconsider the development application of F. Donald Reid. This property is adversely affected by AICUZ considerations and was approved by the City Council on February 10, 2004. Council's approval was pursuant to guidelines entitled "Interim Guidelines Governing Applications for Development in Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)", also adopted on February 10, 2004. These guidelines exempted from a policy of deferral the applications filed before February 3, 2004. It is clear that these guidelines are the root of considerable concern, and a reconsideration of the Reid application necessitates a reconsideration of the guidelines as well. Accordingly, a revised set of guidelines extracting the exemption for applications filed before February 3, 2004 has been prepared and is on Council's agenda for consideration and adoption on February 24, 2004. There are two other Similar applications on Council's agendas for February 24. Should Council approve the revised guidelines as drafted, then the following conclusions must be reached: 1. The application ofALCAR, L.L.C. should be deferred pending completion of the Joint Land Use Study because it fails to meet the test established by Sec. 3(b)(3). Part of the subject property is in the 70-75 Ldn area. 2. The application forAshville Park, L.L.C. be considered on its may merits because it meets all of the criteria set out in Sec. 3(b) of the guidelines. RJS:jms pc: Steve Thompson Charles Meyer Leslie Lilley CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM I i iii I ii i ITEM: Ashville Park, L.L.C. - Street Closure (portion of Flanagan's Lane) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan's Lane located 5350.2 feet east of Princess Anne Road, running in a northeasterly direction a distance of 3133.16 feet. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE This request is part of a proposal to develop a 474-acre site with 490 single family dwellings. This item was deferred by the City Council on December 9, 2003. Considerations: A major part of the zoning change requests related to the Ashville Park residential development is a street closure for a portion of Flanagan's Lane. The applicant will construct and dedicate a new street that will connect Princess Anne Road to the remaining section of Flanagan's Lane near the Sandbridge Road intersection. The applicant will also construct cul-de-sacs to terminate the two remaining sections of Flanagan's Lane. One of the cul-de-sacs will be located at the end of Flanagan's Lane adjacent to the Coast Guard property; the other will be located just to the west of "Village D." The new road will begin from a point on Princess Anne Road approximately 1,000 feet north of Flanagan's Lane to a point on Flanagan's Lane approximately 800 feet west of its intersection with Sandbridge Road. The new proposed alignment for Sandbridge Road is not affected by this application. The new road winds through the property's open space with the exception of one area in which it runs through a village (Village D). In this area, the road splits off into two roads leading around a large central open space for this village. The Viewers met on July 23, September 22, and October 30, 2003 and determined that the request to close a portion of Flanagan's Lane will not be detrimental to the public if the conditions recommended below are met. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the request. Ashville Park Page 2 of 11 R ecom men dations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 2 abstentions to approve this request with the following conditions: · The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. No purchase price shall be charged in this street closure, however, because the applicant shall dedicate a new street to replace the closed portion of Flanagan's Lane. The closure and the new street shall b econsidered an "even trade." . The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. . The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, shall be provided. , Construction plans for the new street to replace the section of Flanagan's Lane proposed for closure shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review. The new street proposed by the applicant shall be dedicated, constructed, and approved by Civil Inspections before the requested section of Flanagan's Lane can be closed. This condition is to ensure that a means of public ingress and egress shall be provided between Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road at all times. , Cul-de-sacs terminating the two remaining sections of Flanagan's Lane shall be constructed by the applicant on the subject property of Ashville Park. Construction plans for the cul-de-sacs shall be submitted to the Development Services Center. . Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within four (4) years of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within four (4) years of the City Council vote to close the right-of- way, this approval shall be considered null and void. Attachments: Disclosure Statement(s) Ordinance Ashville Park Page 3 of 11 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manageri~t~,, ( Map K,£-15 Not. to 3caIe ...- .... AG-2 ! /' AG-2 AG-2 AG-I / / / / ,' / / / Ashville Park, LLC Street Closure / / 0 o AG-2 / AG-I / -/ / /' ......... " 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ORDINANCE NO. 1N THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTA1N STREET KNOWN AS A PORTION OF FLANAGANS LANE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF FLANAGANS LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY (MB 13, PG 14) AUGUST 28, 2003, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" 18 WHEREAS, Ashville, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, applied to the 19 Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street 20 discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 21 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, 22 closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or before four (4) years 23 from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 24 25 26 27 28 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: SECTION I 30 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject 31 to certain conditions being met on or before four (4) years from City Council's adoption of this 32 ordinance: 33 34 GPIN: 2413-57-0702, 2413-56-6613, 2413-46-4337, 2413-36-3862 35 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as "PORTION OF FLANAGANS LANE HEREBY CLOSED, AREA = 101.063 SF OR 2.320 AC." shown as the cross-hatched area on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF FLANAGANS LANE RIGHT- OF-WAY (MB 13, PG 14) AUGUST 28, 2003, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale: 1" = 200', dated August 28, 2003, prepared by MSA, P.C., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION II 50 The following conditions must be met on or before four (4) years from City 51 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 52 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 53 ownership of the underlying fee. No purchase price shall be charged in this street closure, 54 however, because the applicant shall dedicate a new street to replace the closed portion of 55 Flanagan's Lane. The closure and the new street shall be considered an even trade. 56 2. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal 57 lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be 58 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 59 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- 60 way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements 61 satisfactory to the utility companies. 62 4. Construction plans for the new street to replace the section of Flanagan's 63 Lane proposed for closure shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review. 64 The new street proposed by the applicant shall be dedicated, constructed, and approved by Civil 65 Inspections before the requested section of Flanagan's Lane can be closed. This condition is to 66 ensure that a means of public ingress and egress shall be provided between Sandbridge Road and 67 Princess Anne Road at all times. 68 5. Cul-de-sacs terminating the two remaining sections of Flanagan's Lane 69 shall be constructed by the applicant on the subject property of Ashville Park. Construction 70 plans for the cul-de-sacs shall be submitted to the Development Services Center. 71 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the 72 above stated conditions within four (4) years of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted 73 above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within four (4) years of the City 74 Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void. 75 76 SECTION III 77 78 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before February 23, 79 2008, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 80 2. Il: all conditions are met on or before February 23, 2008, the date of final 81 closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 82 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the underlying 83 fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that 84 may be requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are approved by the City 85 Attorney's Office. 86 SECTION IV 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 OF 89 VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and Ashville, Park, LLC as "Grantee." 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this ,2004. day CA-8914 Date January 22, 2004 F:\Dat a\ATYM ~orms\St feet Closure\WOR KING\ca8914.ORl).doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~~ City Attorney REVISE MATCHLINE DESCRIPTIONS 12/03/03 EXHIBIT A r-~DENO~S A PORTION Of FLANAGANS LANE HEREBY CLOSED. AREA = 101,063 SF OR 2.520 AC. FRANK T. ~41LIAMS 2413-57-0702 ('DS 2726, PG 1085) ('DB 723, PG 401) S 65'10'21" E 1917.94' N 65°10'21" W 1917.94' ZANZ ('Me 258, PG 59) OLIVER, dR. ESTATE (w~ 107, ~ 1~67) ('MB 13, PG 14) S 65'10'21" E STEVEN R. & JUD/TH A. BERMAN 2413-56-6613 ('MB 117, PG 49) ('DB 2432, PC 1578) C5 L3------- cLAu~£ ~Auz 8~o~v, mus~£ 2413-55-5252 ('DB 2757, PG 148) ('DB 1144, PG 657) ! 1917.94' 7-7-]DENOTES a PORTION Of FLANAGANS LANE HEREBY CLOSED. AREA = 101,063 SF OR 2.320 AC. OLIVER, d/?. ESTATE 2413-36-3862 ('WB 107, PG 1967) (Ma 13, PC 14) MATCH LINE ~EE SHEET 2 N 65'1 "W 1917.94' I R. ANA~S LANZ (,~.' I('MB 258, PG 59,) BETTY B. BOUt~DON 2413, 46-4337 ('DB 2757, PG 148) ('DB 1144, PG 643) PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF FLANAGANS LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY (MB 13, PG 14) AUGUST 28, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MSA, P.C. : Landscape Architecture · Planning Surveying. Eng/neering Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462-3708 PHONE (757) 490-9264 . FAX (757) 490-0634 JOB# 98110 I DA .TE:_ 08/28/03 ]SCALE: 1"=200' DWN BY: MAS I SHEET 1 OF 3 UAK~H I~IE ~ .~.i~i 1 TA 2413-36-3B62 ~ OLI~ ~ ES ~ ~~1~ ~ ~n ~7~ 2413-36-3862~ ~' ~ " ' ~(MB~ ~ ~ o, ' ~ ~ ' ' ~' ' ~' ' ' (~ lO~ PC 1967) ...... ~DENO~S A PORnON t -- I / /IOF FLANA~ANS LANE H~[BY CLOSED. / I AREA = ~01.0S3 SF I I ~ · ~ I 2~13-23-2o98 ~~ ~ ~. I 2~ 005 AC~ES .n ¢¢G ~&O~ ~ ~~~'::~CITY OF W~/N/A BEACH .,~] ~ ~, ~~~ .,~S: FLANAGANS LANE ~fflN~>-fflN~ RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ (UB ~3, P~ ~) ~ AUGUST 28, 2003 ~ VIRGINIA BEACH, ~RGINIA Landscape ~chitecmre · Planning -- 2 Z Z Su~eying · En~neering Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSE DRIP, VIRGIN~ BEACH, VA 23~2-3708 ~0~ (7~7) ~-920~ . F~ (757) d,. · CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C1 202.92 172.18 91.66 167.06 S46'4.6'59"W 4.8'37'00" C2 200,73 161.97 85.68 157.61 N4.7'58'31"E 4.6'13'55" C3 14.9.62 234..94. 149.54. 211.54. S69'50'36"W 89'58'05" C4 120.71 166.61 99.65 153.70 N75'17'Og"E 79'04'59" C5 150.71 66.14. 33.61 65.61 S 77'4.4.' 4.1 "E 25'08'39", C6 119.62 187.83 119.55 169.12 S69'50'36"W 89'58'05" C7 230.73 186.18 98.49 181.17 N 47'58'31 "E 4.6'13'55" , C8 172.92 146.73 78.11 142.36 S46'46'59"W 48'37'00" LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 100.64. N71'O5'29"E L2 116.21 S35'4.4.. ' 4.0" W L3 52.4.9 N 6 4.'13'15"W L4. 27.21 S79'37'00"W ,,, L5 7.14 N68'10'4.8" W L6 100.6 4. ' S71 '05' 29" W ,, L7 30.00 N45'10'4.5"W PLAT SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF FLANAGANS LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY ([MB 13, PG 14.) AUGUST 28, 2003 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MSA, P.C. Landscape Architecture · Plann/ng Surveying. Engineering Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462-3708 PHONE (757) 490-9264. FAX (757) 490-0654 K 13-210-C RZ-2003 K13-210-STC-2003 K13-210-SVR-2003 ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 November 12, 2003 Public Hearing Staff Planners: Ashby Moss and Faith Christie The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. ,, .~.~ ..~ ..~.:....:.:.:.::~:..~ Location and General information REQUESTS: 28. , 29. 30. Change of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 Residential and P-1 Preservation); Street Closure for Flanagan's Lane (Portion of Flanagan's Lane 5,350 feet east of Princess Anne Road, running in a northeasterly direction a distance of 3,133 feet); 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 (minimum pavement width) LOCATION: Items 28 & 30 -- Property on the east side of Princess Anne Road, abutting the north and south sides of Flanagan's Lane to its intersection with Sandbridge Road; Item 29 -- Right-of-way located 5,350.2 feet east of Princess Anne Road, running in a northeast direction a distance of 3,133.16 feet. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 1 ~,~ ~ .... S.o~ Ashville LLC Cond. ReZoning &G-I GPINS: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE' EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING' 24130719600000; 24130662590000; 24131678130000; 24133638620000; 24134643370000; 24135707020000; 24135552520000; 24137544010000 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 474 acres (2.32 acres for Street Closure) Currently, the site is under cultivation, with the remaining portion wooded. The site is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. The City's Agriculture Department reports that the development of the site as proposed will result in the reduction of approximately 410 acres of cropland. North: South' · Cultivated fields and single-family dwellings / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural and Conditional R-20 Residential and Conditional P-1 Preservation (recently approved Heritage Park) · Untied States Coast Guard facility and an abandoned airfield / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural ASHVILLE PARK, bEC. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 2 NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: East: West: · Single-family dwellings, wooded areas and cultivated fields / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural · Princess Anne Road · Across Princess Anne Road are cultivated fields and single-family dwellings / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural The site is almost completely under cultivation. The areas not under cultivation are wooded. The site drains either to the north toward Scopus Marsh and eastward to Ashville Bridge Creek and Back Bay. There are areas of non-tidal wetlands as defined by the U.S. Corps of Engineers (but not by the City) that will be preserved. On the eastern side of the site, approximately 4 acres, a portion of the proposed Village "F" is considered "floodplain subject to special restrictions" as regulated under the Site Plan Ordinance. The applicant proffers that a Letter of Map Amendment ("LOMA") must be approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) before any development may proceed within any area currently restricted by the Site Plan Ordinance. Should the LOMA be obtained, this issue will be moot. If the LOMA is not obtained, the applicant will be unable to develop the restricted area without obtaining a Floodplain Variance from City Council. From a cultural perspective, it appears that the City's most infamous character, the "witch of Pungo" Grace Sherwood, owned a portion of the site during her lifetime. According to City records John White, Grace's father, received a land patent of 195 acres at Ashville Creek at the east end of Muddy Creek in 1674. At his death, the property conveyed to James and Grace Sherwood. The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn and 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy has commented that "The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program (AICUZ) views residential development as not compatible and discourages this use in the 65-70 dB Ldn. The Navy acknowledges the landowners desire to develop their property, but ask you to seriously consider the additional population that would be exposed to aircraft operations from NAS Oceana. We would view residential development at this site as an encroachment upon operations at NAS Oceana." ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 3 Major issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies and the Transition Area Design Guidelines · Impact on City systems (transportation, utilities, schools). · Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of land use. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts this area of the city as the Transition Area, planned for appropriate growth opportunities consistent with the economic vitality policies of the City of Virginia Beach. This area serves as a land use buffer between the urban northern portion of the city and the rural southern portion of the city. Land uses and densities within this area should not be a continuation of either form but a transition from one to the other. Staff evaluated the proposed development using the latest Comprehensive Plan Policies for the Transition Area, including the Transition Area Matrix and the Design Guidelines. Staff concludes that the development satisfies the recommendations of the plan in regard to design and that the dwelling unit density proposed falls within the guidelines regarding maximum allowable density in the Transition Area (a copy of the matrix is included at the end of this report). Summary of Proposal The applicant proposes to develop the 474-acre site with 490 single-family dwellings. The dwellings are divided into five "villages." Two of the villages are age-restricted for ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 page 4 residents 55 and over. The total number of dwellings in the age-restricted villages equals 160, leaving 330 dwellings in the other three villages. The resulting overall density is 1.03 units per acre. A major part of this request includes a street closure for a portion of Flanagan's Lane. The applicant will construct and dedicate a new street that will connect Princess Anne Road to the remaining section of Flanagan's Lane near the Sandbridge Road intersection. The applicant will also construct cul-de-sacs to terminate the two remaining sections of Flanagan's Lane. One of the cul-de-sacs will be located at the end of the Lane adjacent to the Coast Guard property; the other will be located just past the southwest corner of the Berman property. The new road will begin from a point on Princess Anne Road approximately 1,000 feet north of Flanagan's Lane to a point on Flanagan's Lane approximately 800 feet west of its intersection with Sandbridge Road. The new proposed alignment for Sandbridge Road is not affected by this application. The new road winds through the property's open space with the exception of one area in which it runs through a village (Village D). In this area, the road splits off into two roads leading around a large central open space for this village. Each of the villages incorporates some degree of internal open space. A recurring feature in all of the villages is the "pocket park." These are open space areas typically shown along curves or corners of the interior streets. A second "pocket park street" defines the border of the open space and provides access to the dwellings across from the pocket parks. These pocket park streets are narrow lanes (22-feet wide) that loop to the interior street and serve only a few houses each. Another unique feature of the subdivision design is the "linear park." These areas line segments of the internal streets and are intended to create the appearance of more open space. The linear parks are created by setting the sidewalk back a considerable distance from the street. As a result, the dwellings are set very close to the sidewalks (the specific distance has not been specified in the plans). The green space between the street and the sidewalk is the linear park. The width of the linear parks varies but appears to average at 50 feet. The linear parks are actually privately owned but will be subject to an easement allowing public access through the area. They will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Villages A and C will have the largest lots at 20,000 square feet. Villages D and F will have minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet. The age-restricted Villages B and E will have minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet. Other dimensional requirements are listed in proffers 33 and 34 (see next section). ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 5 Fifty-foot buffers separating the rear of the proposed lots from the adjacent (off-site) properties are shown throughout the development. In addition, the applicant has proffered a landscaped berm north of Village D and east of Village C to screen the new dwellings from the existing property owners on Flanagan's Lane. A 150-foot buffer will be provided along Princess Anne Road as measured from the ultimate right-of-way. Two recreational activity centers are proposed. One is intended for residents of the age-restricted villages and includes a clubhouse and pool. The second is for the other residents and includes a clubhouse, pool, tennis courts, playing fields, and tot lots. Both of these activity areas are located within the open space between the villages. Proffers The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h)of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 The Property shall be developed substantially as shown on the "Master Plan of Ashville Park Virginia Beach, VA" dated 8/29/03 and designed by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC in conjunction with MSA, P.C., a copy of which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter, the "Master Plan"). PROFFER # 2 The principal entranceway to the Property shall be from Princess Anne Road which shall be substantially similar in design and quality to the exhibit entitled "Community Entrance Princess Anne Road" a copy of which is contained within Section V of the development manual entitled "Ashville Park" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter the "Manual"). ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 6 PROFFER # 3 PROFFER # 4 A second entranceway to the Property is located at Flanagans Lane near the intersection of Flanagans Lane and Sandbridge Road and shall be substantially similar in design and quality to the exhibit entitled "Community Entrance Flanagans Lane" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, a copy of which is contained within Section V of the Manual. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit within Village C and upon completion of at least two lanes of the public right-of-way running through Ashville Park from Princess Anne Road to the second entranceway of the Property at Flanagans Lane as referenced in proffer number 3, Grantor shall cul-de-sac Flanagans Lane within the confines of Ashville Park at two locations where depicted on the Master Plan. In addition to this improvement, when developing Village D, Grantor shall maintain a 50' buffer area along the northern perimeter of Village D which buffer shall be measured from the top of bank from the ditch currently existing along this portion of the Property or as it may be modified during the course of the site plan review. These improvements, together with an undulating berm along the northern limits of Village D, shall be developed substantially as shown on the Exhibit entitled Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Ashville Park, Berm Plan, Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 17, 2003, prepared by MSA, P.C., which plan shall have been exhibited to City Council and on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter "Berm Plan"). STREET SCAPE PROFFER # 5 The Grantor shall dedicate to the City of Virginia Beach sufficient land along the portions of the Property adjacent to Princess Anne Road of 55' in width as measured from the centerline of the right-of-way, to accommodate an ultimate 110' right-of-way. In addition to said dedication, Grantor agrees to dedicate to the City an additional 150' wide buffer as measured from the ultimate right-of-way dedication. The dedicated buffer shall be for public ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 7 PROFFER # 6 PROFFER # 7 PROFFER # 8 PROFFER # 9 PROFFER # 10 PROFFER # 11 purposes including open space, buffers, landscaping, utilities, roadways and trail purposes. Said buffer shall not restrict the development of the "Community Entrance Prospective" within Section V within the Manual. The Grantor agrees that during the detailed site plan review to conduct a Traffic Impact Study of the impacts of Ashville Park. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Ashville Park that are called for in the Traffic Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of the first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Ashville Park. The internal streets within Ashville Park shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the exhibit entitled "Typical Street Sections Plan of Ashville Park Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by MSA, P.C., which exhibit has been displayed to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter "Street Section Plan"). All rolled curbs, drop inlets and sidewalks depicted on the Street Section Plan shall have an exposed aggregate finish. All street lighting installed on the Property shall be a decorative style fixture and the height and separation of streetlights shall be determined during the detailed site plan review. The trees planted within and adjacent to the public right-of- ways on the Property shall be double the total tree canopy requirements for public right-of-ways as set forth in the Department of Public Works Landscape Manual of the City of Virginia Beach. Subject to confirmation by the City of the necessary 50' wide right-of-way widths and receipt by the City of all environmental permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality, Grantor shall ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page8 substantially improve or bond the costs of right-of-way improvements to Flanagans Lane beginning from the eastern-most entranceway to the Property from Flanagans Lane, continuing in an easterly direction to the intersection of Flanagans Lane and Sandbridge Road. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of final occupancy permit for the first residence in Village D, E or F as depicted on the Master Plan. Said improvements shall be the widening of the existing lane with and the piping of the adjacent ditches, together with the portion of the future right-of-way traffic simulation generated by Ashville Park as determined during the detailed site plan review and the Traffic Impact Study performed by Grantor. These improvements shall be consistent with CIP Project No. 2.021.000 for rural road improvements in the City of Virginia Beach's Capital Improvement Program. THE VILLAGES OF ASHVILLE PARK PROFFER # 12 The Grantor shall record a Master Deed of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Restrictions") governing the Property. All landowners within the PD-H2 District shall be members of a Home Owners Association responsible for maintaining collectively all common areas on the Property. The Restrictions shall be enforced by one or more Home Owners Association, which Restrictions, shall among other things, restrict the use of the open space areas for any purpose, but recreation and open space use. Such covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty- (50) years. These covenants shall become part of the deed of each lot or parcel within the development. Such covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded before the first building permit in the project is issued. The Restrictions shall among other things require that every residential unit within Villages B and E as shown on the Master Plan will be occupied, on a full-time basis, by at least one (1) adult resident of fifty-five (55) years of age or older. The Restrictions shall also prohibit persons under eighteen (18) years of age from residing in any residential unit within Villages B or E for more than one hundred ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 9 twenty (120) days in any calendar year. PROFFER # 13 The total number of units developed in Village B shall not exceed 104 and the total number of units developed in Village E shall not exceed 50 56. All such units within Village B shall be single-family detached dwellings. The minimum lot size, internal open space area, buffers and acreages for each Village shall be as set forth in the Master Plan. PROFFER # 14 Villages A, C, D and F shall be developed substantially as depicted on the Master Plan. The total number of units developed in Village A shall not exceed 135 units. The total number of units developed in Village C shall not exceed 94 units. The total number of units developed in Village D shall not exceed ~ 45. The total number of units developed in Village F shall not exceed 56. All units shall be single-family detached dwellings within these Villages. The minimum lot size, internal open space area, buffers and acreages for each Village shall be as set forth in the Master Plan. PROFFER # 15 The linear parks depicted within Villages A, C, D and F shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association and no structure shall be allowed within the linear parks other than uniform fencing, or other uniform decorative features, and mailboxes. The Pocket Parks depicted on the Master Plan shall be developed and constructed substantially as depicted on the Master Plan. The Pocket Parks shall be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association. All sidewalks and trails located outside of the public rights- of-way shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. PROFFER # 16 A Letter of Map Amendment ("LOMA") must be approved by FEMA before any development may proceed within any Special Flood Hazard Area. PROFFER # 17 The residential lot tree canopy for each residential lot on the Property shall be double the total canopy cover specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Request Table" in effect as of September 1,2003. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 10 PROFFER # 18 A minimum 50' buffer shall be established on the perimeters of the Property as shown on the Master Plan. No structures shall be allowed within the buffer area and the buffer area shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. No community wide or other activity other than maintenance shall occur within the Buffer area. RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE AREAS PROFFER # 19 PROFFER # 20 PROFFER # 2'1 Two Recreational Activity Areas shall be designed, constructed and built on the Property substantially where indicated on the Master Plan. Both facilities shall provide indoor amenities, meeting rooms and active outdoor recreational amenities. No outside recreational fields or sporting areas shall be lighted to permit sporting events at night. This restriction shall not prohibit lighted outdoor swimming pools or lighted outdoor tennis courts provided that any such lighted tennis courts must be setback a minimum of 150' from a residential property line. Outdoor lighting installed for the swimming pools or outdoors tennis courts shall be directed downward toward the swimming pool or tennis courts play area. The recreational facilities shall be substantially similar in quality, design and character to the exhibits entitled "Community Amenities" as contained in Section VI in the Manual. It is recognized that with a development of this size, detailed building plans may change as the development of Ashville Park progresses. The intent of the renderings is to demonstrate the architectural style and building quality of these facilities. Final elevations for these structures shall be submitted to the Planning Director to assure compliance with this proffer. In addition to the buffer areas, linear parks, pocket parks and Village Greens within Villages A, B, C, D, E and F, Grantor shall set aside as open space the areas shown on the Master Plan. Said areas shall be for the benefit of the owners of property within Ashville Park. These areas shall be set aside for passive enjoyment and recreation for uses such as Lakes, Meadows, Forested Areas and Landscaped Vistas. These areas shall be maintained by ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 11 PROFFER # 22 PROFFER # 23 PROFFER # 24 PROFFER # 25 the Home Owners Association. No portion of the Property that has been designated as a jurisdictional wetland by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be disturbed. The combined areas set aside for recreation and open space on the Property should not be below fifty-four percent (54%) of the current gross acreage of the Property. The different types and acreages of open spaces provided within Ashville Park shall be substantially as specified on the Master Plan. Grantor shall donate $1,000.00 for each residential lot developed on the Property to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Parks and Recreation into the Open Space Site Acquisition program more specifically referred to as CIP Project No. 4.004.000. Grantor's per lot donation should be paid to the City at the time of the issuance of each building permit for each residential lot within Ashville Park. If all or a portion of said donated funds have not been used by the City of Virginia Beach within twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they were dedicated, then they may be used by the City of Virginia Beach for other municipal purposes, as the City shall in its sole discretion deem appropriate. OPEN SPACE; PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE TRAILS Grantor shall construct a series of sidewalks and trails that are designed to provide pedestrian accessibility within each Village, and pedestrian and bike connections between each Village and to adjacent properties substantially as shown on the Exhibit entitled "Connectivity Plan" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, which plan is part of the Manual. The sidewalk system adjacent to right-of-ways and residences shall be constructed of concrete with an exposed aggregate finish. The path system within the Village Greens, the Pocket Parks and other open space areas shall be finished in hard surfaces such as asphalt or compacted clay. Such trails shall be designed substantially in accordance with the quality levels ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 12 PROFFER # 26 PROFFER # 27 PROFFER # 28 PROFFER # 29 PROFFER # 30 and design features as depicted on the exhibit entitled "Open Space" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, which exhibit is part of the Manual. While not all portions of the trail system within Ashville Park will be open to the public, Grantor shall provide a continuous trail system from Princess Anne Road to Flanagans Lane that will be open to the public either through easements over some of the trails on the Home Owners Association property, or the provision of sidewalks and trails within the public right-of- way section between Princess Anne Road and Flanagans Lane. THE RESIDENCES AT ASHVILLE PARK Grantor shall include within the Restrictions governing the Property, a requirement that the design and building materials for all fences, homes and accessory structures must be reviewed and approved by an Architectural Review Committee of the HOA to insure design and quality compatibility. Said restrictions shall run with the land as allowed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roofs, porches, windows, doors, trim and soffits, consisting entirely of all or any combination of brick, stone, hardy plank, stucco, cedar shake or similar quality materials. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall be constructed with a minimum of a two (2)-car garage. All residential dwellings constructed within Villages A, C, D and F shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any one- stow dwelling and no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any two- stow dwelling. All residential dwellings constructed within Villages B and E shall contain no less than 1,800 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any one-stow dwelling and shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any two-stow dwelling. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 13 PROFFER # 31 PROFFER # 32 PROFFER # 33 Grantor shall utilize Iow impact development techniques where possible on the Property to encourage storm water treatment and ground water recharge and discourage storm water runoff and erosion. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall be constructed in accordance with the construction criteria applicable to homes located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn/STC ratings of not less than 44 for roof/ceiling/exterior walls and 33 for windows/doors, even though no portion of the Property is located within this noise zone. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The dimensional requirements applicable to development of all portions of the Property except Villages B and E shall be as follows: Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet: 12,000 (Villages D and F); 20,000 (Villages A and C) Minimum Lot Width in Feet: 100 Minimum Front Yard Setback in Feet: 50' for 20,000 square foot lots and 30' for lots from between 12,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet Minimum Side Yard Setback in Feet: 10 Minimum Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street: 30 Minimum Rear Yard Setback in Feet: 20 Accessory structures of no more than 150 square feet- 5' rear and side yard setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage: 30% for lots 20,000 square feet and greater and 35% for lots less than 20,000 square feet Minimum Setback from Sidewalk for lots containing linear parks: 15' from edge of sidewalk Maximum Height 42 feet in Villages A and C and 38 feet in ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 14 Villages D and F PROFFER # 34 PROFFER # 35 Staff Evaluation of Proffers: The dimensional requirements applicable to development within Villages B and E on the Property shall be as follows: Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet: 7,500 Minimum Lot Width in Feet: 75 Minimum Front Yard Setback in Feet: 30 Minimum Side Yard Setback in Feet: 5 & 10 Minimum Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street: 20 Minimum Rear Yard in Feet: 20 Accessory structures no more than 150 square feet: 5' rear and side yard setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Maximum Height in Feet: 35 (not to exceed two stories) Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The proffers adequately address most of the concerns presented by the development proposal. Any outstanding concerns are addressed in the recommended conditions of the Street Closure or Subdivision Variance or can be further addressed during the detailed plan review process. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated September 5, 2003 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 15 CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST: Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified at the beginning of this report. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (~) The proposal meets the majority of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transition Area Design Guidelines. The Transition Area "Matrix" was used to evaluate the proposal's consistency with land use and design goals for the Transition Area. The result was a score of 0.943 dwelling units per acre. Although this score translates to a total of 447 units for this 474-acre site, and the applicant's proposal consists of 490 units, an important consideration is the fact that 160 of the 490 units are age-restricted. The Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TATAC) report, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, states, "Active adult communities are to be encouraged and should be treated differently." It is generally acknowledged that active adult communities have less impact on City services, particularly more costly services such as schools and transportation. Thus, in the Transition Area, where impact on City services and infrastructure is to be minimized, there is rationale for allowing a slightly greater density of such units than for a standard non-age-restricted single-family dwelling that places a greater demand on City services. The TATAC report recognizes this and encourages the provision of such units. The report, however, does not provide quantifiable criteria regarding how such communities are to be treated, instead allowing such communities to be addressed on an individual basis dependent on how the community meets the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. In the case of the current proposal, the density calculated through the Transition Area Matrix allows for 447 units. The applicant's proposal consists of 330 non- age-restricted units and 160 age-restricted units. If the 330 non-age-restricted units are subtracted from the calculated allowable of 447 units, 117 units remain. The proposal calls for 160 age-restricted units, 43 over the calculated allowable number of units. It must be remembered, however, that these 160 units are age- restricted and do not have as great an impact on City services as the other 330 units. Staff believes that the 43 additional age-restricted units represent an acceptable increase beyond the 447 units recommended by the Transition Area Matrix. The total density of the project as proposed with 490 units is 1.03 units per acre. This represents a 0.09 unit per acre increase in density beyond that calculated through the Transition Area Matrix. Staff concludes that consistent with the recommendations contained within the TATAC report regarding active adult communities and noting the many unique design features of this development as recommended in the Transition Area Design Guidelines the 0.09 ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 16 increase in overall density is appropriate. (2) (3) Property values for the homes are estimated to average at or above $400,000 ($225,000 for age-restricted), which is consistent with the recommendations of the TATAC report regarding the fiscal impact of development in the Transition Area. The proposal is compatible with existing land use and future land use in the surrounding area. The entire development includes a minimum 50-foot buffer around its perimeter, which will mitigate impacts to neighboring farmland or residences. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUEST: Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. C. D. E. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for reduced pavement width; however, this recommendation comes with a caveat. Staff can support this variance request, but only if the applicant is successful in obtaining a variance from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), allowing the City to receive state maintenance funds for the roadways that will have the reduced pavement width. Without such a variance, the City will not receive maintenance funds from the Commonwealth for these roadways, thus increasing the City's cost of providing services to this development. The condition recommended below ensures if the applicant cannot obtain the variance from ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, &.30 Page 17 VDOT, the roadways will be constructed at a width that meets City standards and meets eligibility for maintenance funding from the Commonwealth. Conditions of Subdivision Variance , The applicant shall seek a variance from the Virginia Department of Transportation to allow state maintenance funding for the substandard pavement width request. If state maintenance funding is not granted, the Subdivision Approval shall be considered null and void. STREET CLOSURE REQUEST: Staff recommends approval of this request. The Viewers met on July 23, September 22, and October 30, 2003 and determined that the request to close a portion of Flanagan's Lane will not be detrimental to the public if the conditions recommended below are met. The applicant will construct and dedicate a two-lane divided roadway with a multi- purpose trail from Flanagan's Lane to Princess Anne Road. In addition, the applicant will construct cul-de-sacs at the terminus of each side of Flanagan's Lane, adjacent to the north side of the development near Village D and adjacent to the United States Coast Guard property on the south side of the property. During development, however, a means of public ingress and egress will be available at all times between Princess Anne Road and Sandbridge Road. Conditions of Street Closure , The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. No purchase price shall be charged in this street closure, however, because the applicant shall dedicate a new street to replace the closed portion of Flanagan's Lane. The closure and the new street shall be considered an even trade. . The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. . The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, shall be provided. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 18 , Construction plans for the new street to replace the section of Flanagan's Lane proposed for closure shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review. The new street proposed by the applicant shall be dedicated, constructed, and approved by Civil Inspections before the requested section of Flanagan's Lane can be closed. This condition is to ensure that a means of public ingress and egress shall be provided between Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road at all times. o Cul-de-sacs terminating the two remaining sections of Flanagan's Lane shall be constructed by the applicant on the subject property of Ashville Park. Construction plans for the cul-de-sacs shall be submitted to the Development Services Center. , Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within four (4) years of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within four (4) years 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 applications may require revision during detailed [~lan review to meet all applicable City Codes. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 19 11-12- 96 9-25-90 10-10- 88 6-13-95 8-10-93 Rezoning (B-2 Business to R-15 Residential) Conditional Use Permit (Athletic Club and Outdoor Recreation) Conditional Use Permit (Outdoor Recreation) Street Closure Conditional Use Permit (Firewood Preparation Facility) Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Public A_ ency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Princess Anne Road in front of this project is a rural two-lane road. There are no projects listed within the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to improve this road. The current Master Transportation Plan (MTP) designates this road as a proposed 100-foot divided right-of-way. The proposed MTP designates the road as 110-foot right-of-way. The applicant has addressed proposed right-of-way dedications in the proffer agreement. The applicant's request for a Subdivision Variance to reduced pavement widths is subject to the Virginia Department of Transportation granting a variance. The applicant and the city's Department of Public Works are exploring this issue. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic _ Volume Capacity Princess Anne 8,186 12,000 Existing Land Use z Road ADT ~ ADT ~ -4.740 -- Proposed Land Use 3_ 5,550 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by the existing agricultural use 3 as defined by 490 dwelling units ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 21 Public Utilities Water: City water does not front the property, but may be extended for connection purposes provided hydraulic analysis supports the potential demand. Sewer: City sewer is not available to this development as proposed. Plans and bonds are required for construction of a new pump station and sanitary sewer system. The Department of Public Utilities does not have any facilities within the proposed Flanagan's Lane Street Closure area. Public Schools School Current Capacity Generation ~ Change 2 Enrollment Red Mill Elementary 866 910 10 94 Princess Anne 1511 1658 6 49 Middle Kellam High 2276 1990 8 64 I "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school ~ "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). CIP # 1-090 Elementary School 2005 This project is for construction of an elementary school with a design capacity of 900 students. Necessary classroom space and resource areas should result in a facility of approximately 87,500 square feet on a seventeen acre site at the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Sandbridge Road, which has been acquired. Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2004 for a September 2005 opening. Pub#c Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 22 Fire and Rescue: Fire Department comments will be provided during detailed plan review. Hampton Roads Sanitation District Private Utility Comments I No concerns. I Vir,qinia Natural Gas concerns. Dominion Power An easement for access to an overhead power line may be required in the area adjacent Village D. This will be determined during detailed plan review. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & .30 Page 23 Exhibits ," Z Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 24 Exhibit B Proposed Maste~ Plan ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 25 Exhibit B-1 Villages A & B -- Detail .× ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 26 Exhibit B-2 Village C -- Detail 'L ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 27 8~.eBed 0~; ~ '6~: '8~ SLUetl epue§v '0"1'-I '~l~iVd SI-I-IIAHSV I!e~,aa - -:1 ~ '3 'a saSell!A C-El ~!q!qx3 Exhibit C Proposed Connectivity Plan ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 29 .......................................................... i'a-'xhibit D-1 Open Space- Linear Park ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 30 Exhibit D-2 '":':'~ ........... :?ii~ Open Space- Pocket Park ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page.31 Exhibit D-3 Open Space- Recreation Area ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 32 Exhibit D-4 Clubhouse ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 33 ~!i,::,..,.::.~:~:.::,...i,!.:!,!i!.i ..:?...iii!::i Open Space i~' ,,~ ..... ?i!'~i~i!~i i Amenities ~... :. · :.~J""~' . .::.:' ::.2~.. ~¢ ' . ...... ~[~ ' · .~::;~ :~: .~.~. '.. ;.:?;.. "..: ~' '~:~..:::. ~:".. ..:~,..~,. :.~ :.~ ¥~:~:' :~..'t~ ~ -~. ~;:. ~ ~. '~,.~'.~ ~ ~' · ~ ~ .'~.. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page· 34 .............. --~Exh ibit E-2 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 35 I , ,! ' t Exhibit E-3 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 36 i / i Exhibit E-4 ,,,~,~ ~ Open Space ~! Amenities _~. : ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 37 // . .:. !~ "' ' :+:'~ ~" ':ii:'.! ~.I .................. ~ .. Exhibit E-5 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page' 38 Exhibit F-1 Street Sections ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 39 Exhibit F-2 Street Sections ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 40 · ThT 'E ~ o Exhibit G-1 Disclosure Statements TT?r~Trr T TT? l'~i~ TTL~: T/~r-/r-rtT ~'rTTIL T/'~T T T/~I'L T/~ ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 41 Exhibit G-2 Disclosure Statements -io o z ; : ~ ~ ~ n ....... ~ ........ , ~o oo ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 42 Exhibit G-3 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 43 Exhibit G-4 i::3 o Disclosur~ Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 44 Exhibit G-5 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 45 ~z oo °~ ~z oO Exhibit G-6 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 46 Exhibit G-7 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 47 Item #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park. L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in Regard to certain elements of Subdivision Ordinance Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan's Lane East side of Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne November 12, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is the item we moved up is Item #28, 29 & 30, Ashville Park, L.L.C. R.J. Nutter: Mr. Chairman, before I start the clock, I just want to bring a few people up to minimize the impact on our time. For the record, my name is R.J. Nutter and I'm an attorney. I represent the applicant in this case Ashville Park, L.L.C. With me today, in addition to my client, is one of the principal land planners for this entire project. We were actually very proud to have here today from Atlanta is Stephen Fuller. With Stephen, I understand he has brought Doug Bork, Julie and Kate, all of them whom have spent a considerable amount of time on this project for the last six months making it what it is today. But they will be addressing you shortly and I'm going to do everything I can to stay within my ten-minute limit and have a few minutes from Mr. Fuller to make some remarks about the application. First, I'd like to comment that this is not just about the application. This piece of property and I don't want to forget this and it's easy to with an applicant this wonderful. The 'property owners who are the underlying property owners have owned this property for longer than the city has been in existence. They are amongst the City's oldest residents and property owners. Names from the Stalwarts of this area have owned properties here. These are not people who have come here. These are people who have owned this property for an extended period of time, the Culliphers, the Atkinsons, the Coopers, the Malbons, the Williams and I'm proud to say the Bourdon's, as well, are part of this application. All those families are names you all know. Mr. Horsley, I know you and Mr. Knight are going to recognize them as your friend and neighbors for many, many years. I don't want you to lose sight of the fact that these people have owned this property ~br a awful long time and paid taxes for an awful long time and have waited to see how the Transition Area rules were developed to make sure that whoever came fi)rward their property would do so in accordance with those regulations. Second point that I would like to make to you is that this property falls within the Transition Area, which is an area that some may say is heavily encumbered. Mr. Knight, as you have mentioned that gentleman who sent a letter to you that said "heavily encumbered by regulation" that some people may not like to acknowledge. The benefit of that is that this area is amongst the most studied and regulated area in the City. It is resulted in Comprehensive Plan amendments. The last two Comprehensive Plans at Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 2 least. A special committee appointed by Council, the TATAC Committee, which reported their findings to strengthen the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The benefit of that to someone like myself and the developers of this property is that it set forth the rules and guidelines upon which the City has set forth as its goals for this area. Because I only have limited amount of time I have to rely on the fact that there's a 52 page staff report that goes into it in enormous detail how it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the TATAC regulations and all of the criteria that the City has set forth for this area. I brush over that entire part of it based on staff's analysis. I'd like to focus my comments on just a few highlights of this application before I introduce Mr. Fuller. These are really three separate applications. I want you to understand that we have to address all of them. The first is a rezoning application changing the zoning from Agricultural to PD-H2 R-30 Underlying District and P-1 Open Space District. The second is a street closure application on Flanagan's lane. The third is a subdivision variance. Each of them is important. Each of them is significant. I want to spend a few moments on each one. First is the rezoning application. As staff has indicated this is 474 acres of pro'perty. I agree with many of your comments this morning in the earlier session. This is the accumulation of property and really allows for a much better development. A more organized and uniformed system of development as opposed to a series of 50-60 acre parcels or tracks of land at the time. That gave us a great ability to address a lot of different f~atures in one uniform fashion. The nice thing about this property is the development has provided 54 percent overall open space through out this development. I'd like to point a few things for you. What we've done and the Comprehensive Plan is very specific about this plus the TATAC and that is try not just to have an area on the property that is set aside for open space near the front of the property and develop the back into lots. The purpose is really to incorporate the open space into the development and have it form an integral part of it. That is actually what has occurred here. This is really a series of six different village neighborhoods quite frankly, centered around a large amount of open space in one and around and including open space for each one. Because of the scale of this is so large, I'd like to take a few minutes to point out some features. First of all, we've set aside a 154-lbot area all along the frontage of the property on Princess Anne Road. TATAC asked that we come away with a "boulevard" type capable area for all of Princess Anne Road. What you will have along this portion of Princess Anne Road is a 11 O-foot right-of-way. You will have on either side of the 150 feet, so you will have a 300-foot buffer adjacent a 110-foot right-of-way all down Princess Anne Road. That is one of the smaller parts of the open area. The entrance to the property and agreed with staff to a single entrance on Princess Anne Road. It is a divided once you enter the property which staff has asked us to do. Interesting enough, as you meander through this property you are going to be passing through several hundred acres of open space in traversing the property from Princess Anne Road to Flanagan's Lane. At various points, you'll be driving along the corridor where the closest point, which is just about here, is about 100 foot to the closest platted lot. Many of the distances between the road system here is going to be in excess of 200- 300 feet from closest lots. That will be the case throughout the entire length of that roadway except when you enter this Village B, based upon some recent changes, which were requested by the adjacent property owners on Flanagan's Lane. But I point out to Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 3 you that you have 256 acres of open space in this development. The bulk of that open space is along through the central areas to build it in. We've maintained all the forested areas and wetland areas here. The only forested areas that we're impacting at all are for roadways and that is right: through here. That is so we can use that area an entrance of the site to really create a beautiful wooded entrance to that feature. The other fact is that regrettably all of our frontage along where the access was possible is fully wooded so we had no choice. Barring that, which you will have a beautiful wooded entrance into the property. The other feature is that inside each of the villages and there are six. villages, four of them "A", "C?', "D" and "F", are non-age restricted. They are all clustered together. They range in size from 20,000 square foot lots to 12,000 square foot lots. Two of the villages, "B" and "E" are age restricted, active adult community, with head of household is 55 years of age or older and it's further restricted just like West Neck so that no one under the age of 18 may reside on the property for periods of 120 days at a time. Those are the two significant features. They follow almost the identical proffers that you saw in West Neck, which received such rave reviews by the City. The other important features are the connectivity plan, if I could Stephen. There we go. We have over eight miles of trail systems within Ashville Park. The connectivity plan was designed to do three things. First is to provide complete inner connectivity or pedestrian walkways and trails inside each village. Secondly, every one of the six villages is also connected. Those are the areas in green that you might be able to make out here. Finally, we've provided through the red area here, here, here, here and here interconnected here which is the Flanagan's Lane exits access some sort of connectivity to the adjacent properties. Our problem with some of these is that these properties are not yet developed. We're not quite sure where that connectivity might tie in. The one I'm pointing to now and Heritage Park and this one at Heritage Park both a line with existing connectivity with path systems and road systems inside the adjacent subdivision. Ronald Ripley: R.J. you're running out of time. R.J. Nutter: I can tell. Let me just do two comments then on street closure and subdivision and I'll introduce Mr. Fuller if I could. Ronald Ripley: Make it brief please. R.J. Nutter: I sure will. The street closure application and if I could go back to the previous plan Stephen, the master plan perhaps. Thank you. Flanagan's Lane comes up in this fashion is going to be closed from here which it currently exists in this fashion just about a 90 degree angle and connects in here to another 90 degree angle and continues out like this. This portion of Flanagan's Lane will be closed. The conditions proposed by staff are acceptable. We've worked very hard and we appreciate his help. It does require that the cul-de-sac inside Ashville Park at both of these intersections. I point this out because we made a point to do so along the residents of Flanagan's Lane, which result in this portion of Flanagan's Lane almost becoming a private road for the residents along Flanagan's Lane. There will be no vehicular access through this part of the property at all. Finally, is the subdivision variance and the sole reason for the subdivision Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 4 variance is largely a result of the TATAC Committee recommendations that we reduce the amount of impervious area within the transition zone and build a smaller street width. This is an area that I want to focus on fbr one minute and because there is some unfinished business left with the TATAC Commission and what the Comprehensive Plan should call for. Everyone likes the idea of going with a smaller size street, which we proposed. These are beautiful streets. You'll find all of the sidewalks and all of the road curves are exposed aggregate. The point here is that right now unless the City can get the ability to have maintenance funds for those road systems then we jeopardize the ability to install those road systems. We understand staff' s comments that they want to have maintenance funds for those roads but VDOT has to acknowledge that. In my mind, this is unfinished business we need to attend to because quite frankly, we're requesting a variance and the conditions are fine. I wanted to let you know that I think we have to focus more on working with VDOT to allow maintenance funds for road systems that are built to state standards but have a slightly smaller road width. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. R.J. Nutter: Thank you. And, I would like to introduce Mr. Fuller, who has come up today from Atlanta. Stephen, I'd like to introduce you and fbr you to say a few words. Stephen Fuller: Thank you. I'll keep it brief. Flash me if you need to. I'm Stephen Fuller and our firm is located at Atlanta. We've been in business for right at 20 years. I started right out of Georgia Tech. The heart of our firm is our architects, residential designers designing homes. But over the 20 year career that we've had we became very frustrated that most of our homes, no matter how well designed were always more than likely put into very typical suburban environments driven by really nothing but lot yield and streets, and houses and private backyards. You tend never see kind of quality open spaces that you would see in the classic 20-30 neighborhoods that are really found in almost every American city. So the last ten years inspired by a lot of great planning started to see. The architectural world single-family wise really began to study classic old neighborhoods. We have great ones in Atlanta. Druid Hills and Meyers Park in Charlotte and even historical places like Savannah and Charleston. From that have really tried to revive what makes a classic American neighborhood work from a land planning and a landscaping architectural level. The combination of classic really wonderful beautiful architecture combined with great upfront planning makes for fabulous places to live both architecturally and in the green space area. So, when we got 'here and started to foresee this project we were really interested. First of all, there had been so much concern and planning up front on your part in terms of the TATAC documents in the transition area and the concerns that you had so this plan has a lot of detail in it in terms of the land planning and I won't go through all of it but various types of green spaces and natural spaces. They break down from gigantic large spaces down to very beautiful little independent park spaces that may not have more than three or four homes placed on that unique space. It's very comprehensive but even at the level that you see it at its really only 20 percent of our work. The bulk of our 40 men company, are really architects concerned with the homes themselves. We'll work every builder at the bulk of Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 5 landscaping level and the architectural over the next 5 years or however long it takes to make sure that this project is truly a new classic neighborhood. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Fuller, you've run out of time. Stephen Fuller: Oh, I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: We will have some questions we would like to ask you. Stephen Fuller: Okay. Great. Ronald Ripley: I'd like to give you an opportunity. Stephen Fuller: Do you want me to stay up? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Stay up if you will. I'd like to start off with a question. Can you explain the differences in the matter that you lay your subdivisions out versus your traditional subdivision? It seems quite unique, if you don't mind. Stephen Fuller: The first thing we do and real quickly is look at the raw land. We look at what's there that's worth preserving such as trees and natural components. Just like you would design a house on a specific lot and if there's 200 year old Oak trees that becomes a key feature that you're going to work with not ignore. We did that. There were several patches of mature trees. In some cases, they were very straight edge because it had been farmed. We'd like to go back and sculpt that a little bit to re-naturalize that. Then on the inside of that we looked at how the circulation needs to work and start to break down the scale of the place. So the green spaces not only break down in scale. Ronald Ripley: There's a pointer there by the way. Do you see that black one'? Stephen Fuller: I've got one. I just forgot that I had it in my hand. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Stephen Fuller: The different scales of the places and unfortunately you could really zoom in on almost anyone of these little tiny spaces and they are already starting to show some of the features that will eventually will end up at the fine detail level whether it be fountains or edge conditions, fence roses, hedge rows, alleys of trees. 'We just begin to work that whole piece of property almost like you're laying out a floor plan of a house. Again, just like residential architectural, we like our street systems to be very fluent. No dead ends. Just like you don't want to walk into a dead end room of a house. When you go into a neighborhood you want to have a lot of flow and a lot of connectivity is what you guys call it, not just internally but for the next great place that's going to happen down stream or up stream. So, I didn't really know how to describe that but it's a whole realistic approach. When we lay out these roads and these lots and these parks, again Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 6 keep in mind, every lot in here shows a house plan already. We're already thinking in terms of garages, front orientations, porches, so when the architecture starts to fall in and it's not by accident. There are already pads and orientations hierarchy of lot sizes, styles of architectures, these neighborhoods will independently become wonderful places. We can even sort of dial architectural changes into these various neighborhoods based on the land plans and price points and lot sizes. So, we can introduce Georgian styles, little country styles, front row house on parks and open spaces could be mandated to have porches, interior lots with more emphasis on rear elevations. So, there's a lot to what we eventually will bring to the table in terms of design. Ronald Ripley: Will you be doing the design of the various homes in there or will you be approving those designs? Stephen Fuller: We'll be doing a combination of both. When we're dealing typically with larger builders and some of these sections in here may involve a building company that's larger in terms of the volume, we'll deal directly with them and they'll become our client. We'll pass from the developer to that builder. In other cases where we're dealing with smaller builders a lot of times we may not deal directly with them.. What we'll do is what we call "home libraries" we'll prototype houses that basically those builders will use to work with their local in house designers. We write guidelines that talk about how to do everything from frmrte dormers to bay windows and porches. So either by continuing again, the guidelines and the process that you guys have put into place we become that independent architectural level in the community, either by completely designing the houses or writing the guidelines that they will have to adhere to. Ronald Ripley: What if the builder says he's not going to do something will you try to reach an agreement on what's acceptable? Stephen Fuller: Documents and some things that we'll produce will become part of the covenant and they'll have to agree to abide by those before they can buy lots in there legally. If they don't they obviously it falls on the developer to buy back their lots to not let that particular builder continue to build in there. Ronald Ripley: Dot, did you have a question? Dorothy Wood: You covered my question. I'm just a little excited about it. It's a beautiful quality. Thank you. Stephen Fuller: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions of Mr. Fuller? Eugene Crabtree: I've like what they've done. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 7 Stephen Fuller: I appreciate you moving me up on the agenda. My five-month pregnant wife will appreciate me making it home for dinner. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Gene Hanson. Gene Hanson: Chairman Ripley, ladies and gentlemen of Planning Commission. My name is Gene Hanson. I'm an equestrian farm owner in Pungo so I like hearing nice things about horse farms. I'm ihere to talk in favor of Ashville Park development. Even though that might hinder assessment valuation in my neck of the woods. I'm here not so much to talk about the quality of the project that I watch you develop. I think it's going to be second to none, so, my apologies to some of my friends who are developers in Virginia Beach. I'm here to talk about something that I think is really important for this area and the Transition Area. I was on the Transition Area Committee so what goes on in the Transition Area is very important to me. I'm here to talk about the quality of the people involved here. The gentleman who was not introduced is Lewis McMurran, who is really the primary developer here. I've known Lewis for many years. I've ridden horses with his wife. He has stayed at my house before. I have broken bread with him. I have verbally been at elbow with him on more than once or twice and I have spent time with his family in his in Carrolton as well. I think there's not a more honorable person with whom you can invite to become the new pillar of the community in Virginia Beach. I would be tickled pink to see riot only unanimously that the Commission accept this new proposal but welcome Lewis and the people that he is bringing here to really help the Transition Area become what we all have as far as vision. That's it. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: I've got a question Gene. Gene Hanson: Sure. Ronald Ripley: Having served on that committee, do you think he meets the intent of the guidelines to the extent that you were all looking for? Gene Hanson: I will tell you there's a practical hint that I gave to Dick Browner and that is they are obviously not farmers because they don't know that a practical mower depth is eight feet. Why? So, I looked at the size of the trails initially and now I've been talking to them about horse trails so they will expand just slightly so they can make one pass with a large mower depth to be more efficient. The trails are multipurpose trails are wonderful. As was pointed o'ut there's a lot of connectivity. Even they made available places to connect to other developments that don't even exist yet. That's a plus. It isn't just one spot coming into our area. It's throughout. From somebody who rides horses down thin narrow streets 'in the Pungo area, I can tell you that it will be real nice to be on this trails and connect through the rest of the Transition Area. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Yes. Don. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 8 Donald Horsley: So these trails will be multipurpose so you can use horses? We were told this morning that they would not be horse trails. Gene Hanson: I don't know who you told you that but if Lewis McMurran is going to try and keep me off these trails he's got another thought coming. Donald Horsley: I think there must be some confusion there. Ronald Ripley: We'll have Mr. R.J. Nutter address that when he comes back up. R.J. Nutter: I'll try to address that. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to that when you rebuttal? Make a note of that R.J. Gene Hanson: I'd be trespassing otherwise. Donald Horsley: I'm impressed that there will be horse riding especially when I asked this morning. I thought that what we were talking about all along. Gene Hanson: Absolutely. Donald Horsley: Any cormectivity with the trails to the Equi-kids site? Gene Hanson: Yes. That's the two from this diagram that he pointed to that looks to the north. Yes, there will be. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Gene Hanson: Thank you. Robert Miller: I believe the name is Herb Jones. I'm not sure if I got the name. Herb Jones: Things are kind of in the eye of the beholder as I listen to other speakers. But I speak with some reservations and some questions. I'd like to be begin, tbr instance by saying that on Page 144 of the Comprehensive Plan, "direct access from Princess Anne Road or Nimmo Parkway to new development sites adjacent to these roads are discouraged." The Ashville Park proffer two says, "the principle entranceway to the property shall be from Princess Anne Road." That's an inconsistency. It says "access from this internal circulation system to surrounding residential neighborhoods should be provided." That means that a road from one to another. The only connectivity that I see from neighborhood to neighborhood is arrows depicting pedestrian paths. I see no distinction of a road going from Ashville Park to Heritage Park or to the area in Flanagan's Lane. So, then I have some questions. What would be the developer's proffer for the new intersection at Flanagan's Lane and Sandbridge Road? Isn't Linear Park the same as a street with trees? What is a pocket park? And who will be allowed to Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 9 use pocket parks? Will the recreational activity amenities be accessible to all in Virginia Beach or just the residents of Ashville Park? Was a yield study done? I think I heard the designer say that a yield study was done to determine, you know, what's there before we begin to say what developable acres within the 474 acres. We're putting 490 homes on the 474 acres. Is clustering that is called for on the Comprehensive Plan the same as building on smaller lots with limited use? And there are a lot of those lots that don't see anything but the lot next door if you look at the plan. Who will pay for the connective linkages between the developments that were depicted but not described? Is the City going to pay for those or will the developers? I think we need an explanation on how they figure 56 percent open space. Oh by the way, I'm working from a September draft of the proposal and not the most recent one. It talks about the City will does not stand to fund public infrastructure necessary to support new workman level grills in the Transition Area. As of October 2003, I went to Kellam High School and Princess Anne Middle School and talked with the principal to find that one was 500 over capacity right now and the other was 200 over capacity. Those are not the same numbers I see in today's draft of their proposal. I think the Comprehensive Plan talks about regional storm water plans. Maybe there should have been some effort to make regional storm water plans with these two large developments with Heritage Park and Ashville Park. It's not to have their little BMP. Of course, this is going to impact the Back Bay and what's there. I have other comments to make. My time is up. I'll answer questions. I had a lot of questions about the plan. I hope that someone will answer them. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Jones? Donald Horsley: I just like getting Mr. Scott to clarify the first statement you made about the Comprehensive Plan and the access to Princess Anne Road. Herb Jones: The actual size was page 144 of the Comprehensive Plan. Donald Horsley: He is going to comment on it. Robert Scott: I don't think policy like is intended to prohibit a 400-500 acre track that has frontage on Princess Anne Road having any access to it. I think we were considered about individual lot have frontage or access onto Princess Anne Road which of course this plan avoids. I mn not able to see how one access point onto Princess Anne Road would attract that big is a violation of the concepts. Herb Jones: I guess my question was when I read through the proposal was any effort made to make the major entrance off of Flanagan's Lane rather than off of Princess Anne Road? It would seem to me to be less confusing then to put it off of Princess Anne Road. I realize that they offered another five feet now of roadway so they make it a 110 foot roadway rather a hundred in the proposal that I read. But it seems to me that it would be less confusing and less of a pattern to be placed of Princess Anne Road because we don't know what's going to happen to Princess Anne Road down the road. Excuse me for the redundancy. I did want to make one other comment. There is nothing in the proposal Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page l 0 that talks about horse trails. There's no word "horse" or "equestrian" in there because I looked very carefully. Donald Horsley: I think we're going to get that explanation momentarily. Herb Jones: Are there any other questions? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Barry. Barry Knight: Mr. Jones, I think the developer will probably answer your questions shortly. I believe they had, like you stated two options, Princess Anne Road or Flanagan's Lane. I believe the residents on Flanagan's Lane actually wanted it closed so there wouldn't be any traffic on Flanagan's Lane. Herb Jones: That's the east end of Flanagan. I'm talking about putting it on the west end of Flanagan as opposed to Princess Anne Road. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Herb Jones: Thank you. Robert Miller: William Bailey. No William Bailey? Two people got up but nobody came forward. Okay. Steven Berman. Steven Berman: I'll get up. Robert Miller: You can be William Bailey. Steven Berman: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Steve Berman and I live at 1685 Flanagan's Lane here in Virginia Beach. My family and I have lived in Virginia Beach for about 130 years now. For the past 18 years, we've lived on Flanagan's Lane. We dearly love the place. As a matter of fact, we moved there to primarily get away from Kempsville. We saw all the congestion. We love Kempsville but we saw the growth and development occurring so we decided as well as so many other people on Flanagan's Lane to move to the country, to some open spaces. Recently, I had a good opportunity to meet with the residents of Flanagan's 'Lane. We've met at my home on a couple of occasions. We've met with Jim Reeves who is a Council member and we've also met with Dick Browner, who is one of the planners for this project of Ashville Park to at least discuss some of the concerns involving this new development. We sent each of you as Commissioners and each of the City Council members a letter including a signed petition signed by all. eight residents of Flanagan's Lane requesting that Flanagan's Lane, on the west end be either cul-de-sac'd or dead ended at the Berman property which is my property. We had an opportunity to talk with many people from Back Bay from the civic leagues and most of our concern has been along the lines of all the development that's occurring and all of you are very aware of the development that's occurring starting with Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 11 Heritage Park. We knew that once that was approved it was going to be "me too" everybody stepping up to the plate and saying we want to get ()ur property now developed now that Heritage Park had been approved. I would like to make a comment that I am a co-owner of a founder of a company here in Virginia Beach that does a lot of training that deals with public involvement, training courses with the Army Corps of Engineers down Huntsville, Alabama. It's a delightful course that we provide to some of the people in the Army Corps of Engineers. But one of the things that really was pointed out to me and one of the people that I would at least like to give some kudos to in and appreciate is Dick Browner. Dick has come forth to at least let us know as residents what in fact he was calling for and what he was looking at least in terms of being proposed. I do appreciate Dick coming to our meetings and sharing information so that it's not after the fact but working with us as residents so I do appreciate that. All of us know that there has been massive development going on and perhaps this particular development is one of the most massive one that has occurred in the last twenty years which really affects the open space. I know there have been a lot of changes to the Comprehensive Plan to the green line to the Transition line and so forth but we are very much concerned in terms of this development that's occurring. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Berman, you're running out of time. Steven Berman: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Maybe you can summarize? Steven Berman: I'd like to summarize by saying that there are a number of proffers that have been asked for by the Flanagan's Lane residents. Very quickly, these are just five or six proffers ifI may. One was to cul-de-sac Flanagan's Lane as a dead end, to open the new road from Princess Anne to the end of Flanagan's Lane. We found out this morning that is to be done within four years as opposed to two years now. That Flanagan's Lane not be used for Ashville Park construction or village residence until the new road is completed or the project is completed. Developer provided undulating berms, which include shrubberies and trees and appropriate fencing. Modify the plan entrance on Flanagan's Lane. There has been a lot of discussion about where Flanagan's Lane would be. Our recommendation and request that it be moved closer to Sandbridge Road and the last thing, if possible to look at the developer providing the actual water and sewer hookup ties that will be close to where our development is so that all the people in Flanagan's Lane can tie up. Again, we do not really object to the development we just like to make sure that the proffers are provided and I really appreciate Mr. Strange stepping out and making his vote earlier. 1997 was not that long ago in terms of the proffers being established. It's important that if you establish proffers now that at least some how we enforce those proffers whenever they may be. Thank you. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: Questions? Thank you very much. Steven Berman: Thank you very much. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 12 Ronald Ripley: That is all the speakers. Mr. Nutter, do you wish to address? R.J. Nutter: Thank you. First, a couple of items and Mr. Berman, I'm happy he could be here today. Dick and many of us on this team have met at his residence on a number of occasions. In just about every incidence we have already modified the proffers to provide in fact the things 'that he had requested. I would like to go over those for a second. As you know, originally we did have a road that connected into Flanagan's Lane near his property. We did modify at their request. When I spoke with Mr. Berman earlier he indicated that he just wants to make sure that these proffers of record and I wanted to assure him that they are. I want to assure that these are deed restrictions. As you said, Ms. Wood, to modify a proffer, sometimes that is necessary. It requires notice, a new public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. We don't anticipate that. We have designed this development around the things he has requested. The other issues, the berming, we have a specific plan called the berm plan. It's not in the booklet I've given but it's part of the proffers that addresses the berming, the location of the ditch, the location of where the buffer area will be measured from, all that was a specific request to the residents of Flanagan's Lane. So, that's another advantage point from the developer's point of view in meeting these residents in advance so we could address those. If I could, I'd like to also address some of the issues raised by Mr. Jones. I didn't bring page 144 of the Comprehensive Plan with me but I do think and my sense is that what we're referring to designing developments so they do not have direct access for each lot along a major arterial. We've done that in every other place in the City. We've done it here. In fact, we originally proposed given the size of this and in fact that we had several thousand tbotage of frontage on Princess Anne Road to the west two access ways. Staff asked us to reduce it to one. So, I think we're more than compliance with that. You will also note that we don't have any individual lots on Princess Anne Road fronting at all. So, I think we comply there. I think and I'm trying to go to the page regarding the issue of parks. Who owns them and who maintains them? The parks are in large measure private. They will be maintained by a Homeowners Association. We have linear parks. We have pocket parks. We have village greens. All those are inside the development, inside each village. Then we have large open space areas. Those are maintained by the HOA, by the residents in that area. So it will not be a drain on the public. Most of the trail systems are in fact private. It goes to provide tbr connectivity we do know that we have to provide key trails that are available to the public and we will be doing that where we indicated except we need to modify them based upon the new development that is not yet defined on property adjacent to us. But the majority of the system is in fact private for the benefit of the residents. The nice part about it is if this was a golf course that may be more open to the public for a fee but ironically it's not open to the main residents. It's reasonably restricted to the residents. They can't wander on to a golf course. There are liability questions. The golfers don't like it. So, in many ways, this open space is far more accessible to the residents of this community than is a typical golf course. So, I hope that answer some of this questions. You also asked about equestrian. It's been an issue. Let me try to address that for you. Mr. McMurran, his wife as you know is a quite an equestrian herself. So, we have recognized the desire of the community and the TATAC community to start looking at access for those facilities. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Pm'k, L.L.C. Page 13 We also recognize that there is a certain amount of incompatability for a person on a horse and a person on a bicycle or jogger. I'm afraid that's the nature of living with those beautiful animals. They are skittish and they are all unique. They are very big and powerful and can do a great deal of damage. As a result, what we have done is work with Mr. Hanson and exactly Mr. McMurran has about looking at an independent trail for horses that does not coincide with those trails but at the same time provides access through the development. We 'have not yet identified it. We asked that it be located not behind homes but away through the wooded areas where adjacent properties. We' re still working on that design but I can tell you that we are planning on providing that. The eight miles of trails that I .just mentioned are independent of this system I've just talked about. Ronald Ripley: Where do you think these trails would run? R.J. Nutter: Generally speaking, we've looked through here. We've looked at some portion. This is one scenario that is behind homes so we're not too crazy about that one. We are looking predominately in this area. We have the U.S. FiSh and Wildlife facility here. We could provide some access on this side. We have an area through here that can provide access out through this side. So, we are looking at doing that but I hope you'll understand. Ronald Ripley: I would think on the right-of-way for sure. Would you not? R.J. Nutter: The right-of-way. Ronald Ripley: The main right-of-way. R.J. Nutter: The main right-of-way is separated quite a bit, no one horse is being scared by a passerby Ronald Ripley: That would seem to be part of the guidelines that came out. That was the idea. I'm talking about Princess Anne Road. R.J. Nutter: Sure. Along Princess Anne Road we have not. A meeting with Dean Block we've asked him to come up with a plan for where he wants to put the trail system. For instance, one of the questions was we did not show and I can't give you a line down here because we weren't sure if the City wanted the trail system to a sidewalk, an eight foot wide paved concrete facility or an eight foot wide part through facility. We weren't sure if they wanted it to be meandering through the woods or adjacent to the right-of-way. Ronald Ripley: Would the developer be putting that in? R.J. Nutter: We're putting that in. Ronald Ripley: Once the City identifies what they want. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 14 R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. We asked Dean to let us know and Dean has been wonderful about acknowledging they haven't focused much on that yet. We are working very closely with Dean's office. That's a good example of trying to provide that connectivity but at the same time have a natural separation for certain type of uses. They might be in conflict with one another. This William Bailey who did appear there was one gentleman here from the fire department. Robert Miller: That is who that was? R.J. Nutter: Is that who it was? I didn't recognize his name. The first department owns a piece of property I believe is roughly right in here. They are in the process of proposing to build a small softball field, a two-acre softball field and they wanted to make sure that it would not be next to this property and there wouldn't be any interference and after we located it on the map he decided to leave and indicate to me that I could indicate that he was here and had no objections at all. I did want to close with that but I hope that answers your questions. We have pocket park demonstrations. You name it. You may be tired of this by now but I do want to let you know that we came fully prepared before you today. Ronald Ripley: I think Dot has a question. Dorothy Wood: R.J., I'm sure that you'll be willing to meet with Mr. Jones between now and Council and go over his concerns. Would you not? R.J. Nutter: Certainly. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. R.J. Nutter: Yes ma'am. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions of R.J.? Barry. Barry Knight: R.J. You were right. I do recognize all the families that own that land in this neck of the woods. Some of them are very good friends of mine and I know they've had reservations of selling their land for years and years. I really believe that some of them, and the only reason they are willing to sell their land, is because it is an assemblage of land that's going to be a quality development. There are two things about this that first strike you and that is the quality of it and also it is fairly massive when you look at it. I know that's exactly what TATAC wanted was to assemble a lot of tracks so you could have a plan for one large parcel of property. Would you tell us if you can roughly where your going to start building and roughly where you're going to end up and roughly what time frame we're talking about because I know it's not all going to happen in six months. R.J. Nutter: That's very true. I'm happy to do that. These are not well defined phase levels, but we have discussed this at great length so I can give you the benefit fbr all that Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 15 thought. Phase I is basically going to be the development of Villages "A" and "B" through here and the start of the recreational facility right through here. This process we anticipate occurring somewhere between 2006 & 2009. We anticipate approximately a year or less to get through site plan, subdivision review, construction plan review and approvals. We anticipate approximately that it will be about 2004. We anticipate approximately a year of infrastructure improvements about 2005 and therein probably start up some the hard construction of homes somewhere in late 2005 - 2006 some of the models. We think these areas will go probably, we anticipating in about three years. Phase II is really the continuation of Flanagan's throughout to here and the construction of Village "C" and Village "E", which is the second of the two age restricted. That's anticipated some place in 2009 & 2012. And the final phases, which may well overlapped in some degree particularly Village "D" will be Villages "D" and "F" and they are considered to be brought on line by 2012 - 2015. So, even though it is large, it is a long build out, Barry I think is your point. The other and to give you an example for the next just about through 2009 you're looking at basically, I think is 135 non age restricted lots coming online and 104 age restricted lots coming online. So, between now and 2009 is a slower process. You won't see 490 units on day one. That's a pretty good estimate what we've been able to look at and talking with Mr. Fuller and the engineers and Mr. McMurran the developer. I hope that's a help to you Mr. Knight. Ronald Ripley: Charlie, you had a question. Charlie Salle': R.J., I think you indicated a number of connected areas where the trails would connect to other properties. Could you point out where they connect? How these connections lead to public trails that traverse this project? R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. I'll be happy to. This connection here is tied to a 50-foot tie in Heritage Park that could either be vehicular or pedestrian in nature. It's 50-foot wide on both sides. We've indicated in design not to have vehicular connectivity. Charlie Salle': Let me ask you. this. That provides a way to get from this project to that one but can they get to that project to this one? R.J. Nutter: Yes. What I'm saying exactly is this point here, and this point here, are lined with the Heritage Park development at that location where they have provided access themselves. Charlie Salle': Once they' enter this project what trail are they limited to? R.J. Nutter: Once they enter this project there will be public trail system. In reality, quite frankly, unless this becomes a burden the public can go on any trails to be perfectly honest with you but there will be trails that will be specifically earmarked for them but they are designed so that anyone from the properties here and Heritage Park or the adjacent developments that might occur in the future here can bisect this property through the trail system and get to the other side. Some will come here and be able to go in this Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 16 direction. Some will come out here and be able to come down in this direction. We have not provided paths in here yet because we're not sure where that's going to be but we do have a series of trails that are traversed these areas as well. We want to make sure that everyone knows that you will be able to get through this property. And you will be get through east and west. We have not tied in here. We do have a Coast Guard facility here and the existing Flanagan's Lane runs here so we have the opportunity to connect to here to come out to Princess Anne Road and go down in that fashion. There are multiple options as you can see. Charlie Salle': Will those trails just be pedestrian? R.J. Nutter: Those are pedestrian trails. Yes sir. Somewhere there looks like an equestrian trail through here somewhere but the majority of these are meant to be bike and walking and jogging paths. Ronald Ripley: I think that's it. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. I think Gene Hanson wanted to readdress us if it's new information'? Gene Hanson: I don't want to take Mr. Nutter's, I guess podium that way but one thing that I did not say when ! was up here is that I sit on the Virginia Horse Council. I'm also on the Virginia Horse Council Trails Committee. So, I'd like for education purposes to let you know a little bit about horse trails. It will only take me a second to get it out. There are many municipal parks now in the Commonwealth that encourage multipurpose trails. The largest municipal park east of the Mississippi is Newport News City Park that abuts Yorktown Federal Battle'field Park. In both places, horses and all non-motorized vehicles joggers, pedestrians are allowed to use those trails indiscriminately. In fact, horses are encouraged to even have a place where people can bring in several different spots to park your trailers where an individual in a car you may have to pay to go in but if you bring in horses to go on the trails you do not. That's part of the Federal Battlefield Park. To the best of my knowledge and I ride those trails often and again, since I sit on the Trails Committee, there has not been any problem between this so call skittishness of horses. A horse is no different than any other pet. If you keep it under control you can tide it very well. If any of you have seen me I ride tight down right side of the road in Pungo, right across the street without any problems. There are not enough trails here and I provided to Clay Bernick, who is in charge of trails for the City of Virginia Beach virtually every study that comes about regarding horseback tiding trails throughout the United States and the cleanliness and the safety of having horse trails. I appreciate the concerns but it really isn't a red flag that I think needs to be raised. Thank you very much for having me to clarify that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Okay. Discussion. Oh, a silent group today. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 17 Donald Horsley: I'll start. I've seen sketches of the preliminary drawings on this project several months ago. It has really grown on me. I'm very impressed. I think this is something that when we look at the Transition Area, we didn't know what it was going to look like but I applaud the landowners for holding out. I know we've had golf courses talked about and other different amenities in that area but they were by individual landowners but this is a coordinated effort by a large group and a large tract of land and I think they kind of go along with the TATAC recommendations and I'm in favor of the project and whenever you're ready for a motion, I'm prepared to make one. Ronald Ripley: Charlie and Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I was just going to say that I think that we have accomplished things pretty well. I'm sorry Charlie. I'm for it. Charlie Salle': Okay. I'm going to support this project too. I think it's a wonderful design. I think in the past we've sort of seen the kind of design where you come in and go with houses on half of the property and you have the other hal f reserved for timber or open space or whatever and it wasn't a whole lot of thought in design and originality to it. It was just half undeveloped. I like the concept of incorporating the open space within the communities and making it a part of the community. It's almost like where you had a 100 acres or 50 acres left vacant for the people who live on the 50 acres that are developed, they hardly ever know that the open space is over there. The community they lived in was really not opened where this incorporates the open space in the community and makes it part of their community. I hope this will be the guideline tbr future development in the area. Ronald Ripley: Will. William Din: Frankly, I think this is a beautiful project. I think it provides a lot of the design aspects that we have been asking a lot of the developers to look at from a very large tract of property and I think that's one of the attributes of what we've been seeking to develop area like this comprehensively that you can see how it is going to build out to some degree. A lot of the parks provide the open space without clustering so to speak too much into smaller lots. This provides vistas from all these different areas and they are looking into parks. They are looking into open space areas that we seek and have tried to get other developers to provide in smaller developments but have been unable to because of the size of those developments. I think 50 percent open space area for this entire development is an attribute to the developer and I applaud Mr. Fuller for this. Seeing some of the development down in Atlanta, I think it's a lot of quality is going in this and I think the controls on the architectural styles and things is a great aspect of it. I too will possibly be supporting this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Gene, did you want to add anything? Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 18 Eugene Crabtree: I'm sorry. I apologize to Charlie. I was listening but I wasn't listening. Ronald Ripley: I know. I do that all the time. Eugene Crabtree: I think this is, as Will said, I think this encompasses the thing that we have learned before to where that sort of and we had a couple of things before development by design and I think this fits that picture of development by design where they've gone in and looked at the land and the lay of the land and has actually' developed and designed it around that. As Will said, I think this is actually what we're trying to accomplish here in the City. Ronald Ripley: Don. Donald Horsley: Mr. Chairman, I prepared to make a motion in that we approve the application of Ashville Park with the 35 proffers. I don't think I've ever seen an application that had 35 proffers. We're pretty well protected and I make a motion that we approve the application as proffered. Dorothy Wood: It's a pleasure to second your motion Mr. Horsley. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion by Don Horsley and a second by Dot Wood to approve it. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I need to abstain. My firm is working on the project. Donald Horsley: If we can get a quick vote we might be able to get home by the same time Mr. Fuller does tonight. Ronald Ripley: The only comment that I want to make is that I think that Mr. Hanson. Janice Anderson: I need to abstain also. My firm is working with one of the applicants on this project. Ronald Ripley: I think the discussion of the equestrian being folded to the path system and I'm hearing from the developer that is something they are going to do. I think it's important. I've received phone calls from citizens in the area who live down in the Transition Area and the rural area and they are looking for that and I think you heard it very strongly from Mr. Hanson. He's a very much a dominate part in that area. I think that's critical for you to address. We'll look for that to be done. I think that the quality of this is just exceptional. I have not seen entranceways and other connective techniques used in anything in this City like this. This is going to be something that I think will be an excellent icon for the Transition zone. So, with that, any other comments, we'll call for the question. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 19 AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 2 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0 with two abstentions, the motion cames. ~..- ~,, :_:, ~"~ ~ .......... .... ;~.'~ ~ L: ~ · ~ ' . ~:~.~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH .............. AGENDA. ITEM .......... ITEM: Ashville Park, L.L.C. - (a) Change of Zoning District Classification (AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 & P-l) and (b) Subdivision Variance (Sec. 4.4(b) - minimum pavement width) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of Ashville Park, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 & P-l). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this property for appropriate growth opportunities consistent with the economic vitality policies of the City of Virginia Beach. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE (b) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Ashville Park, L.L.C. Property is located on the east side of Princess Anne Road, abutting the north and south sides of Flanagans Lane to its intersection with Sandbridge Road. (GPINS 2413071960; 2413066259; 2413167813; 2413363862; 2413464337; 2413570702; 2413555252; 2413754401). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE These requests were deferred by the City Council on December 9, 2003. Considerations: The applicant proposes to develop the 474-acre site with 490 single-family dwellings. The dwellings are divided into five "villages." Two of the villages are age-restricted for residents 55 and over. The total number of dwellings in the age-restricted villages equals 160, leaving 330 dwellings in the other three villages. The resulting overall density is 1.03 units per acre. Each of the villages incorporates some degree of internal open space. A recurring feature in all of the villages is the "pocket park." These are open space areas typically shown along curves or corners of the interior streets. A second "pocket park street" defines the border of the open space and provides access to the dwellings across from the pocket parks. These pocket park streets are narrow lanes (22-feet wide) that loop to the interior street and serve only a few houses each. Ashville Park Page 2 of 2 Another unique feature of the subdivision design is the "linear park." These areas line segments of the internal streets and are intended to create the appearance of more open space. The linear parks are created by setting the sidewalk back a considerable distance from the street. As a result, the dwellings are set very close to the sidewalks (the specific distance has not been specified in the plans). The green space between the street and the sidewalk is the linear park. The width of the linear parks varies but appears to average at 50 feet. The linear parks are actually privately owned but will be subject to an easement allowing public access through the area. They will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Villages A and C will have the largest lots at 20,000 square feet. Villages D and F will have minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet. The age-restricted Villages B and E will have minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet. Specific details regarding the project are provided in the attached staff report under the section listing the proffers that will govern the development. Staff recommended approval of these requests. There was opposition to the requests. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 2 abstentions to approve the requests as proffered and with the following condition attached to the Subdivision Variance: The applicant shall seek a variance from the Virginia Department of Transportation to allow state maintenance funding for the substandard pavement width request. If state maintenance funding is not granted, the Subdivision Approval shall be considered null and void. · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statements Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manage ~ K 13-210-C RZ-2003 K13-210-STC-2003 K 13-210-SV R-2003 ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 November 12, 2003 Public Hearing Staff Planners: Ashby Moss and Faith Christie The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this appfication. Location and General Information REQUESTS: 28. LOCATION: 29. 30. Change of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District (R-30 Residential and P-1 Preservation); Street Closure for Flanagan's Lane (Portion of Flanagan's Lane 5,350 feet east of Princess Anne Road, running in a northeasterly direction a distance of 3,133 feet); 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 (minimum pavement width) Items 28 & 30 -- Property on the east side of Princess Anne Road, abutting the north and south sides of Flanagan's Lane to its intersection with Sandbridge Road; Item 29 -- Right-of-way located 5,350.2 feet east of Princess Anne Road, running in a northeast direction a distance of 3,133.16 feet. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 1 Map KI3, LI3 4oL t .... '~,,',,:] ~ _ . i Ashville Park, LLC / / AG-I Cond. ReZoning GPINS: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE' EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING' SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING' 24130719600000; 24130662590000; 24131678130000; 24133638620000; 24134643370000; 24135707020000; 24135552520000; 24137544010000 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 474 acres (2.32 acres for Street Closure) Currently, the site is under cultivation, with the remaining portion wooded. The site is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. The City's Agriculture Department reports that the development of the site as proposed will result in the reduction of approximately 410 acres of cropland. North- South: · Cultivated fields and single-family dwellings / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural and Conditional R-20 Residential and Conditional P-1 Preservation (recently approved Heritage Park) · Untied States Coast Guard facility and an abandoned airfield / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 2 NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: East: West: · Single-family dwellings, wooded areas and cultivated fields / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural · Princess Anne Road · Across Princess Anne Road are cultivated fields and single-family dwellings / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural The site is almost completely under cultivation. The areas not under cultivation are wooded. The site drains either to the north toward Scopus Marsh and eastward to Ashville Bridge Creek and Back Bay. There are areas of non-tidal wetlands as defined by the U.S. Corps of Engineers (but not by the City) that will be preserved. On the eastern side of the site, approximately 4 acres, a portion of the proposed Village "F" is considered "floodplain subject to special restrictions" as regulated under the Site Plan Ordinance. The applicant proffers that a Letter of Map Amendment ("LOMA") must be approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) before any development may proceed within any area currently restricted by the Site Plan Ordinance. Should the LOMA be obtained, this issue will be moot. If the LOMA is not obtained, the applicant will be unable to develop the restricted area without obtaining a Floodplain Variance from City Council. From a cultural perspective, it appears that the City's most infamous character, the "witch of Pungo" Grace Sherwood, owned a portion of the site during her lifetime. According to City records John White, Grace's father, received a land patent of 195 acres at Ashville Creek at the east end of Muddy Creek in 1674. At his death, the property conveyed to James and Grace Sherwood. The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn and 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy has commented that "The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program (AICUZ) views residential development as not compatible and discourages this use in the 65-70 dB Ldn. The Navy acknowledges the landowners desire to develop their property, but ask you to seriously consider the additional population that would be exposed to aircraft operations from NAS Oceana. We would view residential development at this site as an encroachment upon operations at NAS Oceana." ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 3 Major Is..sues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies and the Transition Area Design Guidelines · Impact on City systems (transportation, utilities, schools). · Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of land use. ................................ c0. ..p.re,h The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts this area of the city as the Transition Area, planned for appropriate growth opportunities consistent with the economic vitality policies of the City of Virginia Beach. This area serves as a land use buffer between the urban northern portion of the city and the rural southern portion of the city. Land uses and densities within this area should not be a continuation of either form but a transition from one to the other. Staff evaluated the proposed development using the latest Comprehensive Plan Policies for the Transition Area, including the Transition Area Matrix and the Design Guidelines. Staff concludes that the development satisfies the recommendations of the plan in regard to design and that the dwelling unit density proposed falls within the guidelines regarding maximum allowable density in the Transition Area (a copy of the matrix is included at the end of this report). Summary of Proposa The applicant proposes to develop the 474-acre site with 490 single-family dwellings. The dwellings are divided into five "villages." Two of the villages are age-restricted for. ASHVILLE pARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 4 residents 55 and over. The total number of dwellings in the age-restricted villages equals 160, leaving 330 dwellings in the other three villages. The resulting overall density is 1.03 units per acre. A major part of this request includes a street closure for a portion of Flanagan's Lane. The applicant will construct and dedicate a new street that will connect Princess Anne Road to the remaining section of Flanagan's Lane near the Sandbridge Road intersection. The applicant will also construct cul-de-sacs to terminate the two remaining sections of Flanagan's Lane. One of the cul-de-sacs will be located at the end of the Lane adjacent to the Coast Guard property; the other will be located just past the southwest corner of the Berman property. The new road will begin from a point on Princess Anne Road approximately 1,000 feet north of Flanagan's Lane to a point on Flanagan's Lane approximately 800 feet west of its intersection with Sandbridge Road. The new proposed alignment for Sandbridge Road is not affected by this application. The new road winds through the property's open space with the exception of one area in which it runs through a village (Village D). In this area, the road splits off into two roads leading around a large central open space for this village. Each of the villages incorporates some degree of internal open space. A recurring feature in all of the villages is the "pocket park." These are open space areas typically shown along curves or corners of the interior streets. A second "pocket park street" defines the border of the open space and provides access to the dwellings across from the pocket parks. These pocket park streets are narrow lanes (22-feet wide) that loop to the interior street and serve only a few houses each. Another unique feature of the subdivision design is the "linear park." These areas line segments of the internal streets and are intended to create the appearance of more open space. The linear parks are created by setting the sidewalk back a considerable distance from the street. As a result, the dwellings are set very close to the sidewalks (the specific distance has not been specified in the plans). The green space between the street and the sidewalk is the linear park. The width of the linear parks varies but appears to average at 50 feet. The linear parks are actually privately owned but will be subject to an easement allowing public access through the area. They will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Villages A and C will have the largest lots at 20,000 square feet. Villages D and F will have minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet. The age-restricted Villages B and E will have minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet. Other dimensional requirements are listed in proffers 33 and 34 (see next section). ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.Ci Agenda Items 28, 29, &. 30 Page 5 Fifty-foot buffers separating the rear of the proposed lots from the adjacent (off-site) properties are shown throughout the development. In addition, the applicant has proffered a landscaped berm north of Village D and east of Village C to screen the new dwellings from the existing property owners on Flanagan's Lane. A 150-foot buffer will be provided along Princess Anne Road as measured from the ultimate right-of-way. Two recreational activity centers are proposed. One is intended for residents of the age-restricted villages and includes a clubhouse and pool. The second is for the other residents and includes a clubhouse, pool, tennis courts, playing fields, and tot lots. Both of these activity areas are located within the open space between the villages. Proffers The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 The Property shall be developed substantially as shown on the "Master Plan of Ashville Park Virginia Beach, VA" dated 8/29/03 and designed by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC in conjunction with MSA, P.C., a copy of which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter, the "Master Plan"). PROFFER # 2 The principal entranceway to the Property shall be from Princess Anne Road which shall be substantially similar in design and quality to the exhibit entitled "Community Entrance Princess Anne Road" a copy of which is contained within Section V of the development manual entitled "Ashville Park" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter the "Manual"). ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.c. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 6 PROFFER # 3 PROFFER # 4 A second entranceway to the Property is located at Flanagans Lane near the intersection of Flanagans Lane and Sandbridge Road and shall be substantially similar in design and quality to the exhibit entitled "Community Entrance Flanagans Lane" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, a copy of which is contained within Section V of the Manual. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit within Village C and upon completion of at least two lanes of the public right-of-way running through Ashville Park from Princess Anne Road to the second entranceway of the Property at Flanagans Lane as referenced in proffer number 3, Grantor shall cul-de-sac Flanagans Lane within the confines of Ashville Park at two locations where depicted on the Master Plan. In addition to this improvement, when developing Village D, Grantor shall maintain a 50' buffer area along the northern perimeter of Village D which buffer shall be measured from the top of bank from the ditch currently existing along this portion of the Property or as it may be modified during the course of the site plan review. These improvements, together with an undulating berm along the northern limits of Village D, shall be developed substantially as shown on the Exhibit entitled Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Ashville Park, Berm Plan, Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated September 17, 2003, prepared by MSA, P.C., which plan shall have been exhibited to City Council and on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter "Berm Plan"). STREET SCAPE PROFFER # 5 The Grantor shall dedicate to the City of Virginia Beach sufficient land along the portions of the Property adjacent to Princess Anne Road of 55' in width as measured from the centerline of the right-of-way, to accommodate an ultimate 110' right-of-way. In addition to said dedication, Grantor agrees to dedicate to the City an additional 150' wide buffer as measured from the ultimate right-of-way dedication. The dedicated buffer shall be for public ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, &.30 page 7 PROFFER# 6 PROFFER # 7 PROFFER# 8 PROFFER # 9 PROFFER # 10 PROFFER # 11 purposes including open space, buffers, landscaping, utilities, roadways and trail purposes. Said buffer shall not restrict the development of the "Community Entrance Prospective" within Section V within the Manual. The Grantor agrees that during the detailed site plan review to conduct a Traffic Impact Study of the impacts of Ashville Park. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Ashville Park that are called for in the Traffic Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of the first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Ashville Park. The internal streets within Ashville Park shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the exhibit entitled "Typical Street Sections Plan of Ashville Park Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by MSA, P.C., which exhibit has been displayed to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter "Street Section Plan"). All rolled curbs, drop inlets and sidewalks depicted on the Street Section Plan shall have an exposed aggregate finish. All street lighting installed on the Property shall be a decorative style fixture and the height and separation of streetlights shall be determined during the detailed site plan review. The trees planted within and adjacent to the public right-of- ways on the Property shall be double the total tree canopy requirements for public right-of-ways as set forth in the Department of Public Works Landscape Manual of the City of Virginia Beach. Subject to confirmation by the City of the necessary 50' wide right-of-way widths and receipt by the City of all environmental permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality, Grantor shall ASHVILLE'PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 8 substantially improve or bond the costs of right-of-way improvements to Flanagans Lane beginning from the eastern-most entranceway to the Property from Flanagans Lane, continuing in an easterly direction to the intersection of Flanagans Lane and Sandbridge Road. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of final occupancy permit for the first residence in Village D, E or F as depicted on the Master Plan. Said improvements shall be the widening of the existing lane with and the piping of the adjacent ditches, together with the portion of the future right-of-way traffic simulation generated by Ashville Park as determined during the detailed site plan review and the Traffic Impact Study performed by Grantor. These improvements shall be consistent with CIP Project No. 2.021.000 for rural road improvements in the City of Virginia Beach's Capital Improvement Program. THE VILLAGES OF ASHVILLE PARK PROFFER # 12 The Grantor shall record a Master Deed of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Restrictions") governing the Property. All landowners within the PD-H2 District shall be members of a Home Owners Association responsible for maintaining collectively all common areas on the Property. The Restrictions shall be enforced by one or more Home Owners Association, which Restrictions, shall among other things, restrict the use of the open space areas for any purpose, but recreation and open space use. Such covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty- (50) years. These covenants shall become part of the deed of each lot or parcel within the development. Such covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded before the first building permit in the project is issued. The Restrictions shall among other things require that every residential unit within Villages B and E as shown on the Master Plan will be occupied, on a full-time basis, by at least one (1) adult resident of fifty-five (55) years of age or older. The Restrictions shall also prohibit persons under eighteen (18) years of age from residing in any residential unit within Villages B or E for more than one hundred .... .. ASHVILLE PARK, L,.L.c. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 9 PROFFER # 13 PROFFER # 14 PROFFER # 15 PROFFER # 16 PROFFER # 17 twenty (120) days in any calendar year. The total number of units developed in Village B shall not exceed 104 and the total number of units developed in Village E shall not exceed 88 56. All such units within Village B shall be single-family detached dwellings. The minimum lot size, internal open space area, buffers and acreages for each Village shall be as set forth in the Master Plan. Villages A, C, D and F shall be developed substantially as depicted on the Master Plan. The total number of units developed in Village A shall not exceed 135 units. The total number of units developed in Village C shall not exceed 94 units. The total number of units developed in Village D shall not exceed 55 45. The total number of units developed in Village F shall not exceed 56. All units shall be single-family detached dwellings within these Villages. The minimum lot size, internal open space area, buffers and acreages for each Village shall be as set forth in the Master Plan. The linear parks depicted within Villages A, C, D and F shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association and no structure shall be allowed within the linear parks other than uniform fencing, or other uniform decorative features, and mailboxes. The Pocket Parks depicted on the Master Plan shall be developed and constructed substantially as depicted on the Master Plan. The Pocket Parks shall be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association. All sidewalks and trails located outside of the public rights- of-way shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. A Letter of Map Amendment ("LOMA") must be approved by FEMA before any development' may proceed within any Special Flood Hazard Area. The residential lot tree canopy for each residential lot on the Property shall be double the total canopy cover specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Request Table" in effect as of September 1,2003. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, &. 30 Page 10 PROFFER # 18 A minimum 50' buffer shall be established on the perimeters of the Property as shown on the Master Plan. No structures shall be allowed within the buffer area and the buffer area shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. No community wide or other activity other than maintenance shall occur within the Buffer area. RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE AREAS PROFFER # 19 PROFFER # 20 PROFFER # 21 Two Recreational Activity Areas shall be designed, constructed and built on the Property substantially where indicated on the Master Plan. Both facilities shall provide indoor amenities, meeting rooms and active outdoor recreational amenities. No outside recreational fields or sporting areas shall be lighted to permit sporting events at night. This restriction shall not prohibit lighted outdoor swimming pools or lighted outdoor tennis courts provided that any such lighted tennis courts must be setback a minimum of 150' from a residential property line. Outdoor lighting installed for the swimming pools or outdoors tennis courts shall be directed downward toward the swimming pool or tennis courts play area. The recreational facilities shall be substantially similar in quality, design and character to the exhibits entitled "Community Amenities" as contained in Section VI in the Manual. It is recognized that with a development of this size, detailed building plans may change as the development of Ashville Park progresses. The intent of the renderings is to demonstrate the architectural style and building quality of these facilities. Final elevations for these structures shall be submitted to the Planning Director to assure compliance with this proffer. In addition to the buffer areas, linear parks, pocket parks and Village Greens within Villages A, B, C, D, E and F, Grantor shall set aside as open space the areas shown on the Master Plan. Said areas shall be for the benefit of the owners of property within Ashville Park. These areas shall be set aside for passive enjoyment and recreation for uses such as Lakes, Meadows, Forested Areas and Landscaped Vistas. These areas shall be maintained by. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 11 PROFFER # 22 PROFFER # 23 PROFFER # 24 PROFFER # 25 the Home Owners Association. No portion of the Property that has been designated as a jurisdictional wetland by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be disturbed. The combined areas set aside for recreation and open space on the Property should not be below fifty-four percent (54 %) of the current gross acreage of the Property. The different types and acreages of open spaces provided within Ashville Park shall be substantially as specified on the Master Plan. Grantor shall donate $1,000.00 for each residential lot developed on the Property to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Parks and Recreation into the Open Space Site Acquisition program more specifically referred to as CIP Project No. 4.004.000. Grantor's per lot donation should be paid to the City at the time of the issuance of each building permit for each residential lot within Ashville Park. If all or a portion of said donated funds have not been used by the City of Virginia Beach within twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they were dedicated, then they may be used by the City of Virginia Beach for other municipal purposes, as the City shall in its sole discretion deem appropriate. OPEN SPACE; PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE TRAILS Grantor shall construct a series of sidewalks and trails that are designed to provide pedestrian accessibility within each Village, and pedestrian and bike connections between each Village and to adjacent properties substantially as shown on the Exhibit entitled "Connectivity Plan" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, which plan is part of the Manual. The sidewalk system adjacent to right-of-ways and residences shall be constructed of concrete with an exposed aggregate finish. The path system within the Village Greens, the Pocket Parks and other open space areas shall be finished in hard surfaces such as asphalt or compacted clay. Such trails shall be designed substantially in accordance with the quality levels. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 12 PROFFER # 26 PROFFER # 27 PROFFER # 28 PROFFER # 29 PROFFER # 30 and design features as depicted on the exhibit entitled "Open Space" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, which exhibit is part of the Manual. While not all portions of the trail system within Ashville Park will be open to the public, Grantor shall provide a continuous trail system from Princess Anne Road to Flanagans Lane that will be open to the public either through easements over some of the trails on the Home Owners Association property, or the provision of sidewalks and trails within the public right-of- way section between Princess Anne Road and Flanagans Lane. THE RESIDENCES AT ASHVILLE PARK Grantor shall include within the Restrictions governing the Property, a requirement that the design and building materials for all fences, homes and accessory structures must be reviewed and approved by an Architectural Review Committee of the HOA to insure design and quality compatibility. Said restrictions shall run with the land as allowed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roofs, porches, windows, doors, trim and soffits, consisting entirely of all or any combination of brick, stone, hardy plank, stucco, cedar shake or similar quality materials. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall be constructed with a minimum of a two (2)-car garage. All residential dwellings constructed within Villages A, C, D and F shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any one- story dwelling and no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any two- story dwelling. All residential dwellings constructed within Villages B and E shall contain no less than 1,800 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any one-story dwelling and shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any two-story dwelling. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page: 1:3 PROFFER # 31 PROFFER # 32 PROFFER # 33 Grantor shall utilize Iow impact development techniques where possible on the Property to encourage storm water treatment and ground water recharge and discourage storm water runoff and erosion. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall be constructed in accordance with the construction criteria applicable to homes located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn/STC ratings of not less than 44 for roof/ceiling/exterior walls and 33 for windows/doors, even though no portion of the Property is located within this noise zone. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The dimensional requirements applicable to development of all portions of the Property except Villages B and E shall be as follows: Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet: 12,000 (Villages D and F); 20,000 (Villages A and C) Minimum Lot Width in Feet: 100 Minimum Front Yard Setback in Feet: 50' for 20,000 square foot lots and 30' for lots from between 12,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet Minimum Side Yard Setback in Feet: 10 Minimum Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street: 30 Minimum Rear Yard Setback in Feet: 20 Accessory structures of no more than 150 square feet- 5' rear and side yard setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage: 30% for lots 20,000 square feet and greater and 35% for lots less than 20,000 square feet Minimum Setback from Sidewalk for lots containing linear parks: 15' from edge of sidewalk Maximum Height 42 feet in Villages A and C and 38 feet in · . . ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 14 Villages D and F PROFFER # 34 PROFFER # 35 Staff Evaluation of Proffers: The dimensional requirements applicable to development within Villages B and E on the Property shall be as follows: Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet: 7,500 Minimum Lot Width in Feet: 75 Minimum Front Yard Setback in Feet: 30 Minimum Side Yard Setback in Feet: 5 & 10 Minimum Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street: 20 Minimum Rear Yard in Feet: 20 Accessory structures no more than 150 square feet: 5' rear and side yard setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Maximum Height in Feet: 35 (not to exceed two stories) Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The proffers adequately address most of the concerns presented by the development proposal. Any outstanding concerns are addressed in the recommended conditions of the Street Closure or Subdivision Variance or can be further addressed during the detailed plan review process. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated September 5, 2003 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Staff Evaluation ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.c. .: Agenda Items 28, 29, .&.30 Page;15 CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST: Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified at the beginning of this report. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The proposal meets the majority of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transition Area Design Guidelines. The Transition Area "Matrix" was used to evaluate the proposal's consistency with land use and design goals for the Transition Area. The result was a score of 0.943 dwelling units per acre. Although this score translates to a total of 447 units for this 474-acre site, and the applicant's proposal consists of 490 units, an important consideration is the fact that 160 of the 490 units are age-restricted. The Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TATAC) report, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, states, "Active adult communities are to be encouraged and should be treated differently." It is generally acknowledged that active adult communities have less impact on City services, particularly more costly services such as schools and transportation. Thus, in the Transition Area, where impact on City services and infrastructure is to be minimized, there is rationale for allowing a slightly greater density of such units than for a standard non-age-restricted single-family dwelling that places a greater demand on City services. The TATAC report recognizes this and encourages the provision of such units. The report, however, does not provide quantifiable criteria regarding how such communities are to be treated, instead allowing such communities to be addressed on an individual basis dependent on how the community meets the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. In the case of the current proposal, the density calculated through the Transition Area Matrix allows for 447 units. The applicant's proposal consists of 330 non- age-restricted units and 160 age-restricted units. If the 330 non-age-restricted units are subtracted from the calculated allowable of 447 units, 117 units remain. The proposal calls for 160 age-restricted units, 43 over the calculated allowable number of units. It must be remembered, however, that these 160 units are age- restricted and do not have as great an impact on City services as the other 330 units. Staff believes that the 43 additional age-restricted units represent an acceptable increase beyond the 447 units recommended by the Transition Area Matrix. The total density of the project as proposed with 490 units is 1.03 units per acre. This represents a 0.09 unit per acre increase in density beyond that calculated through the Transition Area Matrix. Staff concludes that consistent with the recommendations contained within the TATAC report regarding active adult communities and noting the many unique design features of this development as recommended in the Transition Area Design Guidelines the. 0..09 · . ASHVILLE PARK, L,L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 16 increase in overall density is appropriate. (2) Property values for the homes are estimated to average at or above $400,000 ($225,000 for age-restricted), which is consistent with the recommendations of the TATAC report regarding the fiscal impact of development in the Transition Area. (3) The proposal is compatible with existing land use and future land use in the surrounding area. The entire development includes a minimum 50-foot buffer around its perimeter, which will mitigate impacts to neighboring farmland or residences. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUEST: Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. C. D. E. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for reduced pavement width; however, this recommendation comes with a caveat. Staff can support this variance request, but only if the applicant is successful in obtaining a variance from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), allowing the City to receive state maintenance funds for the roadways that will have the reduced pavement width. Without such a variance, the City will not receive maintenance funds from the Commonwealth for these roadways, thus increasing the City's cost of providing services to this development. The condition recommended below ensures if the applicant cannot obtain the variance from · · ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 17 VDOT, the roadways will be constructed at a width that meets City standards and meets eligibility for maintenance funding from the Commonwealth. Conditions of Subdivision Variance 1. The applicant shall seek a variance from the Virginia Department of Transportation to allow state maintenance funding for the substandard pavement width request. If state maintenance funding is not granted, the Subdivision Approval shall be considered null and void. STREET CLOSURE REQUEST: Staff recommends approval of this request. The Viewers met on July 23, September 22, and October 30, 2003 and determined that the request to close a portion of Flanagan's Lane will not be detrimental to the public if the conditions recommended below are met. The applicant will construct and dedicate a two-lane divided roadway with a multi- purpose trail from Flanagan's Lane to Princess Anne Road. In addition, the applicant will construct cul-de-sacs at the terminus of each side of Flanagan's Lane, adjacent to the north side of the development near Village D and adjacent to the United States Coast Guard property on the south side of the property. During development, however, a means of public ingress and egress will be available at all times between Princess Anne Road and Sandbridge Road. Conditions of Street Closure 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. No purchase price shall be charged in this street closure, however, because the applicant shall dedicate a new street to replace the closed portion of Flanagan's Lane. The closure and the new street shall be considered an even trade. 2. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, shall be provided. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page'18 , Construction plans for the new street to replace the section of Flanagan's Lane proposed for closure shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review. The new street proposed by the applicant shall be dedicated, constructed, and approved by Civil Inspections before the requested section of Flanagan's Lane can be closed. This condition is to ensure that a means of public ingress and egress shall be provided between Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road at all times. , Cul-de-sacs terminating the two remaining sections of Flanagan's Lane shall be constructed by the applicant on the subject property of Ashville Park. Construction plans for the cul-de-sacs shall be submitted to the Development Services Center. . Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within four (4) years of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within four (4) years 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 applications may require revision during detailed plan review to meet all applicable Cit~/ Codes. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 . Page 19 11-12- 96 9-25-90 10-10- 88 6-13-95 8-10-93 Rezoning (B-2 Business to R-15 Residential) Conditional Use Permit (Athletic Club and Outdoor Recreation) Conditional Use Permit (Outdoor Recreation) Street Closure Conditional Use Permit (Firewood Preparation Facility) Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Princess Anne Road in front of this project is a rural two-lane road. There are no projects listed within the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to improve this road. The current Master Transportation Plan (MTP) designates this road as a proposed 100-foot divided right-of-way. The proposed MTP designates the road as 110-foot right-of-way. The applicant has addressed proposed right-of-way dedications in the proffer agreement. The applicant's request for a Subdivision Variance to reduced pavement widths is subject to the Virginia Department of Transportation granting a variance. The applicant and the city's Department of Public Works are exploring this issue. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Princess Anne 8,186 12,000 Existing Land Use z Road ADT ~ ADT ~ -4.740 Proposed Land Use 3_ 5,550 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by the existing agricultural use 3 as defined by 490 dwelling units .. ASHVILLE PARK, L,L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 page21 Public Utilities Water: City water does not front the property, but may be extended for connection purposes provided hydraulic analysis supports the potential demand. Sewer: City sewer is not available to this development as proposed. Plans and bonds are required for construction of a new pump station and sanitary sewer system. The Department of Public Utilities does not have any facilities within the proposed Flanagan's Lane Street Closure area. Public Schools School Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment Red Mill Elementary 866 910 104 10 Princess Anne 1511 1658 55 49 Middle Kellam High 2276 1990 71 64 ~ "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school under the proposed zoning 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). CIP # 1-090 Elementary School 2005 This project is for construction of an elementary school with a design capacity of 900 students. Necessary classroom space and resource areas should result in a facility of approximately 87,500 square feet on a seventeen acre site at the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Sandbridge Road, which has been acquired. Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2004 for a September 2005 opening. Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 22 Fire and Rescue' tFire Department comments will be provided during detailed plan review. Private Utility Comments Ha__~_pton Roads Sanitation District I No concerns. Virginia Natural Gas I No concerns. Dominion Power An easement for access to an overhead power line may be required in the area adjacent Village D. This will be determined during detailed plan review. ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 23 Exhibits Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.c. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 24 Exhibit B Proposed Master Plan ASHVILLE PARK, LL.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 25 · . Exhibit B-1 ' i -~ Villages A& B-- ~ Detail .~ ~'," ~. ~ .v ASHVILLE PARK, L L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, &.30 Page 26 Exhibit B-2 Village C -- Detail ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, &. 30 Page 27 Exhibit B-3 Villages D, E, & F- - Detail / ASHVILLE PARK, L,L.c. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page28 Exhibit C Proposed Connectivity Plan ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 29 '-xhibit D-1 il Open Space- Linear Park ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 30 Exhibit D-2 ......... ~ ......... T,-,~2-~-;i.-,~-i.-B Open Space- , . Pocket Park : ASHVILLE PARK, L,L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 31 Exhibit D-3 Open Space- Recreation Area ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page:32 Exhibit D-4 Clubhouse ,! ,, i i J · ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 33 i I .. · '_ Exhibit E-1 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L,L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 34 ... .. ibit E,-2 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L,L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page'35 .! Exhibit E-3 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 36 Exhibit E-4 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 37 ./ Exhibit E-5 Open Space Amenities ASHVILLE PARK, L,L.C. Agenda Items.28, 29, & 30 Page 38 Exhibit F-1 Street Sections ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 39 Exhibit F-2 Street Sections ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.Ci Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 40 n,'~ Z,_O Exhibit G-1 Disclosure Statements T/Ti ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page. 41 tU Exhibit G-2 Disclosure Statements o ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 42 o.~ Ill o o ~ ...... n~ 0 Exhibit G-3 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page:43 Exhibit G-4 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE 'PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 44 c~Z o. Z r~ O~ Exhibit G-5 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 · . Page'45 Exhibit G-6 Disclosure Statements ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 46 Exhibit G-7 Disclosure Statements o ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 47 Dec 01 DEC 0 ! ! 03 04: 08p 2880 15:33 PR TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP57 1~87 7510 TO 5, 17578730G51 p.3 P.OE/03 N .... DISCLOS S MENT -- "' ...... ~" . .. : ...... , .. ' _ '" .r ~, APPLICANT DiSCLO$ U RE If the applicant Is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, comptete the following: I. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Affach list if necessary) As..~....:U. le Park.. L..LC' 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity= relationship with the applicant: (Attach llst if necessary) Lamco ~tanal/;emeut Company, I. nc., a Virginia aotpora~ion President/_S_ecre_-t~¥!. Levr~s A, ~cHurran, [II [] Check here if the applicant is NOTa corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only ff property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: I. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attact~ list If necessary) 2, List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list ffnecessery) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. See next page f~r fooa'totes Con~tional Razonlng Paga 12 of 13 Rev]~ 10/1/2003 Dec 01 ,~ZO TO 9,17578730851 p.1 P .03×03 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested properly use, including but not limited ~ the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) S~ephen l~ullel: .Ptace_s, LLC. (.A~lan£a~ Georgia) MSA, P.C. (Virginia ~.each, Vi=Rinia~ Princess Anne La~, d..CompanT, L.LC (¥ir_~lnla Beach, ¥irginla) Troutman Sanders Ll~ .(~i~iin_ia. __Bee_ch,_ ~ "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the vating power of another corporation." See State and Local C~ovemment Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101, 2 "Afffiiated 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 eLher 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 cerumen 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 othenvise a close working relationship between the entities," See State and Loc, al Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va, Code § 2.2-3101. N ~ Il I '' --Y _ -' I -' I--. ~_ I . I-II " ~ ' I~l, ~ . i. II ' '-- ii iln 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 ~e required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public heating a c~ ~/~_structions in this paokage, h .lll . ~llcan~'$ Signature .... vu-~ -~ ,, Print Name ' Property Owner's Signature (if different t/tan appaiCent) I L , ' ! J I . - i .... i - -- :'L . m Print N~'ne CondiM~x~al Re%oc~g Appllcadcm Page 13 of 13 Rev~s~l TOTAL PAGE.03 ~= Exhibit H-1 AICUZ / .. . .¢ 4':' , ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 48 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA 1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23460-2191 IN REPLY REFER TO: 5?26 Ser 32/0426 November 5, 2003 Ms. Ashby Moss Municipal Center Department of Planning 2405 Courthouse Drive Building 2, Room 100 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Moss: This letter is in reference to the proposed Ashville Park, L.L.C. project, a rezoning request and proposed residential development. The site is located in the 65-70 decibel (dB) day- night average (Ldn) noise zone. The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program (AICUZ) views residential development as not compatible and discourages this use in the 65-70 dB Ldn. The Navy acknowledges the landowners desire to develop their property, but ask you to seriously consider the additional population that would be exposed to aircraft operations from NAS Oceana. We would view residential development at this site as an encroachment upon operations at NAS 0ceana. If you have any questions, please contact my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. Ray Firenze at (757) 433-3158. Sincerely and very respectfully, Comma ,z U.S/ Navy f ficer Item #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park. L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in Regard to certain elements of Subdivision Ordinance Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Flanagan's Lane East side of Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne November 12, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is the item we moved up is Item #28, 29 & 30, Ashville Park, L.L.C. R.J. Nutter: Mr. Chairman, before I start the clock, I just want to bring a few people up to minimize the impact on our time. For the record, my name is R.J. Nutter and I'm an attorney. I represent the applicant in this case Ashville Park, L.L.C. With me today, in addition to my client, is one of the principal land planners for this entire project. We were actually very proud to have here today from Atlanta is Stephen Fuller. With Stephen, I understand he has brought Doug Bork, Julie and Kate, all of them whom have spent a considerable amount of time on this project for the last six months making it what it is today. But they will be addressing you shortly and I'm going to do everything I can to stay within my ten-minute limit and have a few minutes from Mr. Fuller to make some remarks about the application. First, I'd like to comment that this is not just about the application. This piece of property and I don't want to forget this and it's easy to with an applicant this wonderful. The property owners who are the underlying property owners have owned this property fbr longer than the city has been in existence. They are amongst the City's oldest residents and property owners. Names from the Stalwarts of this area have owned properties here. These are not people who have come here. These are people who have owned this property for an extended period of time, the Culliphers, the Atkinsons, the Coopers, the Malbons, the Williams and I'm proud to say the Bourdon's, as well, are part of this application. All those families are names you all know. Mr. Horsley, I know you and Mr. Knight are going to recognize them as your friend and neighbors for many, many years. I don't want you to lose sight of the fact that these people have owned this property for a awful long time and paid taxes for an awful long time and have waited to see how the Transition Area rules were developed to make sure that whoever came forward their property would do so in accordance with those regulations. Second point that I would like to make to you is that this property falls within the Transition Area, which is an area that some may say is heavily encumbered. Mr. Knight, as you have mentioned that gentleman who sent a letter to you that said "heavily encumbered by regulation" that some people may not like to acknowledge. The benefit of that is that this area is amongst the most studied and regulated area in the City. It is resulted in Comprehensive Plan amendments. The last two Comprehensive Plans at least. A special committee appointed by Council, the TATAC Committee, which reported their findings to strengthen the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 2 benefit of that to someone like myself and the developers of this property is that it set forth the rules and guidelines upon which the City has set forth as its goals for this area. Because I only have limited amount of time I have to rely on the fact that there's a 52 page staff report that goes :into it in enormous detail how it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the TATAC regulations and all of the criteria that the City has set forth for this area. I brush over that entire part of it based on staff's analysis. I'd like to focus my comments on just a few highlights of this application before I introduce Mr. Fuller. These are really three separate applications. I want you to understand that we have to address all of them. The first is a rezoning application changing the zoning from Agricultural to PD-H2 R-30 Underlying District and P-1 Open Space District. The second is a street closure application on Flanagan's lane. The third is a subdivision variance. Each of them is important. Each of them is significant. I want to spend a few moments on each one. First is the rezoning application. As staff has indicated this is 474 acres of property. I agree with many of your comments this morning in the earlier session. This is the accumulation of property and really allows for a much better development. A more organized and uniformed system of development as opposed to a series of 50-60 acre parcels or tracks of land at the time. That gave us a great ability to address a lot of different features in one uniform fashion. The nice thing about this property is the development has provided 54 percent overall open space through out this development. I'd like to point a few things for you. What we've done and the Comprehensive Plan is very specific about this plus the TATAC and that is try not just to have an area on the property that is set aside for open space near the front of the property and develop the back into lots. The purpose is really to incorporate the open space into the development and have it form an integral part of it. That is actually what has occurred here. This is really a series of six different village neighborhoods quite frankly, centered around a large amount of open space in one and around and including open space for each one. Because of the scale of this is so large, I'd like to take a few minutes to point out some features. First of all, we've set aside a 154-foot area all along the frontage of the property on Princess Anne Road. TATAC asked that we come away with a "boulevard" type capable area for all of Princess Anne Road. What you will have along this portion of Princess Anne Road is a 11 O-foot fight-of-way. You will have on either side of the 150 feet, so you will have a 300-foot buffer adjacent a 110-foot right-of-way all down Princess Arme Road. That is one of the smaller parts of the open area. The entrance to the property and agreed with staff to a single entrance on Princess Anne Road. It is a divided once you enter the property which staff has asked us to do. Interesting enough, as you meander through this property you are going to be passing through several hundred acres of open space in traversing the property from Princess Anne Road to Flanagan's Lane. At various points, you'll be driving along the corridor where the closest point, which is just about here, is about 100 foot to the closest platted lot. Many of the distances between the road system here is going to be in excess of 200- 300 feet from closest lots. That will be the case throughout the entire length of that roadway except when you enter this Village B, based upon some recent changes, which were requested by the adjacent property owners on Flanagan's Lane. But I point out to you that you have 256 acres of open space in this development. The bulk of that open space is along through the central areas to build it in. We've maintained all the forested areas and wetland areas here. The only forested areas that we're impacting at all are for Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 3 roadways and that is right through here. That is so we can use that area an entrance of the site to really create a beautiful wooded entrance to that feature. The other fact is that regrettably all of our frontage along where the access was possible is fully wooded so we had no choice. Barfing that, which you will have a beautiful wooded entrance into the property. The other feature is that inside each of the villages and there are six villages, four of them "A", "C", "D" and "F", are non-age restricted. They are all clustered together. They range in size from 20,000 square foot lots to 12,000 square foot lots. Two of the villages, "B" and "E" are age restricted, active adult community, with head of household is 55 years of age or older and it's further restricted just like West Neck so that no one under the age of 18 may reside on the property for periods of 120 days at a time. Those are the two significant features. They follow almost the identical proffers that you saw in West Neck, which received such rave reviews by the City. The other important features are the connectivity plan, if I could Stephen. There we go. We have over eight miles of trail systems within Ashville Park. The connectivity plan was designed to do three things. First is to provide complete inner connectivity or pedestrian walkways and trails inside each village. Secondly, every one of the six villages is also connected. Those are the areas in green that you might be able to make out here. Finally, we've provided through the red area here, here, here, here and here interconnected here which is the Flanagan's Lane exits access some sort of connectivity to the adjacent properties. Our problem with some of these is that these properties are not yet developed. We're not quite sure where that connectivity might tie in. The one I'm pointing to now and Heritage Park and this one at Heritage Park both a line with existing connectivity with path systems and road systems inside the adjacent subdivision. Ronald Ripley: R.J. you're running out of time. R.J. Nutter: I can tell. Let me just do two comments then on street closure and subdivision and I'll introduce Mr. Fuller if I could. Ronald Ripley: Make it brief please. R.J. Nutter: I sure will. The street closure application and if I could go back to the previous plan Stephen, the master plan perhaps. Thank you. Flanagan's Lane comes up in this fashion is going to be closed from here which it currently exists in this fashion just about a 90 degree angle and connects in here to another 90 degree angle and continues out like this. This portion of Flanagan's Lane will be closed. The conditions proposed by staff are acceptable. We've worked very hard and we appreciate his help. It does require that the cul-de-sac inside Ashville Park at both of these intersections. I point this out because we made a point to do so along the residents of Flanagan's Lane, which result in this portion of Flanagan's Lane almost becoming a private road for the residents along Flanagan's Lane. There will be no vehicular access through this part of the property at all. Finally, is 'the subdivision variance and the sole reason for the subdivision variance is largely a result of the TATAC Committee recommendations that we reduce the amount of impervious area within the transition zone and build a smaller street width. This is an area that I want to focus on for one minute and because there is some unfinished business left with the TATAC Commission and what the Comprehensive Plan Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 4 should call for. Everyone likes the idea of going with a smaller size street, which we proposed. These are beautiful streets. You'll find all of the sidewalks and all of the road curves are exposed aggregate. The point here is that right now unless the City can get the ability to have maintenance funds for those road systems then we jeopardize the ability to install those road systems. We understand staff's comments that they want to have maintenance funds for those roads but VDOT has to acknowledge that. In my mind, this is unfinished business we need to attend to because quite frankly, we're requesting a variance and the conditions are fine. I wanted to let you know that I think we have to focus more on working with VDOT to allow maintenance funds for road systems that are built to state standards but have a slightly smaller road width. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. R.J. Nutter: Thank you. And, I would like to introduce Mr. Fuller, who has come up today from Atlanta. Stephen, I'd like to introduce you and for you to say a few words. Stephen Fuller: Thank you. I'll keep it brief. Flash me if you need to. I'm Stephen Fuller and our firm is located at Atlanta. We've been in business for right at 20 years. I started right out of Georgia Tech. The heart of our firm is our architects, residential designers designing homes. But over the 20 year career that we've had we became very frustrated that most of our homes, no matter how well designed were always more than likely put into very typical suburban environments driven by really nothing but lot yield and streets, and houses and private backyards. You tend never see kind of quality open spaces that you would see in the classic 20-30 neighborhoods that are really found in almost every American city. So the last ten years inspired by a lot of great planning started to see. The architectural world single-family wise really began to study classic old neighborhoods. We have great ones in Atlanta. Druid Hills and Meyers Park in Charlotte and even historical places like Savannah and Charleston. From that have really tried to revive what makes a classic American neighborhood work from a land planning and a landscaping architectural level. The combination of classic really wonderful beautiful architecture combined with great upfront planning makes for fabulous places to live both architecturally and in the green space area. So, when we got here and started to foresee this project we were really interested. First of all, there had been so much concern and planning up front on your part in terms of the TATAC documents in the transition area and the concerns that you had so this plan has a lot of detail in it in terms of the land planning and I won't go through all of it but various types of green spaces and natural spaces. They break down from gigantic large spaces down to very beautiful little independent park spaces that may not have more than three or four homes placed on that unique space. It's very comprehensive but even at the level that you see it at its really only 20 percent of our work. The bulk of our 40 men company, are really architects concerned with the homes themselves. We'll work every builder at the bulk of landscaping level and the architectural over the next 5 years or however long it takes to make sure that this project is truly a new classic neighborhood. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Fuller, you've run out of time. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 5 Stephen Fuller: Oh, I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: We will have some questions we would like to ask you. Stephen Fuller: Okay. Great. Ronald Ripley: I'd like to give you an opportunity. Stephen Fuller: Do you want me to stay up? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Stay up if you will. I'd like to start off with a question. Can you explain the differences in the matter that you lay your subdivisions out versus your traditional subdivision? It seems quite unique, if you don't mind. Stephen Fuller: The first thing we do and real quickly is look at the raw land. We look at what's there that's worth preserving such as trees and natural components. Just like you would design a house on a specific lot and if there's 200 year old Oak trees that becomes a key feature that you're going to work with not ignore. We did that. There were several patches of mature trees. In some cases, they were very straight edge because it had been farmed. We'd like to go back and sculpt that a little bit to re-naturalize that. Then on the inside of that we looked at how the circulation needs to work and start to break down the scale of the place. So the green spaces not only break down in scale. Ronald Ripley: There's a pointer there by the way. Do you see that black one? Stephen Fuller: I've got one. I just forgot that I had it in my hand. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Stephen Fuller: The different scales of the places and unfortunately you could really zoom in on almost anyone of these little tiny spaces and they are already starting to show some of the features that will eventually will end up at the fine detail level whether it be fountains or edge conditions, fence roses, hedge rows, alleys of trees. We just begin to work that whole piece of property almost like you're laying out a floor plan of a house. Again, just like residential architectural, we like our street systems to be very fluent. No dead ends. Just like you don't want to walk into a dead end room of a house. When you go into a neighborhood you want to have a lot of flow and a lot of connectivity is what you guys call it, not just internally but for the next great place that's going to happen down stream or up stream. So, I didn't really know how to describe that but it's a whole realistic approach. When we lay out these roads and these lots and these parks, again keep in mind, every lot in here shows a house plan already. We're already thinking in terms of garages, front orientations, porches, so when the architecture starts to fall in and it's not by accident. There are already pads and orientations hierarchy of lot sizes, styles of architectures, these neighborhoods will independently become wonderful places. We can even sort of dial architectural changes into these various neighborhoods based on the land plans and price points and lot sizes. So, we can introduce Georgian styles, little Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 6 country styles, front row house on parks and open spaces could be mandated to have porches, interior lots with more emphasis on rear elevations. So, there's a lot to what we eventually will bring to the table in terms of design. Ronald Ripley: Will you be doing the design of the various homes in there or will you be approving those designs? Stephen Fuller: We'll be doing a combination of both. When we're dealing typically with larger builders and some of these sections in here may involve a building company that's larger in terms of the volume, we'll deal directly with them and they'll become our client. We'll pass from the developer to that builder. In other cases where we're dealing with smaller builders a lot of times we may not deal directly with them. What we'll do is what we call "home libraries" we'll prototype houses that basically those builders will use to work with their local in house designers. We write guidelines that talk about how to do everything from frame dormers to bay windows and porches. So either by continuing again, the guidelines and the process that you guys have put into place we become that independent architectural level in the community, either by completely designing the houses or writing the guidelines that they will have to adhere to. Ronald Ripley: What if the builder says he's not going to do something will you try to reach an agreement on what's acceptable? Stephen Fuller: Documents and some things that we'll produce will become part of the covenant and they'll have to agree to abide by those before they can buy lots in there legally. If they don't they obviously it falls on the developer to buy back their lots to not let that particular builder continue to build in there. Ronald Ripley: Dot, did you have a question? Dorothy Wood: You covered my question. I'm just a little excited about it. It's a beautiful quality. Thank you. Stephen Fuller: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions of Mr. Fuller? Eugene Crabtree: I've like what they've done. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Stephen Fuller: I appreciate you moving me up on the agenda. My five-month pregnant wife will appreciate me making it home for dinner. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Gene Hanson. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 7 Gene Hanson: Chairman Ripley, ladies and gentlemen of Planning Commission. My name is Gene Hanson. I'm an equestrian farm owner in Pungo so ! like hearing nice things about horse farms. I'm here to talk in favor of Ashville Park development. Even though that might hinder assessment valuation in my neck of the woods. I'm here not so much to talk about the quality of the project that I watch you develop. I think it's going to be second to none, so, my apologies to some of my friends who are developers in Virginia Beach. I'm here to talk about something that I think is really important for this area and the Transition Area. I was on the Transition Area Committee so what goes on in the Transition Area is very important to me. I'm here to talk about the quality of the people involved here. The gentleman who was not introduced is Lewis McMurran, who is really the primary developer here. I've known Lewis for many years. I've ridden horses with his wife. He has stayed at my house before. I have broken bread with him. I have verbally been at elbow with him on more than once or twice and I have spent time with his family in his in Carrolton as well. I think there's not a more honorable person with whom you can invite to become the new pillar of the community in Virginia Beach. I would be tickled pink to see not only unanimously that the Commission accept this new proposal but welcome Lewis and the people that he is bringing here to really help the Transition Area become What we all have as far as vision. That's it. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: I've got a question Gene. Gene Hanson: Sure. Ronald Ripley: Having served on that committee, do you think he meets the intent of the guidelines to the extent that you were all looking for? Gene Hanson: I will tell you there's a practical hint that I gave to Dick Browner and that is they are obviously not farmers because they don't know that a practical mower depth is eight feet. Why? So, I looked at the size of the trails initially and now I've been talking to them about horse trails so they will expand just slightly so they can make one pass with a large mower depth to be more efficient. The trails are multipurpose trails are wonderful. As was pointed out there's a lot of connectivity. Even they made available places to connect to other developments that don't even exist yet. That's a plus. It isn't just one spot coming into our area. It's throughout. From somebody who rides horses down thin narrow streets in the Pungo area, I can tell you that it will be real nice to be on this trails and connect through the rest of the Transition Area. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Yes. Don. Donald Horsley: So these trails will be multipurpose so you can use horses? We were told this morning that they woul. d not be horse trails. Gene Hanson: I don't know who you told you that but if Lewis McMurran is going to try and keep me off these trails he's got another thought coming. Donald Horsley: I think there must be some confusion there. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 8 Ronald Ripley: We'll have Mr. R.J. Nutter address that when he comes back up. R.J. Nutter: I'll try to address that. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to that when you rebuttal? Make a note of that R.J. Gene Hanson: I'd be trespassing otherwise. Donald Horsley: I'm impressed that there will be horse riding especially when I asked this morning. I thought that what we were talking about all along. Gene Hanson: Absolutely.. Donald Horsley: Any connectivity with the trails to the Equi-kids site? Gene Hanson: Yes. That's the two from this diagram that he pointed to that looks to the north. Yes, there will be. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Gene Hanson: Thank you. Robert Miller: I believe the name is Herb Jones. I'm not sure if I got the name. Herb Jones: Things are kind of in the eye of the beholder as I listen to other speakers. But I speak with some reservations and some questions. I'd like to be begin, for instance by saying that on Page 144 of the Comprehensive Plan, "direct access from Princess Anne Road or Nimmo Parkway to new development sites adjacent to these roads are discouraged." The Ashville Park proffer two says, "the principle entranceway to the property shall be from Princess Anne Road." That's an inconsistency. It says "access from this internal circulation system to surrounding residential neighborhoods should be provided." That means that a road from one to another. The only connectivity that I see from neighborhood to neighborhood is arrows depicting pedestrian paths. I see no distinction of a road going from Ashville Park to Heritage Park or to the area in Flanagan's Lane. So, then I have some questions. What would be the developer's proffer for the new intersection at Flanagan's Lane and Sandbridge Road? Isn't Linear Park the same as a street with trees? What is a pocket park? And who will be allowed to use pocket parks? Will the recreational activity amenities be accessible to all in Virginia Beach or just the residents of Ashville Park? Was a yield study done? I think I heard the designer say that a yield study was done to determine, you know, what's there before we begin to say what developable acres within the 474 acres. We're putting 490 homes on the 474 acres. Is clustering that is called for on the Comprehensive Plan the same as building on smaller lots with linfited use? And there are a lot of'those lots that don't see anything but the lot next door if you look at the plan. Who will pay for the connective linkages between the developments that were depicted but not described? Is the City going to pay for those or will the developers? I think we need an explanation on how Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 9 they figure 56 percent open space. Oh by the way, I'm working from a September draft of the proposal and not the most recent one. It talks about the City will does not stand to fund public infrastructure necessary to support new workman level grills in the Transition Area. As of October 2003, I went to Kellam High School and Princess Anne Middle School and talked with the principal to find that one was 500 over capacity right now and the other was 200 over capacity. Those are not the same numbers I see in today's draft of their proposal. I think the Comprehensive Plan talks about regional storm water plans. Maybe there should have been some effort to make regional storm water plans with these two large developments with Heritage Park and Ashville Park. It's not to have their little BMP. Of course, this is going to impact the Back Bay and what's there. I have other comments to make. My time is up. I'll answer questions. I had a lot of questions about the plan. I hope that someone will answer them. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Jones? Donald Horsley: I just like getting Mr. Scott to clarify the first statement you made about the Comprehensive Plan and the access to Princess Anne Road. Herb Jones: The actual size was page 144 of the Comprehensive Plan. Donald Horsley: He is going to comment on it. Robert Scott: I don't think policy like is intended to prohibit a 400-500 acre track that has frontage on Princess Anne Road having any access to it. I think we were considered about individual lot have frontage or access onto Princess Anne Road which of course this plan avoids. I am not able to see how one access point onto Princess Anne Road would attract that big is a violation of the concepts. Herb Jones: I guess my question was when I read through the proposal was any effort made to make the major entrance off ofFlanagan's Lane rather than off of Princess Anne Road? It would seem to me to be less confusing then to put it off of Princess Anne Road. I realize that they offered another five feet now of roadway so they make it a 110 foot roadway rather a hundred in the proposal that I read. But it seems to me that it would be less confusing and less of a pattern to be placed of Princess Anne Road because we don't know what's going to happen to Princess Anne Road down the road. Excuse me for the redundancy. I did want to make one other comment. There is nothing in the proposal that talks about horse trails. There's no word "horse" or "equestrian" in there because I looked very carefully. Donald Horsley: I think we're going to get that explanation momentarily. Herb Jones: Are there any other questions? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Barry. Barry Knight: Mr. Jones, I think the developer will probably answer your questions Items//28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 10 shortly. I believe they had, like you stated two options, Princess Anne Road or Flanagan's Lane. I believe the residents on Flanagan's Lane actually wanted it closed so there wouldn't be any traffic on Flanagan's Lane. Herb Jones: That's the east end of Flanagan. I'm talking about putting it on the west end of Flanagan as opposed to Princess Anne Road. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Herb Jones: Thank you. Robert Miller: William Bailey. No William Bailey? Two people got up but nobody came forward. Okay. Steven Berman. Steven Berman: I'll get up. Robert Miller: You can be William Bailey. Steven Berman: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Steve Berman and I live at 1685 Flanagan's Lane here in Virginia Beach. My family and I have lived in Virginia Beach for about 30 years now. For the past 18 years, we've lived on Flanagan's Lane. We dearly love the place. As a matter of fact, we moved there to primarily get away from Kempsville. Vyre saw all the congestion. We love Kempsville but we saw the growth and development occurring so we decided as well as so many other people on Flanagan's Lane to move to the country, to some open spaces. Recently, I had a good opportunity to meet with the residents of Flanagan's Lane. We've met at my home on a couple of occasions. We've met with Jim Reeves who is a Council member and we've also met with Dick Browner, who is one of the planners for this project of Ashville Park to at least discuss some of the concerns involving this new development. We sent each of you as Commissioners and each of the City Council members a letter including a signed petition signed by all eight residents of Flanagan's Lane requesting that Flanagan's Lane, on the west end be either cul-de-sac'd or dead ended at the Berman property which is my property. We had an opportunity to talk with many people from Back Bay from the civic leagues and most of our concern has been along the lines of all the development that's occurring and all of you are very aware of the development that's occurring starting with Heritage Park. We knew that once that was approved it was going to be "me too" everybody stepping up to the plate and saying we want to get our property now developed now that Heritage Park had been approved. I would like to make a comment that I am a co-owner of a founder of a company here in Virginia Beach that does a lot of training that deals with public involvement, training courses with the Army Corps of Engineers down Huntsville, Alabama. It's a delightful course that we provide to some of the people in the Army Corps of Engineers. But one of the things that really was pointed out to me and one of the people that I would at least like to give some kudos to in and appreciate is Dick Browner. Dick has come forth to at least let us know as residents what in fact he was calling for and what he was looking at least in terms of being proposed. I do appreciate Dick coming to our meetings and sharing information so that it's not after Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 11 the fact but working with us as residents so I do appreciate that. All of us know that there has been massive development going on and perhaps this particular development is one of the most massive one that has occurred in the last twenty years which really affects the open space. I know there have been a lot of changes to the Comprehensive Plan to the green line to the Transition line and so forth but we are very much concerned in terms of this development that's occurring. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Berman, you're running out of time. Steven Berman: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Maybe you can summarize? Steven Berman: I'd like to summarize by saying that there are a number of proffers that have been asked for by the Flanagan's Lane residents. Very quickly, these are.just five or six proffers if I may. One was to cul-de-sac Flanagan's Lane as a dead end, to open the new road from Princess Anne to the end of Flanagan's Lane. We found out this morning that is to be done within four years as opposed to two years now. That Flanagan's Lane not be used for Ashville Park construction or village residence until the new road is completed or the project is completed. Developer provided undulating berms, which include shrubberies and trees and appropriate fencing. Modify the plan entrance on Flanagan's Lane. There has been a lot of discussion about where Flanagan's Lane would be. Our recommendation and request that it be moved closer to Sandbridge Road and the last thing, if possible to look at the developer providing the actual water and sewer hookup ties that will be close to where our development is so that all the people in Flanagan's Lane can tie up. Again, we do not really object to the development we just like to make sure that the proffers are provided and I really appreciate Mr. Strange stepping out and making his vote earlier. 1997 was not that long ago in terms of the proffers being established. It's 'important that if you establish proffers now that at least some how we enforce those proffers whenever they may be. Thank you. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: Questions? Thank you very much. Steven Berman: Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: That is all the speakers. Mr. Nutter, do you wish to address? R.J. Nutter: Thank you. First, a couple of items and Mr. Berman, I'm happy he could be here today. Dick and many of us on this team have met at his residence on a number of occasions. In just about every incidence we have already modified the proffers to provide in fact the things that he had requested. I would like to go over those for a second. As you know, originally we did have a road that connected into Flanagan's Lane near his property. We did modify at their request. When I spoke with Mr. Berman earlier he indicated that he just wants to make sure that these proffers of record and I wanted to assure him that they are. I want to assure that these are deed restrictions. As you said, Ms. Wood, to modify a proffer, sometimes that is necessary. It requires notice, a new public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. We don't Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 12 anticipate that. We have designed this development around the things he has requested. The other issues, the berming, we have a specific plan called the berm plan. It's not in the booklet I've given but it's part of the proffers that addresses the berming, the location of the ditch, the location of where the buffer area will be measured from, all that was a specific request to the residents of Flanagan's Lane. So, that's another advantage point from the developer's point of view in meeting these residents in advance so we could address those. If I could, I'd like to also address some of the issues raised by Mr. Jones. I didn't bring page 144 of the Comprehensive Plan with me but I do think and my sense is that what we're refen-ing to designing developments so they do not have direct access for each lot along a major arterial. We've done that in every other place in the City. We've done it here. In fact, we originally proposed given the size of this and in fact that we had several thousand footage of frontage on Princess Anne Road to the west two access ways. Staff asked us to reduce it to one. So, I think we're more than compliance with that. You will also note that we don't have any individual lots on Princess Anne Road fronting at all. So, I think we comply there. I think and I'm trying to go to the page regarding the issue of parks. Who owns them and who maintains them? The parks are in large measure private. They will be maintained by a Homeowners Association. We have linear parks. We have pocket parks. We have village greens. All those are inside the development, inside each village. Then we have large open space areas. Those are maintained by the HOA, by the residents in that area. So it will not be a drain on the public. Most of the trail systems are in fact private. It goes to provide for connectivity we do know that we have to provide key trails that are available to the public and we will be doing that where we indicated except we need to modify them based upon the new development that is not yet defined on property adjacent to us. But the majority of the system is in fact private for the benefit of the residents. The nice part about it is if this was a golf course that may be more open to the public for a fee but ironically it's not open to the main residents. It's reasonably restricted to the residents. They can't wander on to a golf course. There are liability questions. The golfers don't like it. So, in many ways, this open space is far more accessible to the residents of this community than is a typical golf course. So, I hope that answer some of this questions. You also asked about equestrian. It's been an issue. Let me try to address that for you. Mr. McMurran, his wife as you know is a quite an equestrian herself. So, we have recognized the desire of the community and the TATAC community to start looking at access for those facilities. We also recognize that there is a certain amount of incompatability for a person on a horse and a person on a bicycle or jogger. I'm afraid that's the nature of living with those beautiful animals. They are skittish and they are all unique. They are very big and powerful and can do a great deal of damage. As a result, what we have done is work with Mr. Hanson and exactly Mr. McMurran has about looking at an independent trail for horses that does not coincide with those trails but at the same time provides access through the development. We have not yet identified it. We asked that it be located not behind homes but away through the wooded areas where adjacent properties. We're still working on that design but I can tell you that we are planning on providing that:. The eight miles of trails that ! just mentioned are independent of this system I've just talked about. Ronald Ripley: Where do you think these trails would run? Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 13 R.J. Nutter: Generally speaking, we've looked through here. We've looked at some portion. This is one scenario that is behind homes so we're not too crazy about that one. We are looking predominately in this area. We have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife facility here. We could provide some access on this side. We have an area through here that can provide access out through this side. So, we are looking at doing that but I hope you'll understand. Ronald Ripley: I would think on the right-of-way for sure. Would you not? R.J. Nutter: The right-of-way. Ronald Ripley: The main right-of-way. R.J. Nutter: The main right-of-way is separated quite a bit, no one horse is being scared by a passerby Ronald Ripley: That 'would seem to be part of the guidelines that came out. That was the idea. I'm talking about Princess Anne Road. R.J. Nutter: Sure. Along Princess Anne Road we have not. A meeting with Dean Block we've asked him to come up with a plan for where he wants to put the trail system. For instance, one of the questions was we did not show and I can't give you a line down here because we weren't sure if the City wanted the trail system to a sidewalk, an eight foot wide paved concrete thcility or an eight foot wide part through facility. We weren't sure if they wanted it to be meandering through the woods or adjacent to the right-of-way. Ronald Ripley: Would the developer be putting that in? R.J. Nutter: We're putting that in. Ronald Ripley: Once the City identifies what they want. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. We asked Dean to let us know and Dean has been wonderful about acknowledging they haven't focused much on that yet. We are working very closely with Dean's office. That's a good example of trying to provide that connectivity but at the same time have a natural separation for certain type of uses. They might be in conflict with one another. This William Bailey who did appear there was one gentleman here from the fire department. Robert Miller: That is who that was? R.J. Nutter: Is that who it was? I didn't recognize his name. The first department owns a piece of property I believe is roughly right in here. They are in the process of proposing to build a small softball field, a two-acre softball field and they wanted to make sure that it would not be next to this property and there wouldn't be any interference and after we located it on the map he decided to leave and indicate to me that I could indicate that he was here and had no objections at all. I did want to close with Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 14 that but I hope that answers your questions. We have pocket park demonstrations. You name it. You may be tired of this by now but I do want to let you know that we came fully prepared before you today. Ronald Ripley: I think Dot has a question. Dorothy Wood: R.J., I'm sure that you'll be willing to meet with Mr. Jones between now and Council and go over his concerns. Would you not? R.J. Nutter: Certainly. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. R.J. Nutter: Yes ma'am. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions of R.J.? Barry. Barry Knight: R.J. You were right. I do recognize all the families that own that land in this neck of the woods. Some of them are very good friends of mine and I know they've had reservations of selling their land for years and years. I really believe that some of them, and the only reason they are willing to sell their land, is because it is an assemblage of land that's going to be a quality development. There are two things about this that first strike you and that is the quality' of it and also it is fairly massive when you look at it. I know that's exactly what TATAC wanted was to assemble a lot of tracks so you could have a plan tbr one large parcel of property. Would you tell us if you can roughly where your going to start building and roughly where you're going to end up and roughly what time frame we're talking about because I know it's not all going to happen in six months. R.J. Nutter: That's very true. I'm happy to do that. These are not well defined phase levels, but we have discussed this at great length so I can give you the benefit for all that thought. Phase I is basically going to be the development of Villages "A" and "B" through here and the start of the recreational facility right through here. This process we anticipate occurring somewhere between 2006 & 2009. We anticipate approximately a year or less to get through site plan, subdivision review, construction plan review and approvals. We anticipate approximately that it will be about 2004. We anticipate approximately a year of infrastructure improvements about 2005 and therein probably start up some the hard construction of homes somewhere in late 2005 - 2006 some of the models. We think these areas will go probably, we anticipating in about three years. Phase II is really the continuation of Flanagan's throughout to here and the construction of Village "C" and Village "E", which is the second of the two age restricted. That's anticipated some place in 2009 & 2012. And the final phases, which may well overlapped in some degree particularly Village "D" will be Villages "D" and "F" and they are considered to be brought on line by 2012 - 2015. So, even though it is large, it is a long build out, Barry I think is your point. The other and to give you an example for the next just about through 2009 you're looking at basically, I think is 135 non age restricted lots coming online and 104 age restricted lots coming online. So, between now Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 15 and 2009 is a slower process. You won't see 490 units on day one. That's a pretty good estimate what we've been able to look at and talking with Mr. Fuller and the engineers and Mr. McMurran the developer. I hope that's a help to you Mr. Knight. Ronald Ripley: Charlie, you had a question. Charlie Salle': R.J., I think you indicated a number of connected areas where the trails would connect to other properties. Could you point out where they connect? How these connections lead to public trails that traverse this project? R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. I'll be happy to. This connection here is tied to a 50-foot tie in Heritage Park that could either be vehicular or pedestrian in nature. It's 50-foot wide on both sides. We've indicated in design not to have vehicular connectivity. Charlie Salle': Let me ask you this. That provides a way to get from this project to that one but can they get to that project to this one? R.J. Nutter: Yes. What I'm saying exactly is this point here, and this point here, are lined with the Heritage Park development at that location where they have provided access themselves. Charlie Salle': Once they enter this project what trail are they limited to? R.J. Nutter: Once they enter this project there will be public trail system. In reality, quite frankly, unless this becomes a burden the public can go on any trails to be perfectly honest with you but there will be trails that will be specifically earmarked for them but they are designed so that anyone from the properties here and Heritage Park or the adjacent developments that might occur in the future here can bisect this property through the trail system and get to the other side. Some will come here and be able to go in this direction. Some will come out here and be able to come down in this direction. We have not provided paths in here yet because we're not sure where that's going to be but we do have a series of trails that are traversed these areas as well. We want to make sure that everyone knows that you will be able to get through this property. And you will be get through east and west. We have not tied in here. We do have a Coast Guard facility here and the existing Flanagan's Lane runs here so we have the opportunity to connect to here to come out to Princess Anne Road and go down in that fashion. There are multiple options as you can see. Charlie Salle': Will those trails just be pedestrian? R.J. Nutter: Those are pedestrian trails. Yes sir. Somewhere there looks like an equestrian trail through here somewhere but the majority of these are meant to be bike and walking and jogging paths. Ronald Ripley: ! think that's it. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 16 R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. I think Gene Hanson wanted to readdress us if it's new information? Gene Hanson: I don't want to take Mr. Nutter's, I guess podium that way but one thing that I did not say when I was up here is that I sit on the Virginia Horse Council. l'm also on the Virginia Horse Council Trails Committee. So, I'd like for education purposes to let you know a little bit about horse trails. It will only take me a second to get it out. There are many municipal parks now in the Commonwealth that encourage multipurpose trails. The largest municipal park east of the Mississippi is Newport News City Park that abuts Yorktown Federal Battlefield Park. In both places, horses and all non-motorized vehicles joggers, pedestrians are allowed to use those trails indiscriminately. In fact, horses are encouraged to even have a place where people can bring in several different spots to park your trailers where an individual in a car you may have to pay to go in but if you bring in horses to go on the trails you do not. That's part of the Federal Battlefield Park. To the best of my knowledge and I ride those trails often and again, since I sit on the Trails Committee, there has not been any problem between this so call skittishness of horses. A horse is no different than any other pet. If you keep it under control you can ride it very well. If any of you have seen me I ride right down right side of the road in Pungo, right across the street without any problems. There are not enough trails here and I provided to Clay Bernick, who is in charge of trails for the City of Virginia Beach virtually every study that comes about regarding horseback riding trails throughout the United States and the cleanliness and the safety of having horse trails. I appreciate the concerns but it really isn't a red flag that I think needs to be raised. Thank you very much for having me to clarify that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Okay. Discussion. Oh, a silent group 'today. Donald Horsley: I'll start. I've seen sketches of the preliminary drawings on this project several months ago. It has really grown on me. I'm very impressed. I think this is something that when we look at the Transition Area, we didn't know what it was going to look like but I applaud the landowners for holding out. I know we've had golf courses talked about and other different amenities in that area but they were by individual landowners but this is a coordinated effort by a large group and a large tract of land and I think they kind of go along with the TATAC recommendations and I'm in favor of the project and whenever you're ready for a motion, I'm prepared to make one. Ronald Ripley: Charlie and Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I was just going to say that I think that we have accomplished things pretty well. I'm sorry Charlie. I'm for it. Charlie Salle': Okay. I'm going to support this project too. I think it's a wonderful design. I think in the past we've sort of seen the kind of design where you come in and go with houses on half of the property and you have the other half reserved for timber or open space or whatever and it wasn't a whole lot of thought in design and originality to it. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 17 It was just half undeveloped. I like the concept of incorporating the open space within the communities and making it a part of the community. It's almost like where you had a 100 acres or 50 acres left vacant for the people who live on the 50 acres that are developed, they hardly ever know that the open space is over there. The community they lived in was really not opened where this incorporates the open space in the community and makes it part of their community. I hope this will be the guideline for future development in the area. Ronald Ripley: Will. William Din: Frankly, I think this is a beautiful project. I think it provides a lot of the design aspects that we have been asking a lot of the developers to look at from a very large tract of property and I think that's one of the attributes of what we've been seeking to develop area like this comprehensively that you can see how it is going to build out to some degree. A lot of the iparks provide the open space without clustering so to speak too much into smaller lots. This provides vistas from all these different areas and they are looking into parks. They are looking into open space areas that we seek and have tried to get other developers to provide in smaller developments but have been unable to because of the size of those developments. I think 50 percent open space area for this entire development is an attribute to the developer and I applaud Mr. Fuller for this. Seeing some of the development down in Atlanta, I think it's a lot of quality is going in this and I think the controls on the architectural styles and things is a great aspect of it. I too will possibly be supporting this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Gene, did you want to add anything? Eugene Crabtree: I'm sorry. I apologize to Charlie. I was listening but I wasn't listening. Ronald Ripley: I know. I do that all the time. Eugene Crabtree: I think this is, as Will said, I think this encompasses the thing that we have learned before to where that sort of and we had a couple of things before development by design and I think this fits that picture of development by design where they've gone in and looked at the land and the lay of the land and has actually developed and designed it around that. As Will said, I think this is actually what we're trying to accomplish here in the City. Ronald Ripley: Don. Donald Horsley: Mr. Chairman, I prepared to make a motion in that we approve the application of Ashville Park with the 35 proffers. I don't think I've ever seen an application that had 35 proffers. We're pretty well protected and I make a motion that we approve the application as proffered. Dorothy Wood: It's a pleasure to second your motion Mr. Horsley. Items #28, 29 & 30 Ashville Park, L.L.C. Page 18 Ronald Ripley: We have a motion by Don Horsley and a second by Dot Wood to approve it. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I need to abstain. My firm is working on the project. Donald Horsley: If we can get a quick vote we might be able to get home by the same time Mr. Fuller does tonight. Ronald Ripley: The only comment that I want to make is that I think that Mr. Hanson. Janice Anderson: I need to abstain also. My firm is working with one of the applicants on this project. Ronald Ripley: I think the discussion of the equestrian being folded to the path system and I'm hearing from the developer that is something they are going to do. I think it's important. I've received phone calls from citizens in the area who live down in the Transition Area and the rural area and they are looking for that and I think you heard it very strongly from Mr. Hanson. He's a very much a dominate part in that area. I think that's critical for you to address. We'll look for that to be done. I think that the quality of this is just exceptional. I have not seen entranceways and other connective techniques used in anything in this City like this. This is going to be something that I think will be an excellent icon for the Transition zone. So, with that, any other comments, we'll call for the question. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 2 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0 with two abstentions, the motion carries. FORM NO. F~.S. 113 City of Virginia Beach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5797 DATE: November 28, 2003 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney B. Kay Wilson ~ FROM: DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Ashville Park, L.L.C., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 9, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated September 5, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure Document Prepared By: Troutman Sanders LLP 222 Central Park Avenue Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 (757) 687-7500 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of September, 2003 by and between ASHVILLE PARK~ L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), the contract purchaser of certain parcels of property generally located in the Princess Anne Road Election district of Virginia Beach, Virginia, which property is more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter the "Property"); EDDIE LEE COOPER and LINDA C. COOPER, now known as LINDA C. ACKISS; REBECCA ANN CULLIPHER and ROGER ELLIOTT MALBON; WILLIAM W. OLIVER and LYNN O. ADAMS, TRUSTEES UNDER A TRUST AGREEMENT UNDER WILL OF W.W. OLIVER~ ~IR.; BETTY B. BOURDON; R. EDWARD BOURDON, JR. and PAUL S. BOURDON; FRANK T. WILLIAMS and NORWOOD C. LAND (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor"), the current owners of the Property; and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-30 and P-1 with a PDH-2 overlay on certain property which contains GPIN NOS.: 2413-07-1960-0000 2413-06-6259-0000 2413-16-7813-0000 2413-57-0702-0000 2413-36-3862-0000 2413-46-4337-0000 2413-55-5252-0000 2413-75-4401-0000 approximately 474 acres, more or less, located in the Princess Anne Election District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, which property is more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned R-30 and P-1 with PDH-2 overlay are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing R-30 and P-1 with a PDH- 2 overlay zoning district by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect, until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or 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, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, it's 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 covenant and agree that these proffers (collectively, the "Proffers") shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, it's heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: 1. The Property shall be developed substantially as shown on the "Master Plan of Ashville Park Virginia Beach, VA" dated 8/29/03 and designed by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC in conjunction with MSA, P.C., a copy of which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter, the "Master Plan"). 2. The principal entranceway to the Property shall be from Princess Anne Road which shall be substantially similar in design and quality to the exhibit entitled "Community Entrance Princess Anne Road" a copy of which is contained within Section V of the development manual entitled "Ashville Park" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter the "Manual"). 3. A second entranceway to the Property is located at Flanagans Lane near the intersection of Flanagans Lane and Sandbridge Road and shall be substantially similar in design and quality to the exhibit entitled "Community Entrance Flanagans Lane" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, a copy of which is contained within Section V of the Manual. 4. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit within Village C and upon completion of at least two lanes of the public right-of-way running through Ashville Park from Princess Anne Road to the second entranceway of the Property at Flanagans Lane as referenced in proffer number 3, Grantor shall cul-de-sac Flanagans Lane within the confines of Ashville Park at two locations where depicted on the Master Plan. In addition to this improvement, when developing Village D, Grantor shall maintain a 100' buffer area along the northern perimeter of Village D which buffer shall be measured from the northern most property line of Ashville Park adjacent to Village D. Within this 100' buffer area, Grantor shall install an undulating berm and solid 6' high fence, substantially as shown on the Exhibit entitled Conceptual Site Layout Plan of Ashville Park, Berm Plan, Virginia Beach, VA., dated 9/17/03, prepared by MSA, P.C., which plan shall have been exhibited to City Council and on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter "Berm Plan"). Any multi- purpose equestrian trails or pedestrian paths located adjacent to the berms shown on the Berm Plan, shall be located on the side of the berm facing Ashville Park. STREET SCAPE 5. The Grantor shall dedicate to the City of Virginia Beach sufficient land along the portions of the Property adjacent to Princess Anne Road of 55' in width as measured from the centerline of the fight-of-way, to accommodate an ultimate 110' right-of-way. In addition to said dedication, Grantor agrees to dedicate to the City an additional 150' wide buffer as measured from the ultimate right-of-way dedication. The dedicated buffer shall be for public purposes including open space, buffers, landscaping, utilities, roadways and trail purposes. Said buffer shall not restrict the development of the "Community Entrance Prospective" within Section V within the Manual.. 6. The Grantor agrees that during the detailed site plan review to conduct a Traffic Impact Study of the impacts of Ashville Park. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Ashville Park that are called for in the Traffic Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of the first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Ashville Park. 7. The internal streets within Ashville Park shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the exhibit entitled "Typical Street Sections Plan of Ashville Park Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by MSA, P.C., which exhibit has been displayed to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department (hereinafter "Street Section Plan"). 8. All rolled curbs, drop inlets and sidewalks depicted on the Street Section Plan shall have an exposed aggregate finish. 9. All street lighting installed on the Property shall be a decorative style fixture and the height and separation of street lights shall be determined during the detailed site plan review. 10. The trees planted within and adjacent to the public right-of-ways on the Property shall be double the total tree canopy requirements for public right-of-ways as set forth in the Department of Public Works iLandscape Manual of the City of Virginia Beach. 11. Subject to confirmation by the City of the necessary 50' wide right-of-way widths and receipt by the City of all environmental permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality, Grantor shall substantially improve or bond the costs of right-of-way improvements to Flanagans Lane beginning from the eastern-most entranceway to the Property from Flanagans Lane, continuing in an easterly direction to the intersection of Flanagans Lane and Sandbridge Road. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of final occupancy permit for the first residence in Village D, E or F as depicted on the Master Plan. Said improvements shall be the widening of the existing lane with and the piping of the adjacent ditches, together with the portion of the future right-of-way traffic simulation generated by Ashville Park as determined during the detailed site plan review and the Traffic Impact Study performed by Grantor. These improvements shall be consistent with CIP Project No. 2.021.000 for rural road improvements in the City of Virginia Beach's Capital Improvement Program. THE VILLAGES OF ASHVILLE PARK 12. The Grantor shall record a Master Deed of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Restrictions") governing the Property. All land owners within the PD-H2 District shall be members of a Home Owners Association responsible for maintaining collectively all common areas on the Property. The Restrictions shall be enforced by one or more Home Owners Association, which Restrictions, shall among other things, restrict the use of the open space areas for any purpose, but recreation and open space use. Such covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty (50) years. These covenants shall become part of the deed of each lot or parcel within the development. Such covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded before the first building permit in the project is issued. The Restrictions shall among other things require that every residential unit within Villages B and E as shown on the Master Plan will be occupied, on a full-time basis, by at least one (1) adult resident of fifty-five (55) years of age or older. The Restrictions shall also prohibit persons under eighteen (18) years of age from residing in any residential unit within Villages B or E for more than one hundred twenty (120) days in any calendar year. 13. The total number of units developed in Village B shall not exceed 104 and the total number of units developed in Village E shall not exceed 56. All such units within Village B shall be single-family detached dwellings. The minimum lot size, internal open space area, buffers and acreages for each Village shall be as set forth in the Master Plan. 14. Villages A, C, D and F shall be developed substantially as depicted on the Master Plan. The total number of units developed in Village A shall not exceed 135 units. The total number of units developed in Villlage C shall not exceed 94 units. The total number of units developed in Village D shall not exceed 45. The total number of units developed in Village F shall not exceed 56. All units shall be single-family detached dwellings within these Villages. The minimum lot size, internal open space area, buffers and acreages for each Village shall be as set forth in the Master Plan. 15. The linear parks depicted within Villages A, C, D and F shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association and no structure shall be allowed within the linear parks other than uniform fencing, or other uniform decorative features, and mailboxes. The Pocket Parks depicted on the Master Plan shall be developed and constructed substantially as depicted on the Master Plan. The Pocket Parks shall be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association. All sidewalks and trails located outside of the public rights-of-way shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. 16. A Letter of Map Amendment ("LOMA") must be approved by FEMA before any development may proceed within any Special Flood Hazard Area. 17. The residential lot tree canopy for each residential lot on the Property shall be double the total canopy cover specified in the City of Virginia Beach's "Residential Tree Request Table" in effect as of September 1, 2003. 18. A minimum 50' buffer shall be established on the perimeters of the Property as shown on the Master Plan. No structures shall be allowed within the buffer area and the buffer area shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. No community wide or other activity other than maintenance shall occur within the Buffer area. RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE AREAS 19. Two Recreational Activity Areas shall be designed, constructed and built on the Property substantially where indicated on the Master Plan. Both facilities shall provide indoor amenities, meeting rooms and active outdoor recreational amenities. No outside recreational fields or sporting areas shall be lighted to permit sporting events at night. This restriction shall not prohibit lighted outdoor swimming pools or lighted outdoor tennis courts provided that any such lighted tennis courts must be setback a minimum of 150' from a residential property line. Outdoor lighting installed for the swimming pools or outdoors tennis courts shall be directed downward toward the swimming pool or tennis courts play area. 20. The recreational facilities shall be substantially similar in quality, design and character to the exhibits entitled "Community Amenities" as contained in Section VI in the Manual. It is recognized that with a development of this size, detailed building plans may change as the development of Ashville Park progresses. The intent of the renderings is to demonstrate the architectural style and building quality of these facilities. Final elevations for these structures shall be submitted to the Planning Director to assure compliance with this proffer. 21. In addition to the buffer areas, linear parks, pocket parks and Village Greens within Villages A, B, C, D, E and F, Grantor shall set aside as open space the areas shown on the Master Plan. Said areas shall be for the benefit of the owners of property within Ashville Park. These areas shall be set aside for passive enjoyment and recreation for uses such as Lakes, Meadows, Forested Areas and Landscaped Vistas. These areas shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. 22. No portion of the Property that has been designated as a jurisdictional wetland by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers shall be disturbed. 23. The combined areas set aside for recreation and open space on the Property should not be below fifty-four percent (54%) of the current gross acreage of the Property. The different types and acreages of open spaces provided within Ashville Park shall be substantially as specified on the Master Plan. 24. Grantor shall donate $1,000.00 for each residential lot developed on the Property to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Parks and Recreation into the Open Space Site Acquisition program more specifically referred to as CIP Project No. 4.004.000. Grantor's per lot donation should be paid to the City at the time of the issuance of each building permit for each residential lot within Ashville Park. If all or a portion of said donated funds have not been used by the City of Virginia Beach within twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they were dedicated, then they may be used by the City of Virginia Beach for other municipal purposes, as the City shall in its sole discretion deem appropriate. OPEN SPACE; PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE TRAILS 25. Grantor shall construct a series of sidewalks and trails that are designed to provide pedestrian accessibility within each Village, and pedestrian and bike connections between each Village and to adjacent properties substantially as shown on the Exhibit entitled "Connectivity Plan" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, which plan is part of the Manual. The sidewalk system adjacent to right-of-ways and residences shall be constructed of concrete with an exposed aggregate finish. The path system within the Village Greens, the Pocket Parks and other open space areas shall be finished in hard surfaces such as asphalt or compacted clay. Such trails shall be designed substantially in accordance with the quality levels and design features as depicted on the exhibit entitled "Open Space" prepared by Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, which exhibit is part of the Manual. While not all portions of the trail system within Ashville Park will be open to the public, Grantor shall provide a continuous trail system from Princess Anne Road to Flanagans Lane that will be open to the public either through easements over some of the trails on the Home Owners Association property, or the provision of sidewalks and trails within the public right-of- way section between Princess Anne Road and Flanagans Lane. 26. Grantor shall construct a Multi-Purpose/Equestrian Trail substantially where indicated on the exhibit entitled "Connectivity Plan w/Multi-Purpose/Equestrian Trail" prepared by MSA, LLC in conjunction with Stephen Fuller Places, LLC, which exhibit has been displayed to City Council and is on file :in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter "Equestrian Trail Plan"). The Multi-Purpose/Equestrian Trail shall be approximately 8' in width, constructed of compacted earthen material, compacted clays or similar compacted material substantially as depicted on the "Trail Section" shown on the Equestrian Trail Plan. The Multi-Purpose/Equestrian Trail shall be open to the public. THE RESIDENCES AT ASHVILLE PARK 27. Grantor shall include within the Restrictions governing the Property, a requirement that the des, ign and building materials for all fences, homes and accessory structures must be reviewed and approved by an Architectural Review Committee of the HOA to insure design and quality compatibility. Said restrictions shall run with the land as allowed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 28. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roofs, porches, windows, doors, trim and sofets, consisting entirely of all or any combination of brick, stone, hardy plank, stucco, cedar shake or similar quality materials. 29. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall be constructed with a minimum of a two (2) car garage. 30. All residential dwellings constructed within Villages A, C, D and F shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any one-story dwelling and no less than 2,600 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any two-story dwelling. 31. All residential dwellings constructed within Villages B and E shall contain no less than 1,800 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any one-story dwelling 10 and shall contain no less than 2,400 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage area, for any two-story dwelling. 32. Grantor shall utilize low impact development techniques where possible on the Property to encourage storm water treatment and ground water recharge and discourage storm water runoff and erosion. 33. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall be constructed in accordance with the construction criteria applicable to homes located within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn/STC ratings of not less than 44 for roof/ceiling/exterior walls and 33 for windows/doors, even though no portion of the Property is located within this noise zone. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 34. The dimensional requirements applicable to development of all 'portions of the Property except Villages B and E shall be as follows: Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet: 12,000 (Villages D and F) 20,000 (Villages A and C) Minimum Lot Width in Feet: 100 Minimum Front Yard Setback in Feet: 50' for 20,000 square foot lots and 30' for lots less than 20,000 square feet Minimum Side Yard Setback in Feet: 10 Minimum Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street in Feet: 30 Minimum Rear Yard Setback in Feet: 20 Accessory structures of no more than 150 square feet: 5' rear and side yard setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage: 30% for lots 20,000 square feet and greater and 35% for lots less than 20,000 square feet 11 Minimum Setback from Sidewalk for lots containing linear parks: 15' from edge of sidewalk Maximum Height 42 feet in Villages A and C and 38 feet in Villages D and F 35. The dimensional requirements applicable to development within Villages B and E on the Property shall be as follows: Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet: 7,500 Minimum Lot Width in Feet: 75 Minimum Front Yard Setback in Feet: 30 Minimum Side Yard Setback in Feet: 5 & 10 Minimum Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street in Feet: 20 Minimum Rear Yard Setback in Feet: 20 Accessory structures of no more than 150 square feet: 5' rear and side yard setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Maximum Height in Feet: 35 (not to exceed two stories) 36. Further conditions mandated by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. 12 The Grantor covenant and agree that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 13 GRANTOR: ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. A Virginia limited liability company Thee foreg,,oin~ instrument was acknowledged before me this &~ay of ~ , 2003, by/d.Q~ [.Lo,,tl.~. 215L. , personally known to ~-~-e to be the ' · ].~Ashville Park, L.L.C., a Virginia limited lia~~ny~ ONo~ry Public My Commission Expires: ]~ ~ [ / 0 ~ Signature Page of Eddie Lee Cooper To Troffer Agreement Dated'~':,.~/';~ ~;~'~ (:;! f ~'~':' .. ~ .. .... . , 2003 Eddie Lee Cooper STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ~.. ,. ;,,...., :. :...i""'. , to-wit: .. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this J ': day of /!~'~; i~',./(' , 2003. by Eddie Lee Cooper, who is personally known to me or who has presented ['. )% /..r.~.~,~.'t,:~/..._"~: .' ?:: :.' // /, "..,,. as identification.. My Commission Expires: Notary Public :'' I was originally commissioned as Pamela T. Stiliman, Notary Public 15 Signature Page of Linda C. Ackiss To Proffer Agreement Dated '~.511~ i':ti"~, .il..~?( r.:; , 2003 STATE OF VIRGINIA /' "~ .~2.~ , " ~ ', CITY OF ! ~'?i~'~:i!:"'- !,:'"-!.'~', i _, to-wit: Linda C. Ackiss (formerly Linda C. Cooper)' -" :!,'::. i;i.../:'.. ",/ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,..?" day of .~,.)~ [..o.'t i? /;'5 /"d~'? (" , 2003, by Linda C. Ackiss (formerly Linda C. Cooper) who is personally known ~o me or has '. ~ ~O ; .~,,,. :.:..,t,¥~ .... ,,-; .... presented I'~<:.l~....::,lf,,~, ~...; ,',.', -as ldent~ficauon. ("'. ~ "'~ ~...',: .:' ..'f':": ~''''.'~.:?.-'~, .,/'::/~' ..... '7'. ., My Commission Expires: I was originally commissioned as Pamela T. Stiliman, Notaw Public 16 Signature Page of Rebecca Ann Cullil~r To Proffer Agreement Dated ~- % ,2003 Rebecca Ann Cullipher STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OFX,¥x~_ ~xc~x_~-'~c~_ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this&b~'tday of :~e..~e. ne,.x~,,.r- ,2003, by Rebecca Ann Cullipher, who is personally known to me or who has presented as identification. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 17 Signature Page of Roger Elliott Malbon To Proffer Agreement Dated q. ~ ,2003 1}o'ger'~lliott Malbon STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF X~'xXt~~"~r,s~ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~,?~ day of D~.q~a,~.%'~ ,2003, by Roger Elliott Malbon, who is personally known to me or who has presented as identification. Notary Public 0t My Commission Expires: 18 SEP 17 ~003 16:11 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP57 687 7510 TO S,6242631 Signatare Page of William W. Oliver, V, Trustee To l~offer Agree~nent ~,,u~d ~i,'~:~ ~-. ~s~ __ ~ zooa Under Will of W.W. Oliv~r, Jr. STATE OF VI~L?iNIA c~r'~ or./;:':'/: ITL___, ~o-~it: '.'--The foregoing ins~mes~r was ae~owledgcd befo~ mo this~ ~y of 2~3, b~ William W. Oliver, V, T~t~ under a Tn~at Affr~ent Under Will Of W.W. Jr,. who i0 persoaally ~o~ to u)e or who h~ pre. st:ngd ~/t- t), ,~c'. f,~c t.~ i~ntffication. Notary Public i9 SEP 17 2003 16:11 FR TROUTNgN BgNDE~S LLg57 607 7510 TO S,6242631 P.20 Signature Page of L.ynl~ O. Adan~, T'rtsstee To P~. ffer Agr~cme,,t Dated '?~.'~' ..,~T, ,2003 L~tm~. Adgrns, Trustt~". under a Trust Agreement Under Wi]! (,f W.W, 01i¥~, Ir. STATE OF VLR(31NIA ~ - .' ...... .,~ . ~,~ 1%- .t /;'" ".~ - ,j,_,.,,~... ~... z~,/~<,. ~ ~ ~,-.. :, . _ . ,,., ,.. . ,~.~,~ ~..J,,. -. ~ 111~ ~O1'~O~ ll~uuv~ ' ' ' ~ . , . ' . 2~B,~9 Lvvn O. Ad~,' I'ms~e u~detprese~ted ~ Trust ~"/'JA ~m~ntl),.,.. ~,,Un~['~ W~,,~e_aaof W.W.i~fic ~fi ~TI.Ol] v~, Jt., w~o My Co~ion E~ph~s: 2O Signature Page of Betty B. Bourdon To Proffer Agreement Dated ~-~o~. ~-- ,2003 Betty B. Bourdon The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi day of~ ~ , 2003, b~Betty B. Bourdon, who is personally known to me ~,~ ':.'5~ 5az ?rese-_ted My Commission Expires: ''/- } /~lot~-ry~ublic 21 Signature Page of R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. To Proffer Agreement Dated .~ ~~ ( ~-" , 2003 R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ~t ~ ¢-& ~,lxi:l~ B¢.tV~to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this2..'~V4lay of ~el>4o~be._ff 2003, by R. Edward Bourdon, Jr., who is personally known to me or who has presented as identification. My Commission Expires' / N~ary Pt~blic d 22 Signature Page of Paul S. Bourdon To Proffer Agreement Dated ~,~r. ~-" ,2003 Paul S. Bourdon STATE OF VIR(~INIA CIT. Y OF o ~ ,,~ . The foregoing instrument was ac~owledged before me this 200~ Paul S Bourdon, who is personally ~own to me ~- ~ 4 · .~ ~ .... ~..., __ Commission Expires: ffublic ' 23 Signature Page of Frank T. Williams To Proffer Agreement Dated ~- ~ ~, 2003 Frank T. Williams STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF \¥~.q: ~}\~X ~---~ ~_a!_~., to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~'~ day of ~:~,_~,,x~ .~;- , 2003, by Frank T. Williams, who is personally known to me or who has pre~ented as identification. My Commission Expires: 24 Signature Page of Norwood C. Land To Proffer Agreement Dated ~t o 5 ,2003 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF \~,c'.dfi: .cxk~_--~~c.~- to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c~~ day of {::n~-*~:~,.c , 2003, by Norwood C. Land, who is personally known to me or who has pr[sented as identification. My Commission Expires: 25 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PARCEL ONE (GPIN No. 2413-07-1960-0000) ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in Seaboard Magisterial District, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, fronting on the Pungo Road, bounded by the property of Cameron Munden, formerly William H. James, by the property of the United States, the woodland formerly of William H. James, now White and others, and the Pungo Road, containing 39 acres, more or less, excepting the parcel of one acre, more of less, conveyed to Melvin D. Cooper by deed of Mitzie Cooper and other, dated April 9, 1951 and duly of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 285, at page 177. LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the property taken by the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 3020, at page 976. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Melvin D. Cooper and Mary E. Cooper, husband and wife, tenants by the entirety by deed of Melvin D. Cooper and Mary E. Cooper, husband and wife, dated September 20, 1979 and recorded in Deed Book 1969, at page 187. The said Melvin D. Cooper died testate (WB 69, P 1860) and the property vested in Mary E. Cooper by operation of law. The said Mary E. Cooper died testate April 6, 2000 and pursuant to the terms of her Will recorded in Will Book 103, at page 1675 devised the property to her children, Eddie Lee Cooper and Linda Ann Cooper (now known as Linda C. Ackiss). PARCEL TWO (GPIN No. 2413-06-6259-0000) 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, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center line of the Pungo-Nimmo Road, which point is opposite the point of intersection of the property hereby conveyed, the property of O.S. Chaplain and the edge of the right of way of said road, and from said point of beginning running along the center line of said road North 15015, West 66 feet to a point; thence still along the center line of said road North 21030, 26 West 50 feet to a point: thence still along the center line of said of said road North 36045, West 465 feet to a point; thence still along the center line of said road North 35° West 100 feet to a point; thence still along the center line of said road North 25030, West 100 feet to a point; thence still along the center line of said road North 22015' West 300 feet to a point; thence turning and running at an angle across the Easterly side of road South 63030' East 41 feet to a blazed pine; thence South 63030' East 170 feet to a holly; thence turning and running North 23030, East 361' feet to a gum; thence North 7°15' East 396 feet to an iron pin; thence turning and running North 79° East 30 feet to an oak; thence North 79" East 90 feet to a point; thence along the center line of a ditch North 73° East 200 feet to a point; thence North 75° East 129 feet to a point; thence turning and running along a line 5 feet from the center line of a ditch South 4030' West 400 feet to a point; thence still continuing 5 feet from the center line of said ditch South 700, East 400 feet to a point; thence South 12° East 177 feet to a point; thence South 0030' West 230 feet to a point; thence South 17030' West 340 feet to an iron pin; thence turning and running North 71030' West 130 feet to a pine scrag; thence North 73030' West 73 feet to a point in the center of said Pungo-Nimmo Road to the point of beginning; said tract of hand containing 20.5 acres as shown by said plat. LESS AND EXCEPT those portions of the property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 3050, at page 2023, and in Deed Book 3494. at page 11. IT BEING the same property conveyed by Kenneth Malbon by deed from Willard L. White and Evelyn C. White, his wife, dated March 31, 1944 and recorded October 6, 1944 in Deed Book 224, at page 581. The said Kenneth Malbon died testate August 19, 1962, and pursuant to the terms of his Will recorded in Will Book 24, at page 194, devised the property to Ida Mae Malbon. The said Ida Mae Malbon died testate June 29, 2001, and pursuant to the terms of her Will recorded in Will Book 107, at page 2463, devised the property to her children, Rebecca Ann Culliper and Roger Elliott Malbon. 27 PARCEL THREE (GPIN No. 2413-16-7813-0000) ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being identified as GPIN 2413-16-7813-0000. IT BEING a part of the same property conveyed to W.W. Oliver, Jr'. a/k/a William W. Oliver, IV by deed dated August 26, 1960 from the United States of America recorded in Deed Book 647, at page 212. The said W.W. Oliver, Jr. died testate May 21, 2001 and pursuant to the terms of his Will recorded in Will Book 1(17, at page 1967, devised the property to William W. Oliver, V, Elizabeth S. Oliver and Lynn O. Adams, as Trustees under a Trust Agreement described in said Will. The said Elizabeth S. Oliver died on October 18, 2000, leaving William W. Oliver, V and Lynn O. Adams as the surviving Trustees. PARCEL FOUR (GPIN No. 24 ! 3-57-0702-0000) ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated near Tabernacle Church in Seaboard Magisterial District, City of Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne County), Virginia, bounded on the North by the lands of Russell and Oscar Hill; on the East by lands formerly of the Shaw Land and Timber Company; on the South by the lands of Earley W. Eaton, and on the West by the lands of Abner Malbone and Oscar Hill, containing as shown on the assessment books as seventy-three (73) acres. LESS AND EXCEPT property conveyed to the County of Princess Anne for road purposes recorded in Deed Book 178, at page 372. LESS AND EXCEPT property conveyed dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach recorded in Deed Book 2726, at page 1085. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to Frank T. Williams by deed from Laura E. Flanagan, widow and not remarried, dated March 21, 1962 and recorded March 23, 1!)62 in Deed Book 723, at page 401. PARCEL FIVE (GPIN No. 2413-36-3862-00()0) ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being identified as GPIN 2413-36-3862-0000. 28 IT BEING a part of the same property conveyed to W.W. Oliver, Jr. aJk/a William W. Oliver, IV by deed dated August 26, 1960 from the United States of America recorded in Deed Book 647, at page 212. The said W. W. Oliver, Jr. died testate May 21, 2001 and pursuant to the terms of his Will recorded in Will Book 107, at page 1967, devised the property to William W. Oliver, V, Elizabeth S. Oliver and Lynn O. Adams, as Trustees under a Trust Agreement described in said Will. The said Elizabeth S. Oliver died on October 18, 2000, leaving William W. Oliver, V and Lynn O. Adams as the surviving Trustees. PARCEL SlX (GPIN No. 2413-46-433%0000) 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 56.5464 Acres as; shown on that certain plat entitled "SURVEY OF PROPERTY' OF BETTY B. BOURDON DB 1144, P 643 AND CLAUDE PAUL BROWN TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN PAUL BROWN DB 1144, P 657, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA," which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2757, at page 148. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Betty B. Bourdon by deed from Lillian Eaton Brown, widow, Claude Paul Brown and Lillian Eaton Brown, Executors and Trustees of the Last Will and Testament of Stephen Paul Brown, deceased, dated December 29, 1969 in Deed Book 1144, at page 643. PARCEL SEVEN (GPIN No. 2413-55-5252-0000) 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 60.0411 Acres as shown on that certain plat entitled "SURVEY OF PROPERTY OF BETTY B. BOURDON DB 1144, P 643 AND CLAUDE PAUL BROWN TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN PAUL BROWN DB 1144, P 657, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA," which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2757, at page 148. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Claude Paul Brown, Trustee under Will of Stephen Paul Brown, deceased, by deed from Lillian Eaton Brown, widow, dated December 29, 1969 and recorded December 31, 1969 in Deed Book 1144, at page 657. 29 PARCEL EIGHT (GPlN No. 2413-75-dg01-0000) ALL THAT certain tract of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, in Princess Anne Borough, City of Virginia Beach, State of Virginia (formerly in Seaboard Magisterial District, Pnncess Anne County, Virginia), of which J.O. Land died, seized and possessed, and known as the "HOME FARM" lying in Seaside Neck in said City, adjoining the lands now or formerly belonging to Moses and Henry Eaton, S.B. McKenney and David Simmons and containing 69 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, HOWEVER, two (2) parcels of land as follows' Parcel I: A parcel of land conveyed to Agnes et ux, et als, dated June 3, 1968, and recorded in Deed Book 1059, at page 521, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; reference to said deed being hereby made for a more particular description and location of said parcel. Parcel 1I: A parcel of land conveyed to Agnes W. Cole by deed of Oscar W. Land, et ux, et als, dated June 3, 1968, and recorded in Deed Book 1059, at page 523, in the Clerk's Office aforesaid; reference to said deed being hereby made for a more particular description and location of said parcel. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Oscar W. Land (1/3 Interest), Simon H. Land (1/3 Interest) and Frank T. Williams (1/3 Interest) by the Last Will and Testament of Laura E. Flanagan who died testate April 4, 1967 recorded in Will Book 30, at page 580. The said Oscar W. Land and Ollie B. Land, his wife, conveyed their 1/3 interest to Frank T. Williams by deed dated March 28, 1973, and recorded April 5, 1973 in Deed Book 1339, at page 22. The said Simon H. Land and Ollie B. Land, his wife, conveyed their 1/3 interest to Norwood C. Land and Etta Mae Land, husband and wife, tenants by the entirety, by deed dated February 20, 1969 and recorded February 27, 1969 in Deed Book 1100, at page 94. The said Etta Mae Land died intestate August 2, 1986 and by operation of law, her interest in the property is vested in Norwood C. Land. 236727v4 3O Supplemental Information Zonin.q History AG .,,' · / / AG-I / ,4shville Park, LLC A AG-I AG-I Cond. ReZoning I # J DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 12-10- 91 8-27-86 2-12-73 8-12-03 12-11- 89 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) Rezoning ((R-3 Residential to AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural) Conditional Use Permit (Small Bore Rifle and Pistol Range) Rezoning (AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R- 20 Residential and Conditional P-1 Preservation) and a Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion) Conditional Use Permit (Rental) Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved ASHVILLE PARK, L.L.C. Agenda Items 28, 29, & 30 Page 20 December 9, 2003 with the Applicant and the City Attorney has written me an opinion letter stating that, because there is no connection whatsoever to this Application with the property involved, that I am allowed to vote. And, I believe Mr. Schmidt needs to make a disclosure. COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT: Well, actually, the Item is not on Consent. VICE MAYOR JONES: COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Okay. I have a question. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Wilson. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I just wanted to disclose on Planning Item Number 12 with Alcar that -- this has come up before that they do business with Goodman & Company, but because they are not a client of my husband who is a principal at Goodman & Company, the City Attorney has said that I could vote on that. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. VICE MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMAN REEVE: I move approval of the Consent Agenda. Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: By a vote of 10 to 0 you have approved the Consent Agenda as read by the Vice Mayor. December 9, 2003 INFORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Lane. Okay. Number 12, the Application of Alcar, L.L.C. at Nimmo Parkway and Rockingchair COUNCILMAN REEVE: issues we're up against. MAYOR OBERNDORF: The same, ma'am. Defer for 60 days. I have informed the Applicant. He understands the 'Now, is this 60 days from today'? COUNCILMAN REEVE: Yes, ma'am. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: And I need to make a disclosure that this Applicant is clients of Goodman & Company, but they are not clients of Thomas Wilson. So, I can vote on this according to the City Attorney's Office. FORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR JONES: Item M-12, consent to a deferral for 60 days, the Application of Alcar, L.L.C. at Nimmo Parkway and Rockingchair Lane, a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 to AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10, Residential District. And, b, Conditional Use Permit for open space for approval. That's the Consent Agenda. Madam Mayor, before we vote, I need to disclose on Item M-2. I have a contractual relationship on the sale of a piece of property that has nothing to do with this Application - 65 - Item V-M. 12. PLANNING ITEM # 52035 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council DEFERRED sixty (60) days until the City Council Session of February 24, 2004, Ordinances upon application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-10 Ordinance upon Application of AL CAR, L.L. C. for a Change ofZon ing District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 24045 73 796; 2404564.943; 24043 71633). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of thisparcel for residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the site as a Conservation Area where land-disturbing activities should be avoided, mitigated, or under certain conditions prohibited. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF ALCAR, L.L.C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPA CE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Ron A. Villanueva Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act 3g 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a principal in the accountingfirm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $1 O, 000. O0 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR, L.L.C. Her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L. C. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.C., she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of, and vote on, the ordinance, upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28, 2003, is hereby made a part of the record. December 9, 2003 Virginia Beach City Council December 9, 2003 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Vice Mayor R. Jones Harry E. Diezel Margaret L. Eure Reba S. McClanan Richard Maddox Jim Reeve Peter W. Schmidt Ron Villanueva Rosemary Wilson James L. Wood At-Large Bayside - District 4 Kempsville - District 2 Centerville District 1 Rose Hall - District 3 Beach - District 6 Princess Anne - District 7 At-Large At-Large At-Large Lynnhaven - District 5 CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Alcar, L.L.C. at Nimmo Parkway and Rockingchair Lane - 65- Item V-M. 12. PLANNING ITEM ii 52035 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council DEFERRED sixty (60) days until the City Council Session of February 24, 2004, Ordinances upon application of ALCAR, L.L.C. fora Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTR~CT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-10 Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. fora Change of Zoning District Classification_from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 24045 73 796; 2404564943; 24043 71633). The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of thisparcel for residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the site as a Conservation Area where land-disturbing activities should be avoided, mitigated, or under certain conditions prohibited. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF ALCAR, L.L. C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Ron A. Villanueva Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act 3g 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a principal in the accountingfirm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds $1 O, 000. O0 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR, L.L.C. Her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.C. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.C., she may participate without restriction in C, ity Council's discussion of and vote on, the ordinance, upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28, 2003, is hereby made a part of the record. December 9, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 September 10, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION J11-210-CRZ-2002 NUMBER: J11-210-CUP-2003 REQUEST: 19)Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential District 20)Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion ADDRESS: North side of proposed Nimmo Parkway, 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane Map J-Il M~p Nol:. ~:.o Scale ALCAR, LLC Gpin 2404-57-3796 - 56-4943 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM II IIIIIIIIIIIII II I ITEM: ALCAR, L.L.C.- Change of Zoning District Classification (AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District) Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: (a) An Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Chanqe of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-10 Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE (b) An Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), approximately 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of the requests is to develop a neighborhood of 132 single-family homes on 7,500 square foot lots utilizing the Open Space Promotion option. These requests were deferred by the City Council on October 28, 2003 and again on December 9, 2003. Considerations: The property is currently vacant. Extensive areas of floodplain and wetlands are interspersed throughout the site. More than half of the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 100-year flood level of 6.25 feet. There are three general categories of wetlands present on this site. The first is tidal wetlands as defined in the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are immediately adjacent to the floodway of West Neck Creek. The second category is nontidal wetlands as defined by the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance and the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are present on the site for a distance of approximately 800 feet eastward of the floodway of West Neck Creek and also along the edge of the stream that traverses through the southeast portion of the site. The third category is nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and identified as "Isolated/Headwater Wetlands" (I/H ALCAR Page 2 of 3 wetlands). Most of these areas are at the edge of the floodplain and on the higher ground proposed for home lots. The subject site has a total area of 112.3 acres. This total area can be broken up into three categories. Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with the exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the subdivision is located. There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands present in this area. This area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the West Neck Creek linear park. Open Space Area- The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The majority of the land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet and contains some areas of nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Open Space Area contains four identified park sites, the largest being 37,500 square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet. Housing Area - The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres. This includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan. Most of this area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. There are some pockets of I/H wetlands that will be impacted by home construction. This area can best be described as three islands of high ground connected by roadways that traverse the lower floodplain and wetland areas. The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open Space and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres. 132 units divided by 72.7 acres equals 1.8 units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for residential use at a density of 3.5 units to the acre or less. The applicant has coordinated access to and from the site with the adjacent Capital Improvement Program (CIP) roadway project (Nimmo Parkway), proffering to construct two lanes of that roadway from its current terminus at the Princess Anne Recreation Center to the subject site. The applicant has also limited the proposed floodplain fill to the roadways and edges of the lots. In sum, the applicant has proffered a plan that minimally meets the intent of the various development ordinances of the City. It must be stressed, however, that this site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a Natural Resource/Conservation Area overlay. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that such areas are more suited for a Iow intensity use such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. The significant land disturbance associated with a conventional single-family subdivision will no doubt impact these areas even with the best measures employed in an attempt not to. It is likely the applicant will encounter significant issues during review of site plans regarding stormwater drainage. The proffered plan may need adjustment ALCAR Page 3 of 3 and the number of lots may decrease in order to provide an adequate stormwater system that not only serves this site but also integrates well with surrounding sites. The applicant is aware of this possibility. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. · Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as proffered. · Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency' Planning Department ~~ City Managel~~~~ ~ ,~ l~.-y~ GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: PURPOSE: APPLICATION HISTORY: 24043371630000 24045737960000 24045649430000 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 112.3 acres To rezone the property in order to develop a neighborhood of 132 single- family homes on 7,500 square foot lots utilizing the Open Space Promotion option. These requests were deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning Commission hearing at the request of the applicant. Major Issues: More than half of the land on the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. Land disturbance and fill are restricted in this area by the City's development ordinances. · Consistency of the proposal with the land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. There are two roadway projects planned for roads adjacent to this site, Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A (CIP 2-121) and Seaboard Road (CIP 2-107). Coordination and impacts on the roadway projects are concerns. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently vacant and is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 2 Extensive areas of floodplain and wetlands are interspersed throughout the site. More than half of the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of the 100-year flood level of 6.25 feet. There are three general categories of wetlands present on this site. The first is tidal wetlands as defined in the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are immediately adjacent to the floodway of West Neck Creek. The second category is nontidal wetlands as defined by the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance and the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are present on the site for a distance of approximately 800 feet eastward of the floodway of West Neck Creek and also along the edge of the stream that traverses through the southeast portion of the site. The third category is nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and identified as "Isolated/Headwater Wetlands" (I/H wetlands). Most of these areas are at the edge of the floodplain and on the higher ground proposed for home lots. The site was recently logged in 2000/2001. The mature trees were removed from the majority of the site. Some mature trees were left remaining in the I/H wetland areas, areas bordering West Neck Creek and a forty to fifty foot area of trees bordering the neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge, along the northern boundary of the site. The native vegetation that is currently growing on the site has an average height of 4 to 5 feet at this time. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Single-family homes / R-10 (OP) Residential District · Proposed Nimmo Parkway right-of-way · Single-family homes / R-5D Residential District · West Neck Creek / AG-1Agricultural District Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Uses consistent with the underlying agricultural zoning Zoning: on this site, such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. With Proposed Zoning: Approximately 132 single-family homes as shown on the proffered conceptual subdivision plan associated with this request. The number of homes is approximate and may be less than 132 when the subdivision plan is reviewed in detail for stormwater management, utility services, etc. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC I # 19 & 20 Page 3 Zoninq History The neighborhoods to the west of this site, Pine Ridge and Hunt Club Forest, were zoned and developed for residential use during the 1970s and 1980s. The neighborhood of Castleton north of the site was developed for residential use more recently during the 1990s. The most recent residential rezoning in this area occurred south of the site, on the west side of Seaboard Road in 1999. This neighborhood is known as Princess Anne Woods. On the subject site, a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-10 Residential District and a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion for 255 single family homes was denied by City Council on September 26, 2000. The subject request is similar to the 2000 request, except that the number of home sites has been reduced to 132 and there is far less fill and disturbance of the floodplain on the present plan. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The northern portion of the subject site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The southern portion of the site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The Navy has reviewed this proposal and does not support the requested rezoning. A copy of a letter noting the Navy's position on this rezoning is provided at the end of this report. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 30-inch force main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way fronting the southeast portion of the property. There is a 16-inch water main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of- way fronting the southeast portion of the property. This subdivision must connect to City water. Hydraulic analysis, fire demand requirements, and plans and bonds are required for the construction of the water system. City gravity sewer is not available to this development. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new pump station (off-site) and sewer system. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The subject site does not have access to an improved public right-of-way at this time. Proposed Nimmo Parkway borders the site on the south and the applicant has proffered to construct two lanes of this roadway from its current terminus near the Fire Station/Library/Recreation Center complex to the east and ending at the new Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 4 subdivision entrance. Public Works has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study regarding this proposal and concurs that this is the most prudent way for this subdivision to gain access to surrounding roadways. There are two roadway projects in the vicinity of this subdivision as noted below. NIMMO PARKWAY' PHASE V-A CIP 2-121 - This project is for construction of a four-lane divided roadway on a six-lane right-of- way, with a bikepath, from Holland Road at Kellam High School to that part of Nimmo Parkway Phase V previously constructed to provide access to the Princess Anne Community Recreation Center from General Booth Boulevard. The estimated start of construction is July 2006 and estimated completion date is July 2008. SEABOARD ROAD CIP 2-107- This project is for the construction of a three-lane undivided highway from Princess Anne Road to Nimmo Parkway, a distance of approximately 3,200 feet. This project will also include an upgrade of the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road to include a new traffic signal. Additional funding was added for the interim cost participation project to realign the intersection at Princess Anne Road. The estimated start of construction is July 2006 and the completion date is November 2007. Traffic Calculations: This development is expected to generate 1,366 vehicle trips per day. Schools The chart below indicates that Kellam High School is currently over capacity. The information provided below does not take into account the potential impacts of other proposals pending or under construction that could affect the same schools. School Current Capacity Generation ~ Change 2 Enrollment Strawbridge 860 895 46 46 Elementary Princess Anne 1511 1658 24 24 Middle School Kellam Senior High 2276 1990 32 32 School generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 5 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. No comments at this time. Fire requirements will be reviewed during detailed subdivision construction plan review. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map indicates that this property falls under the following two Planned Land Use Categories. One category is suburban Iow density that states that this area should be planned for residential uses below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The other category is Natural Resource/Conservation that states that the land disturbance in the area consisting of tidal and nontidal wetlands, sensitive soils, and other natural features should be avoided, mitigated, or under certain circumstances prohibited. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The subject site has a total area of 112.3 acres. This total area can be broken up into three categories. Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with the exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the subdivision is located. There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands present in this area. This area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the West Neck Creek linear park. · Open Space Area - The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The majority of the land within this area is below the 100-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet and Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 6 contains some areas of nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Open Space Area contains four identified park sites, the largest being 37,500 square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet. Housin.q Area- The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres. This includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan. Most of this area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. There are some pockets of I/H wetlands that will be impacted by home construction. This area can best be described as three islands of high ground connected by roadways that traverse the lower floodplain and wetland areas. The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open Space and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres. 132 units + 72.7 acres - 1.8 units to the acre. Site Design · The conceptual subdivision plan shows one main entrance to the subdivision from Nimmo Parkway. The roadway extends northward, crosses a stream, enters the Housing Area and then comes to an intersection, where the road splits to the east and northwest. The southeast portion of the site, where the stream is located, is designated as a Conservation Area. The roadway travels through this Conservation Area for a · . i.',~.~i~.~:I'~'~ ~:~ ,;~:~' · ',~, ~,~ Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 7 distance of 900 feet before it reaches the Housing Area. · The roadway crosses the floodplain/wetland areas in four locations. At each of these locations, the construction of the roadway will require fill within the floodplain. · There is also some fill proposed within the floodplain along the edges of some of the home lots. The applicant has submitted a conceptual floodplain fill plan to the Development Services Center (DSC). It has been determined by the DSC that this project falls under the criteria for administrative review of fill. A conceptual floodplain mitigation plan was also submitted and reviewed in accordance with the same criteria. The final approval for fill within the floodplain will depend on detailed engineering design. New information and facts may alter the expectations of the developer and may ultimately reduce the number of home sites allowed. · The minimum size for the home lots is shown as 7,500 square feet. Most of the lots on the plan are uniform; there is not a lot of variation from this minimum lot size. Most of the home lots back up to the Open Space Area or stormwater management ponds, except for those along the northern boundary of the site. These home lots are directly adjacent to existing home lots in Castleton and Pine Ridge. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Currently, the subject site has no direct access to an improved public right-of-way. There is a dirt road on the south side of proposed Nimmo Parkway that connects to Seaboard Road and travels through this site. A traffic impact study was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works. The Department of Public Works concurs with the study's recommendation that access to the subdivision be provided by Nimmo Parkway. The applicant is proffering to construct two lanes of Nimmo Parkway within the existing public right- of-way for a distance of approximately 2,500 feet. The roadway would be built from the subdivision entrance east to the current terminus of the roadway near the Princess Anne Recreation Center. The section of Nimmo Parkway to be built by the developer would not connect to Seaboard Road. The Department of Public Works does not recommend subdivision access to Seaboard Road until the planned roadway improvements are constructed along Seaboard Road to Princess Anne Road with CIP 2-107 (described earlier in Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 8 this report). When the two lanes of Nimmo Parkway are built, there will be a new intersection created at Rockingchair Lane, approximately 910 feet to the east of the new subdivision's entrance. Improvements and traffic movement control will be required for this intersection. Residents of Southgate and Hunt Club Forest will have access to the new two-lane section of Nimmo Parkway in addition to the residents of the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision roadway connection to existing Nimmo Parkway will impact the traffic signal operation and timings at the intersection of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard, and the developer will be responsible for working out new traffic signal timings. A temporary emergency fire station traffic signal may be required in front of the General Booth Fire Station on Nimmo Parkway. The developer will be responsible for working with the City regarding design, construction and costs associated with the installation of this signal. The subdivision entrance road has been located to accommodate the preliminary designs for Seaboard Road and Nimmo Parkway. Additional coordination with these two CIP projects will be necessary during the detailed engineering phases of the projects. · It should be noted that the proposed subdivision will have only one access point and will not have any connections to neighboring properties. Architectural Design · A mixture of one-story and two-story dwellings is planned. The applicant has proffered four architectural styles and a minimum square footage for the homes. addition, it has been proffered that all homes will have a two car garage. In Landscape and Open Space · The conceptual subdivision plan shows a 39.5 acre Conservation Area to be dedicated to the City as part of the West Neck Creek linear park. The subdivision entrance road traverses this Conservation Area in the southeastern portion of the site. It should also be noted that preliminary design plans for the Seaboard Road and Nimmo Parkway CIP projects show drainage outfalls at the stream located in the southeastern portion of the Conservation Area. It is likely that the proposed subdivision will also have drainage outfalls in this area, although no detailed engineering for stormwater management for the proposed subdivision has been Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 9 conducted. The conceptual subdivision plan shows the Open Space Area to be dedicated and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This area is below the 100-year floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and contains pockets of nontidal wetlands regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant has submitted an application for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for the impacted I/H wetlands associated with this project. This application is currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers. The permit application shows that there will be some on-site mitigation to create new nontidal wetland areas for those being impacted by the roadway and home construction. These areas of new wetlands are identified as "wetland mitigation" on the conceptual subdivision plan. The Open Space Area contains four designated park sites totaling 2.4 acres. Three of the four park sites can be accessed from the main roadway. The fourth park site, adjacent to the northern boundary of the property in the western portion of the site is not accessible as shown on the conceptual plan due to the fact that it is surrounded by I/H wetlands that are designated to remain. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). This proffer is acceptable. The Concept Plan shows a conventional single-family subdivision. This type of development, with long winding collector streets and numerous cul-de-sacs, will, however, result in substantial land disturbance and alteration of the land within an area designated as Natural Resource/Conservation by the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does little above the Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 10 minimum required to protect and preserve the highly vulnerable natural resources on this site. The Concept Plan does though technically meet the minimum requirements for development. It should be noted that one particularly valuable aesthetic natural resource that is being eliminated with the current proposal is the existing forty-fifty foot wooded buffer along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge. PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: When the Property is developed, approximately 22.7 acres of parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open Space" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. When the Property is developed, playground equipment and neighborhood park improvements meeting the City's Department of Parks and Recreation Standards shall be installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the Concept Plan. This proffer is acceptable with the following caveats. Although the Open Space Area contains more acreage than required, there are some concerns with the area. The Open Space Area shown on the Concept Plan is below the f O0-year floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and contains several areas of nontidal wetlands regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. This area was logged two years ago and there is only scattered mature vegetation remaining. The average height of the remaining vegetation is four to five feet and there is not much aesthetic value to this area. The absence of mature vegetation makes the condition of this open space less than ideal. In addition, the conceptual subdivision plan shows that there will be areas of nontidal wetlands to remain and new areas of nontidal wetlands to be created directly adjacent to and/or between home lots to mitigate for the impacts on existing wetlands on the site. If a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is issued for this project as proposed, the ultimate conditions that will be placed on the permit for the remaining and new wetland areas may preclude certain maintenance options for the homeowners association. Typically, homeowners Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 11 PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 associations are not versed in wetlands regulations. The four park sites within the Open Space Area possess some limitations as proffered by the applicant. Two of the four park sites are below the 100-year floodplain elevation. The other two park sites do contain some higher ground, but the applicant has shown that these higher park areas will be used for floodplain mitigation purposes, actually lowering the ground elevation on these sites. Although the subdivision ordinance allows recreation sites to be dedicated within floodplain areas, those sites are best suited for passive recreation. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that active play areas be on high, dry ground that can be weli drained. When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres of land designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park. This proffer is acceptable. The dedication of this area is consistent with the land dedications along West Neck Creek that have occurred as part of the development of other subdivisions to the north, west and south of this site. When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Homeowners Association, which shall, among other things, maintain the Open Space areas. This proffer is acceptable. It clearly defines the entity responsible for maintenance of the open space. However, there are concerns that the condition of the open space is not ideal and may cause maintenance problems for the homeowners association over the long run. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall incorporate architectural features, design elements and high quality building materials substantially similar in quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs labeled "Typical Home Elevations at NIMMOS QUAY" Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 12 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 6 Staff Evaluation: dated December 12, 2002 which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two- story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, at two (2) car garage. This proffer is acceptable. It ensures that the quality of homes is comparable to those in surrounding neighborhoods. When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part shall construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP 2-121 in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's engineering standards for the roadway, within the existing Nimmo parkway public right-of-way extending east approximately 2,560 feet from the entrance to the subdivision to connect with the existing improved Nimmo Parkway section. This proffer is acceptable. The property does not currently have access to an improved public right-of-way. The Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP project is currently in the design phase and the applicant will need to build the two lanes proffered using the current VDO T plans for the CIP project. This scenario assumes that the subdivision will be ready for occupancy prior to the CIP project for Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A being completed. There is an alternate scenario that is conceivable given that the construction completion date for Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A and the subdivision build-out date are both within the next five years (2008). If the completion of the CIP project for Nimmo Parkway and occupancy of the subdivision occur concurrently, it is not clear with this proffer whether the applicant would share in any of the roadway cost. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 13 PROFFER # 7 When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to serve the subdivision, including the possible construction of an off-site sewage pump station. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. It should be noted that an off- site pump station is a major expense and that the developer will be required to find and purchase a suitable property for the pump station and also pay to construct the station solely at his expense. PROFFER # 8 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant city agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-10 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. Staff Evaluation: This proffer is a standard condition and is acceptable. In this particular case, this proffer may mean that the number of lots shown on the conceptual plan may have to be reduced in order to comply with requirements associated with floodplain fill~mitigation, stormwater management and sanitary sewer design. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated December 12, 2002, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The request for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential District and a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion is Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 14 acceptable, but with a caveat. Staff notes that Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for residential use at a density of 3.5 units to the acre or less and that applicant has coordinated the access plan with the adjacent roadway projects and has limited the proposed floodplain fill to the roadways and edges of the lots. In sum, the applicant has proffered a plan that minimally meets the intent of the various development ordinances of the City. It must be stressed, however, that this site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a Natural Resource/Conservation Area overlay; the Plan indicates that such areas are more-suited for a Iow intensity use such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank. More than half of the site is below the 100oyear floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and there are extensive areas of nontidal wetlands on the site. The significant land disturbance associated with a conventional single-family subdivision will impact these areas even with the best measures employed in an attempt not to. Staff can support this request; however, the Iow elevation of the overall site combined with its natural resource characteristics, as described above, are pause for concern, particularly regarding the subject of stormwater drainage. The applicant will, no doubt, encounter significant issues during review of plans for stormwater drainage. It is likely that the proffered plan may need adjustment and the number of lots may decrease in order to provide an adequate stormwater system that not only serves this site but also integrates well with surrounding sites. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 15 t J Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 16 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 17 i.. Typical Home Elevation at Nimmo's Quay 1211 Z,'02 TypiCal Home Elevation at Nimmo's Quay 12/12/02 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 18 Typical Home Elevation at Nimmo's Quay 12/12i02 'Typir.:al hr.~'~e Elevation a! Nimmo's Query ! 2~'12~"02 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 19 Ms. Barbara Duke Planning Depa.rtment DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA .~:~ i;'\~A :'ii ~!.~.. '~'~ ',. t750 TOMCAT BOULEVAR ~ ('~'~\.~. [-'~.~i ~ ~"~' '~ ~ VIRGINIA B~CH. , VIRGINIA 234~-2~ .... ..L~:. ~.~:~ · ~' ' i.~;. ~ . ' '~ , ~ '~ ~ '~' ~' 57~ ~: ..._,~¢.~ ~.~ ......... June 5, 2003 City of Virginia Beach Building 2, Room 100 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Ms. Duke' Thank you for the opportunity to comgnent .on the r.'ezoning request by ALCAR iLLC, for the proposed construct:ion of 138 homes. The site is located in the 65-70 decibel {dB) day-nigh.t average (Ldn) noise z.on:e. The Navy's Air' I'nsta.llati. or~s Compatible Use Zones Program states that res.idential land use is incompatible .in this zone. The Navy acknowledges the landowner's desire to develop their property, but I 'urge you to deny their .request:. We would view residential development at this site as an encroachment upon operations at Naval Air Station. Oceana. If you have any questions, please contact my' Community Planning Liaison Of.ficer, Mr. Ray Firenze a't (757) 433-3158. Copy to- COMNAVREG MIDLANT Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Virginia. Beach City Council ~.. .Vi'rginia i'!B!e'a:ch Pla.nni.~g. Commission ~ ~i~i~i[i~i'ii,i~i ':' Sincerely and very respectfully, 'ii ' Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 20 Z Z [t Applicant's Name: ALCA[~, L. I,.C. List All Current PROPERTY' OWNER DISCLOSURE tf the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partner's in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) c_2_,,_¢.': r ~2_~_ ~!~_, L, ~ ?_,_._C~; :_~ _~.: !..~ _~ ~ !.. ~an__ ~_~?._d_ L~_8_~ ~,_s_ X.aXb_..o_t~ [] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach 'lis~ if necessary) tf the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) A:~a~ s_._ ~3~_~_~- ...... Ca.r~en Pasapia, Member 1-] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of t4 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 21 Applicant's Name: ^LCAR, L.L.C. . ............................................................................. List All Current Property Owners: False Cape .,~ssoc:iateSbL.._.....~.- .......................................................... PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list att officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in tt~e organization below: (Attach list if necessary) _.~]~_~p..r.~.... ~,.,u...,~d.e,. ~ ...... ~_e.x~! d _Sb_u,l_r~'L,a,ud_ Dou.Ca.s 2JL'.,albo..t ............................................................ [] Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. tf the applicant is not the current owner of tt~e property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list alt officers of the Corporation below: (Attach li~t if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) _.~.~_n__S .__i~_.~j~ ......................................................................................... _- ........... ...... ¢~.[~!L~.n....6.9.~..a...P;~ ..a..,....~_~.r~.f~.?~..e...r. .................................................................... BI Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, 'firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION': i certify that the information contained herein is true and ¢t~urate. Fa 1. sC; C~pe Assoc~a t~.~M~p., ~i-g~=~t~r;' ? --" Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 22 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .Applicant's Name: ....... List Ai'i Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other , umncorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list ali officers of the Corporation below: (Attach ti,st if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ' ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ....... ~ I~LE. _~._ _R_e~ .~ Member [] CheCk here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name q, .................. . ...................... . .... ~ ......, ............ , . Conditional Rezoning Application Page 10of14 e~ Planning Commission Agenda September 10, 2003 ALCAR LLC / # 19 & 20 Page 23 t t I APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ALCAR, L.L.C.: Alan S. Resh, Member Carmine P:isapia, Member 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) r-'! 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 appficant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) False Cape Associates~ L.P.: Cameron Munden, Gerald Shulman & Douglas Talbot 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) !-I Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. I & 2 See next page for footnotes Conditional Rezoning Application Page 12 of 13 Revised 10/1/2003 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C. Clark-Nexsen ~ "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 accordin/~j-tp the ins_.Cr, ue, tie¢~ in this package. By~~-,.~',l...-"O'Jo.t~'-~J[ Car~ine Pisapia~, Member Applicant's-- ~/--Signature Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page 13 of 13 Revised 10/1/2003 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT i i i APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following' 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) ALCAR, L.L.C.: Allan S. Resh, Member Carmine Pisapia, Member 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) I-I Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) False Cape Associates, L.P.: Cameron Munden, Gerald Shulman & Douglas Talbot 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) I-I Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. I & 2 See next page for footnotes Conditional Use Permit Application Page 10 of 11 Revised 10/1/2003 Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit North side of Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne September 10, 2003 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #19 & 20, Alcar, L.L.C. Eddie Bourdon: Sorry to block your views. Ronald Ripley: We get signals from staff. I'm just kidding. Eddie Bourdon: This one is going to be flipped over. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon and it is my pleasure to come before you this afternoon representing the application of Nimmos Quay. Mr. Resh is here as well as Joe Bushey, from Clark Nexsen who are the engineers working on this project. Mr. Resh and I have been working on this project now for about a year. My history with this particular property goes back to 1997, which I'll get into in a few minutes. We've had a very positive process that we've gone through with staff. I want to thank Barbara Duke who I understand is sick. I think someone gave her some bad food on her birthday but she worked very hard with us as with the rest of the staff including the folks in Traffic Engineering. This is a proposal on a 112-acre parcel of which approximately 73 acres are developable acres. To create a very high end subdivision of 132 lots, probably a few less than that. These houses, we proffered the type of houses that will be built. They will be very attractive homes that will be priced between $350,000 and up. I think the quality is very clear and very evident. The property is located south of Castleton and south of a section of Pine Ridge and west of Hunt Club and west of the section of South Gate. We're surrounded both on the north and on east by residential development. To our south is the, I guess Nimmo Parkway Phase V, I believe. I may be wrong on the phase number. And below Nimmo Parkway is the Princess Anne Woods subdivision. The property, because of the way Castleton developed, and I guess the best place to look is up here on the pinpoint. The property was supposed to be accessed via this roadway here through Castleton but for reasons I won't discuss, and there are a lot of reasons, and that's not going to happen and that can't happen and as a consequence, the property must be accessed by Nimmo Parkway and one of the things that we've done with this application is we've done a Traffic Impact Study, presented to the City, and this applicant will be constructing two lanes on Nimmo Parkway to meet the standards for Nimmo Parkway at a cost of approximately $900,000, and that will be extended from 'the fire station to the property. The property itself is a series of clustered lot configurations that are for the most part surrounded by open space. We are with this proposal only utilizing 26 percent of the land for roads and houses. Of the developable land, we're using less than 40 percent for roads and houses. In other words, 74 percent of the site is going to remain as open space. Over 60 percent of the developable land will be open space. And over 100 homes will be backing up to open space. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is not in the Transition Area. It sure as heck looks like it is a plan in the Transition Area. Now, Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 2 the reason that I put this map up here is to show you that there is a little bit of history behind this piece of property. Back in 1997, Taylor Farm Associates had most of the property under contract as shown over here and they brought forth a plan to develop 230 lots on this piece of property. The property that I'm talking about is the property here. Not every bit of what I'm talking about in this application. That application was recommended for approval by the staff consistent by the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation of 3.5 units per acre. The rezoning was R-10 open space anq it was recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission for approval. The Courthouse Coalition of Civic Leagues was supporting the application, as was the Pine Ridge Civic League, which I met with on a number of occasions at that time. And, between Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant deferred the application. He was working with the Corps of Engineers and was developing Castleton at the time wanted to get all this wetlands permits from the Corps of Engineers, which he in fact did receive and the property is the subject of an approved wetlands disturbance permit from the Corps of Engineers. But during that process some contractual issues arose and other things occurred really having nothing to do with the prospects of the application being approved at that time but the contracts fell through and so the deal at that point died. It never went to City Council, but it was recommended for approval, by the staff and by the Planning Commission unanimously for 230 lots. At that time the floodplain ordinance is not what it is today. The floodplain ordinance that exists in the northern part of the city today applied to all the city at that point and that development plan would have impacted about 30 percent of the floodplain on this site. That's flood fringe. We can talk about floodplain if you all want but floodplain is not wet area. It's just area that stores a little bit of water at a 100 year storm event, but it's not wetlands. It's not swamp. It's just high land that's not high enough that is outside the floodplain. It gets wet when there's a 100-year storm event. Anyway, later in the year 2000, this property was assembled by Clark Whitehill, and they brought forward an application for 255 units on this piece of property, and that's what shown here. And what this is also to show is that all the ground here are residential lots that surround this property, developed residential subdivisions that surround this property. And, what you see here is the plan that was submitted in 2000. And, their timing was certainly not good. That's when we were dealing with the flooding issue that existed in Castleton or were trumped up in Castleton and mainly they were because of construction problems and blockage in lines but it was an issue at that time. They had some major storm events. We also had the Lotus Creek situation going and so floodplains were a hot button item. This 255-unit subdivision, was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Staff did not recommend approval. They thought it was too great an impact on floodplains and on wetlands and it was more significant in terms of development than the previous application of Taylor Farm Associates. So that application was actually denied. Now we have an application where this applicant has done everything that he was asked to do. He went in and said okay, I'm not going to ask 'for a floodplain variance to impact the floodplain more than is permitted. There is a small amount that is permitted under our new floodplain ordinance that only applies to this part of the city and I'm going to go and have gone to the Corps of Engineers to modify the existing permits on this property to reduce the impact to isolated non-tidal upland wetlands by 40 percent over what is already permitted on this property by the Corps permit with this application. And, thus we have an application before you for a plan that instead of looking like this plan, it looks like the one you see there, which Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 3 when you put that to everything around it, you see a few lots surrounded by a lot of green space up against residential development all around. There are 65 lots in the adjacent neighborhoods that abut this piece of property. Our development plan has a total of 18 lots that abut some of those lots. As a matter of fact, they abut 16 of those lots. And, what we have done when this property was logged, and it was logged a few years ago, we retained on the site, because knowing eventually it would be developed residentially, believing that would be the case because that is what our Comprehensive Plan recommends, we left a wooded buffer on the back of the property. Some of that wooded buffer is also on the 65 lots that adjoin our piece of property. There's a 30-foot easement between our property and that would remain. And, we intend to keep on our property those trees that are in that buffer. Now, there may be a tree or two towards the southern part of the property that we have to take out for drainage purposes but that's why those trees were left. It is {)ur intent to keep those trees on the property. I see that light blinking and I don't know whether you all want me to. I have a lot of things to talk about on this, but if you want to ask some questions. Ronald Ripley: Can we handle those in questions and answers? Eddie Bourdon: I'll try to. I'm happy to do that. Ronald Ripley: I'm sure there are a lot of questions about this application. Eddie Bourdon: I just don't know if you want me to do it that way or address them as I go forward. Ronald Ripley: Technically, I think that would be the appropriate way of handling it. Eddie Bourdon: You all want to ask me some questions, I'm happy. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: No questions. That's good. Ronald Ripley: No, we got questions. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Obviously, I'm very familiar with this piece of land and have walked it. Having had it timbered, it does bring some issues with regard to perhaps how that open space is going to be handled, the part that hasn't been timbered. I don't know if that is part of the parcel. I assume that the timbering just wasn't in these lots because it is hard to tell exactly where it was but in that open space area is where the timbering occurred. How is that handled? Also the other thing that ! would like to have addressed is the extension of the road, two lanes of that road. I heard how expensive it is. I also looked at Seaboard Road and wondered if that was a point of discussion as the extension too. Eddie Bourdon: I'll start with the last question first. It certainly was a point of discussion, the extension of Seaboard Road. That is a project that is actually tinder design and will be done by the City. The Nimmo Parkway proposal, that road is a VDOT Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 4 project. And, the Traffic Impact Study, and frankly everyone, and I don't think there is any disagreement at all it is that the best way to access this property, is to build two lanes of Nimmo Parkway, which is far more expensive then extending Seaboard Road. And the time frame of this development will be two years before these lots will be sold. The extension of this roadway made more sense than dumping the traffic on Seaboard Road to come into this section of Princess Anne Road that currently is under some stress, which will go away with Nimmo Parkway or be significantly alleviated with Nimmo Parkway, which has been held up for quite some time. But is now going forward and will be going forward in 2008, which is the date that it's intended to be open. So, putting the traffic onto Nimmo coming out to General Booth was clearly the best way to deal with the subdivision. But what will happen is there will be an intersection at Seaboard Road when Seaboard Road is punched through to it, which will be happening also by the course of the next five years. But that project is actually in the works but it will not happen overnight. The open space areas when the property was logged those areas that were accessible. There is obviously open space area almost 40-acres being given to the City on West Neck Creek, part of what the Comprehensive Plan requires, asks for, not requires in that area that is truly low area was not logged. The other area there is some vegetation that is growing on trees but those open space areas will generally be passive open space areas but there are parts that are designated and those parts are all on areas that are either outside the floodplains and some are in it but again, floodplain does not mean that it is swamp or wet. There is a problem with perception and it's even in this write up. There's one place where it kind of talks like these are little islands of high land around low land. Folks, everything you see around this, all these houses, all these lots, those are houses and lots that were built in the same floodplain. Same floodplain was mitigated, and in this case there's minimal impact at all in any floodplain. We stayed essentially out of the floodplain except for the roadway sections that we're mitigating 100 percent. On this case, we're talking about a total of 2.1 acres of floodplain that isn't impacted at all, and we're mitigating with 5.1 acres of mitigation and again, with previous plans, the one Clark Whitehill had, 36 percent impact and the one that was before that was over 30 percent impact. So, we're totally staying out of any impacts on floodplains even though floodplains are developable land and floodplain is land that is frankly ideal for recreation. Down at Munden Point Park most of that park is in floodplain. Significant amount of parks, Red Wing Park, is in floodplain. There are lots of parks in the city that have area within the floodplain. It's not the flood way. It's not water flying through there, it's just that what you have is during a major storm event there might be an inch or two of water that's there for a period of a few hours while they drain. That's what a floodfringe and floodplain are. Our recreational areas will generally be passive with some trails but there isn't an intention to put equipment into the park sites for people who live in the community. And, that is not a problem. It's not going to float away when there's a 100-year storm event and you have an inch or two of water around playground equipment. That's my answer. Ronald Ripley: Charlie Salle'. Charlie Salle': Eddie, I think you alluded to it and there is some comment in the staff report about the storm water drainage for the area and the need to address it both here and in the surrounding area. Can you tell us how you have done that? Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: We understand completely what the challenges are and that's why this development will meet those challenges. But, frankly, there are problems that are very long ago. Lake Placid had some problems, as did Pine Ridge because they used the wrong flood elevation. So, you got some historical issues there. The City's done a study many years ago that recommends that there be a BMP in this area, a large one to handle. There isn't anything at Oceana at all. All of the water flows south but the water that flows south sheet flows through the ditches to the south. So we got a situation here where there have been historically some problems in both Pine Ridge and Lake Placid because back before of what our standards are today. And those are problems that with this Castleton development and again, the biggest problem with Castleton really was debris in the lines, because I would suggest it was well engineered, but with Castleton there were some problems. I believe they have been totally solved. We had a 'very rainy period this summer, and they haven't experienced flooding problems in Castleton. Our stormwater does not go in that direction number one. Number two, it will all be handled on site and then will be released using the BMPs that are now required using today's standards. We will actually be helping the process is our opinion. And frankly back in 1997, when this was held up when the original application for Taylor Farm Associates was going through the process, I got a number of calls during the hold up period wanting to know why we weren't going forward because they viewed it, the people who were in charge of the civic league at Pine Ridge, they viewed it as being a positive. It was going to help drainage. Clearly things that have happened since then have been done to clear the lines, to clear the canals and the drainage has been helped and so I'm not going to suggest that this is going to be a panacea but it is clearly going to help drainage and not going to hurt drainage and we're using everyone. My client, our engineers, City, their engineers, Mr. Block and everyone else are well aware of the situation that exists out there and ! think everyone is working towards solving it. I think it's been solved frankly, but we're going to be under a microscope and we know that. We are also well. aware that there may be a few less lots than this in the end, but at this point and this is not a situation that's been approved for a "X" number of lots. I had put in the proffers originally a maximum of 132 lots. They asked me to take "maximum" out and I said fine because I know we're not going up, we're only going down. If we go down, and I'm not saying that we're going to, but I think that's a possibility. We recognize that. We are fully aware of the challenges that this site presents, but in the big picture, and I don't want this to be overstated, the challenges are that we're not developing like everything around us on similar properties have developed in the past. We met and we believe totally exceeded the requirements that the challenges that are presented to us. Ad in the end, you also went up to a higher end product because of all the open space that you have behind the lots. You don't have lots that back up to each other. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're not asking for any variance to create any more buildable land. Eddie Bourdon: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: You're staying on the high land that exists that's receiving water now running into the floodplain and of course you have retention that's controlling some of that. Is that correct? Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 6 Eddie Bourdon: That's absolute. Our BMP's are on high land. You can't put a BMP in the floodplains. So all of our storm water retention is on high land. None of our homes are built on anything but high land. There is a total of about 10,000 square feet of area of floodplain on this entire project that will be filled a few inches on the comers of some lots. That is it. No houses are built anywhere in the floodplain. And, the City's floodplain ordinance in this part of the city allows up to five percent impact and we're about half of that, and of that, it's almost off of roads in the subdivision. I'll also tell you on Nimmo Parkway, the amount of floodplain impact there is more than 10 times the floodplain impact that we have and ours is minimal. Ronald Ripley: The number that you used for improving Nimmo, is that also :include the pump station? Eddie Bourdon: No. That's the cost of the road. Ronald Ripley: So you have a road and a pump station? Eddie Bourdon: The pump station will likely be on site too. We put it in the proffers again just because we just wanted. Staff said they want to be aware. It might be offsite. We're confident that it will be onsite, but that's in addition to the pump station. Ronald Ripley: Will that relieve any sewage issues in the area or is it just for this property and future properties? Eddie Bourdon: I'm not aware of any sewage problem or any capacity problems. I think it's just a service this property. There really isn't anything else out there that's developable. Ronald Ripley: Yes. Barry Knight. Barry Knight: I have a couple of observations. You talk about the 100-year floodplain. That 100-year floodplain could happen back to back, but the average occurrence of this happening is going to be once every 100 years. The floodplain elevation in that area is 6.3 feet. So, if you have 6.2 feet you're in the floodplain inches. If you have 6.4 inches, a difference of 2 inches, you're out of it. So, I understand from where I live, and farming all of our land down here is a whole lower than this but it is a floodplain but a floodplain is not wet area. It's area that could wet in this 100-year storm event. I kind of want to help you clarify that. And on the number of houses, you have 132 homes. You're asking for a permit for 132 homes, but it's possible that when you go in for site review and stormwater management, you could possibly end up with less than 132 homes. Would you think that 132 homes isn't set in stone. That it could possibly be less than that, because of those, but maybe is there any thought you may consolidate some of these lots? Eddie Bourdon: That's a possibility. As this process goes forward, and because of the microscope that this site is under because of the issues we talked about, we recognize that there may be both to make sure that we more than adequately deal with these stormwater issues and again, that's correcting other problems. We have considered that there may be Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 7 some consolidation of some of the lots. So, there's no question in our mind that 132 represents the maximum, and the likelihood is that it will be somewhat less than that before it's over with. And, your point about the floodplain is 6.25 feet but it's absolutely correct. So, all we're talking about is a couple of inches of storage capacity. Not swamp land. There are some isolated non-tidal wetlands, that are already permitted to be impacted and were reducing that by 40 percent over that which is already permitted to be impacted. Ronald Ripley: Well, the biggest issue that I heard in the first application that came through here, and the biggest concern that I think that everybody had was the drainage that was coming out of Castleton and the adjoining neighborhoods. And, we're going to hear from some folks out there and I'm sure that they'll testify some way or the other about what has happened here. It is my understanding that's been greatly improved with some retention and the system being cleaned out and some of the things you've said. That's a real important point because it was a real big point then, if I recall, and it may still be a big point. I'm not crossing over this. But we do have some other people to speak. Eddie Bourdon: In conclusion, half the density essentially of what the Comprehensive Plan recommends for this area. Thank you very much for your time. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Other speakers that have signed up. Irene Duffy. Irene Duffy: Good afternoon. I'm going to pass around two pictures to look at while I speak. Just to clarify this is the area in question. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Duffy? Irene Duffy: What? Ronald Ripley: You need to speak at the podium. Irene Duffy: Oh, sorry. This is the area in question right here. This would be where a part of Nimmo Quay would be to the south of Buckingham and Castleton. And this is one of our retention ponds; our only retention pond in Buckingham. There are others in Castleton. This is Buckingham. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Irene Duffy: As I said, my name is Irene Duffy, and I'm on the Board of Directors for Buckingham of Castleton and President of Castleton. I'm here representing Buckingham today, which is a village adjacent to the proposed Nimmo Quay. Thank you for this opportunity to speak this afternoon. The Village of Buckingham is opposed to the development of this kind on the attractive land in question for the same reason you've opposed to it approximately two half years ago. At that time, City Council heard and Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 8 understood our concerns regarding drainage and flooding, and turned down the requested proposal. In addition, in a former case, the Planning Staff's recommendation to the Commission was to deny the request. We find ourselves in the same position today. Last month, when this application for rezoning was deferred, the Planning staff's recommendation was for the request to be denied. We wholeheartedly agree with that decision for the following reasons. The neighborhood we live in borders West Neck Creek and that is our storm drainage outlet. The proposed development, Nimmo Quay, will be directing their storm drainage water into the same creek. We are a very wet neighborhood. In fact, city engineers, to their credit, are still trying to workout the kinks for the dry BMP that was proposed and dug to alleviate drainage problems that had been overlooked by the developer. The BMP was created this past winter. The attention was to have a dry BMP that filled up only during large events such as tropical storms or hurricanes or otherwise. It was to be maintained by the City in the fashion of a meadow were rescue would grow, and it would be mowed and maintained by the City. Since its creation, it has not been mowed once for good reason. If a lawn mower were to go in there it would never come out. It would sink into three feet of water that currently stands where the tall wetland weeds have established themselves. It is turning into a wetland. One might argue, well this has been a really wet year and this will never happen again. To this person I would say we had a real wet year not more than two to three years ago and that's 50 percent of the time that I have lived here. If we were to have a serious storm or hurricane now, as it stands, we would have some serious flooding problems. One might argue well, this developer is different. They would do it differently. They really know how to mitigate their rainwater. They won't make any mistakes because they have smarter engineers. To this person, I would say all the prior engineers were reputable and confident. None of them started out saying we really aren't able to do this but let's do it anyway, knowing that things would go wrong. Otherwise, they would have designed the drainage differently or not built here at all. It is foolhardy to ignore what other professionals have experienced. All that we are asking is that the Commission pay very close attention to where they are proposing to build and how much fill would be brought in and where they intend the water to go. The property can be built on can be encompassed as wetlands and floodplain. There is a huge amount of standing water on that land. There is not two to three inches, and I invite you to go back there and look. There are two to three feet of standing water at any given time back there in that area where they want to build. If the water was redirected or displaced it might flood an already existing, saturated community. Can we be certain that more development directly abutting and adjacent to o'ur home will not increase our propensity to flood during a minor or major rainfall. I would like to read a quote that I found on the website belonging to the Virginia .Beach Planning Department under the heading of Flood Control. "Wetlands provide flood control by acting as a giant sponge absorbing and holding water during storms. Fast moving water is slowed by vegetation and temporarily stored in wetlands. The gradual release of water released creates erosion potential and possible property damage. When wetlands are filled, areas designed by nature to control floodwaters from Nor'easter extreme high tides, etc, are lost." We believe it is the City's responsibility to put the safety and welfare of its citizens above the interest of private enterprises seeking personal profit and gain. We are asking that the Commission give strong consideration to the recommendation given by the City's Planning staff' last month, which brings me to a question that I need to ask. What change was made in the Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 9 application request that would warrant the change in the staff's recommendation? Since the deferral last month, there has been a change in the recommendation made by the Planning staff; so, I'm wondering if the development plans were redesigned or adjusted to avoid disturbance in this environmentally sensitive area. This land is marginal at best and building here not only threatens existing homes but is irresponsible business practice regarding the new home owners of Nimmo Quay. And to Mr. Bourdon, I would say, please tell my sump pump under the house that the water in the cinder block voids are trumped up drainage problems. I thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Ms. Duffy? William Din: I got a question. Ronald Ripley: Yes. William Din: The two pictures that you passed around shows a dry BMP. Obviously a dry BMP is only dry in dry weather but is intended to collect water. Irene Duffy: Well, the dry BMP intention was to be wet during large events. It was not supposed to be a retention pond and it was not supposed to be a retention lake. We have one of those already. William Din: What is your intention, and I don't understand why you're showing us a picture of a dry BMP with water in it when it is supposed to collect water. Irene Duffy: Well, its supposed to be dry most of the time I would assume, if it's a dry BMP, but it has not been dry since it was done. My point is that the purpose of the dry BMP was to retain water that was supposed to go in to the permanent retention pond. It was supposed to be an over fill and it was supposed to happen only during large events such as hurricanes. My point was that it is wet all the time. We have not had a hurricane as of yet, and it already has wetland plants growing in it and it has not been maintained by the city, because we can't grow grass. It doesn't survive because it's too wet. What I'm saying is that if a hurricane was to happen now, or we were to have a large storm, it would flood because that is the last action for us, that dry BMP. William Din: And the retention pond is suppose to have water in it? Right? Irene Duffy: Exactly. William Din: And you're showing us that it does have water in it? Irene Duffy: I'm showing you that it is full and that it is at the top of the drainpipe and that is how it sits most of the time because West Neck Creek is where the outfall is for our retention pond so when it doesn't flow it ends up backing up. William Din: Are you having flooding in your area on the streets? Irene Duffy: No. It's much better now. It's much better now, than it was in the Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 10 beginning. We had a lot of flooding due to, as was mentioned~ the BMP system and we haven't had a large event either so I think we're maxed out. William Din: We've had some rain events here but during the rainy events what kind of flooding do you encounter there? Irene Duffy: We don't have flooding in the streets anymore. Not since they've fixed the drainage. We do have water in our yards and in my crawl space. I use a sump pump to get the water out of the cinder block voids that are there periodically. William Din: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: JoAnn Massey. JoAnn Massey: Good afternoon. I am here to present a petition from the Chartwell of Castleton and Buckingham of Castleton homeowners in opposition of the rezoning. We oppose this rezoning based on our neighborhoods flooding problems and remedies by the City of Virginia Beach that Ms. Duffy spoke to about earlier. Castleton as a whole has always been indated with drainage and flooding issues. We do not think it would be prudent for the Commission to approve this rezoning and ultimate subdivision development of the above referenced property on Items #19 & 20. The flooding and drainage issues of Castleton, we feel would escalate as a new development in that location would permit considerably more drainage into our already overburdened and troublesome dry BMP and drainage system. I do have additional photos of the dry BMP, which has never been dry ever. It's right behind my house. I've got pictures from the very beginning up until a couple of weeks ago. It has never been dry. Here's the petition. Ronald Ripley: Is that a copy of the petition? JoAnn Massey: It is original signatures. Ronald Ripley: Do you have a copy of that? JoAnn Massey: No, I don't. Ronald Ripley: Okay. You may want to get a copy from staff later if you would like to have a copy. JoAnn Massey: Okay. Yes, I would. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Ms. Massey? Thank you very much. Will, has a question. I'm sorry. Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 11 William Din: It's the same question and you're quoting that there's flooding problems and draining problems in your :neighborhood. JoAnn Massey: Drainage problems now. Flooding problems before. The drainage problems being that the BMP and the retention pond flowing into the West Neck Creek which this subdivision would be draining its into West Neck Creek. West Neck Creek backs up, the retention ponds back up, the dry BMP backs up and the dry BMP has never been dry. William Din: Has the dry BMP every overflowed into the neighborhood? JoAnn Massey: The pipe is a very large drainage pipe. It's gotten to be this close to the top of the pipe. My house is right on the edge of that pipe and the water comes right up to my backyard. And, no it has never flooded my backyard but if we were to ever have a hurricane it may. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. JoAnn Massey: Thank you. Robert Miller: Christine Capozzohi. Forgive me if I mispronounced your last name. Christine Capozzohi: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Christine Capozzohi. I live at 2408 Windy Pines Bend. My husband and I bought our house and property in October 1987. Next month, it will be 16 years. We love the neighborhood. The first thing that we noticed as we pulled into the entrance, this is a beautiful bird sanctuary. We have signs there. We love being close enough to the ocean and yet still living in the country with all the birds abutting our backyard. We used to have deer come up. In the backyard, we throw out crumbs and whatever and other animals come up. We had no problem. This was just absolutely beautiful. Now that ! have brain surgery in 1997, I'm a shut-in. I have vision problems. I have no peripheral vision whatsoever. I can't drive. The only thing that I have daily is to look at the backyard or maybe once in a while be able to cross the street if there's no traffic coming to walk one of my three dogs. When this proposal first came out two years ago, you were talking about them building houses in the woods. But before that we had drainage problems. I'm guessing about five years ago the City came in to help with the drainage problems. There is about a 10 foot buffer in the back of the property, which comes from the end of Windy Pines Bend to the other. I guess I'm talking about maybe 15-18 houses and a brand new drainage system, which helped us so much. I thank Castleton. First of all, while they were building Castleton and they came in and they logged all the woods behind us. They left us a few little skinny trees. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Capozzohi, you're starting to run out of time. Christine Capozzohi: I'm sorry. I just want to say that my property is not of any use to me if they're going to go in there and build and put more houses in. If this is passed by this board, I would like the owner of that property, or the builder to come and buy my Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 12 property from me and they can do whatever they want with that as long as I get a good decent price for my house. I thank you all very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you all very much. Robert Miller: Angela Snyder. Angela Snyder: Hello. My name is Angela Snyder. I am a resident of Pine Ridge. This application was deferred from the August 13th agenda, and I have the same question that the first lady had and that I understand that from this morning staff's meeting that the Commission now supports this application. But, what has changed since the recommendation was for denial at the August 13th agenda? I am an adjacent property owner and I would like to show you where my house is because it does effect this development. We are right about here and the back of our house will be right behind the new development. We have terrible flooding problems. Our backyard looks like a lake just when it rains. We're not talking about a significant event, just normal rainfall. So, I can imagine that the new houses will have that problem as well. The Comprehensive Plan does identify this area as a Conservation Area. It does contain tidal and non-tidal wetlands. There will be no buffered trees for noise reduction and wildlife retention. There will be a definite negative impact on schools and roads. It was noted in the recommendation of the staff, that Kellam High is currently over capacity by 286 students and that does not take into account other developments that have already been approved and are under construction. That's a real concern. The wetlands will be negatively affected. I heard the lady mention what I was going to quote from your website, but I believe she has already done that about the wetlands being a sponge. I just wanted to stress about the flooding being an issue. The stormwater drainage is very poor. The U.S. Navy also opposed this request. They feel that it's an encroachment on their operations. I have letters of opposition I think have been filed. We do have a petition, which has already been submitted to you. There are 62 names on that. I do have a question of Mr. Bourdon, and I'll be able to ask that? Ronald Ripley: You can state it and we can ask him. Angela Snyder: The question is I heard him say and point to this map which I could not see from my location but there was going to be a row of buffered trees that I wondered where that was going to be? We ask that you deny this request. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Angela Snyder: Thank you. Robert Miller: John Snyder. John Snyder: Hello. My name is John Snyder: I've lived on Windy Pines Bend for probably since December. Just moved there. Right there would be my house. According to your plans, these new lots would abut to my back property line. Behind my property line there is a drainage system that the City had installed and I'm not sure when because I Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 13 just moved there. I have a constant problem with water running off the back of these lands onto my yard because my water is trying to go towards that property to go away from my house and my house is flooded. The way I see it with these property lines connecting or abutting to each other as they are in this drawing, if they properl, y grade the yards of these new homes, the backyard of that house is going to be flowing right towards the back of mine and therefore, I'm going to have more problems. All that I wanted to say about this drain that is back there is the drain sits so far high out of the ground because the ground is so low that when the water does gather around towards the drain, it doesn't get high enough to go into the drain. I've had several people come out from the City, from Public Works, and they tell me they can't access it. So, how are they going to access this when they have these property lines connecting to mine and not only is that drain back there that should be absorbing some of the water and I've been trying for months to try to get my water to go towards these drains so it would be out of my yard and away from my house and it just doesn't do it. It just stands there and goes nowhere. Also behind my fence line is the electrical box and everything else, and ! just don't know how with these property lines like this, if anything happens, how are they going to access any of these public utilities. Those are a few of my concerns. Like I said, I'm just a new homeowner trying to keep my yard dry and at least get it running off my property and its just running right back to my property from where it is now. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Snyder, is there a ditch behind your property or is it a drainage pipe that has a drop in? John Snyder: A very large City drain with very big grates in it. I mean a small animal can go through there. I've told my son not to mess around and get his foot caught in it or something. Ronald Ripley: Is it a grading issue you think to get the water to the pipe? John Snyder: Yes. See, that is what I told the people who came out. If you all would grade the land around there a little better, maybe it would flow into that drain. Also in my backyard we have mature trees, very large mature trees. Earlier concept plans in past years from looking through papers, City work, they left a nice buffer with those mature trees between the neighborhoods and with the property lines connecting like that and the utilities there and everything, I don't know how they're going to do that. It kind of doesn't make any sense to me why they would want to connect the property lines. I would think you would leave it zoned between there so you could access the public utilities. I don't know whether they are planning on moving these public utilities. Ronald Ripley: Typically, what you'll find is that there will be a City easement. You have a City easement across the back of your property for which the City should be maintaining that swale. It's their easement. This development will also have to dedicate their City easements for the same reason. We'll have Mr. Bourdon address this. John Snyder: I was just concerned on how they were going to access public utilities that are behind my house and that's going to go between these two. I would also like to say that we moved in there, my fourteen year old son was really looking forward to running Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 14 around through the woods back there and being a boy. He hadn't been able to go back there. It's too muddy. He'll sink up to his knees. They ask me if I would allow them to access that area through my yard. I said bring a tow truck because any heavy equipment your taking through my yard is going to sink. My yard hasn't been dry since I've been there. I have trouble .just trying to mow the grass. Those are a few of my concerns. Thank you very much for ihearing them. Ronald Ripley: Thank you for coming up. Robert Miller: Jack Reich. Jack Reich: How you doing? My name is Jack Reich. I live at Hunt Club Forest. My property borders the proposed thing. When we get a rain and not even a heavy rain, water comes up four feet. I had that creek and I guess it connects to West Neck Creek at the edge of my backyard. It comes up four feet up from that creek into my yard. I have an embankment. It comes up that embankment four feet. With just the rains that we've had, I mean we haven't had, God forbid we have. It's a lot worse now since they knocked all those trees down back there. I mean in the past, when ! guess water would be held in the woods back there. I didn't have that much of a problem other than in a hurricane, o'f course you would expect it to come up. Now, with just heavy rains like we've had. I mean I'm not exaggerating and we're talking four feet up on my property, up the embankment. ! cannot get flood insurance because the comer of my property is in a flood zone. I won't have a house left. I have an above ground pool in my backyard. If that water comes up any higher, it will end up taking my pool out. I mean this is just absolutely nuts. And, they're going to drain into West Neck. It can't handle what's there now. I just can't understand any of this and I don't want to see my property destroyed. ! probably lost, and anybody can come out and look, I probably lost two feet of my property in the last two years at the edge. The City doesn't maintain anything.. I maintain it. I do my best to keep it up. I keep the grass cut. I keep everything back there. Clean up the garbage that flows from other people's houses down. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller, has a question. Robert Miller: When you bought the house. When do you buy your house? Jack Reich: 1987. Robert Miller: Wasn't there a drainage easement on your property then and that canal was there at that time? Jack Reich: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Okay. Since you've live there, you're telling me that Public Works have never been out there to maintain that canal? Jack Reich: No. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 15 Robert Miller: That's something we definitely have to have our staff investigate. Jack Reich: I take care of it. Robert Miller: No. Jack Reich: I have never called up and complained. Robert Miller: I believe what you're saying, and I think that could be part of the issue if your having water rise four feet, perhaps it's blocked up somewhere and it's not properly draining and it's something that Public Works can get out there and do something about it. Jack Reich: Just since they've cleared those trees. Robert Miller: I hear you. Thank you. Jack Reich: You're welcome. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Jack Reich: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Do we have anybody else? Robert Miller: Jeff Trenton. Jeff Trenton: I've got a couple of points. The first one is goes to the credibility of the proposal. We've talked about this buffer area. On page 11, the Planning staff says, "it should be noted that one particular valuable aesthetic natural resource is being eliminated with the current proposal is the existing 40 to 50 foot wooded buffer along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge." It kind of contradicts what Mr. Bourdon says. I would assume the Planning Commission is objective on this because it goes to the credibility of the proposal. The major issue I'd like to address is has everybody seen the newspaper today? You see the newspaper today, massive headlines "Super Hornets Coming to Virginia Beach." We got the squadrons. Massive headline is going to be a lot louder. Headline basically today is "Super Hornets coming to the Beach." It's big, the biggest story in this town for quite a while. Let me suggest what tomorrow's headline can be if you make a mistake on this. "City Council Approves Additional Residential Development Despite Navy Objections." Navy says new development will encroach on air operations. That's your headline. I've heard that sort of debate when I was on the Castleton Oceana Liaison Committee. The Navy would always marvel that the city would continue to build even when the Navy was saying that there are serious noise level issues and other issues concerning flight operations. And they would marvel that the city could continue to do that. Now especially today when they say we're going to get the Super Hornets. When they say they're going to be much louder. When they say they're going to have training Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 16 operations with new aircraft, to have additional building to approve the next day, additional residential construction when the Navy tells you that you shouldn't be doing it, you're going against what the Navy says, and were saying that we're a Navy town and were patriotic. However, we're going to go for the buck and do the building. That is what it seems to me. I guess that is all that I'm going to say. Robert Miller: Where do you live Jeff?. Jeff Trenton: I live right there in Castleton. Robert Miller: Can you point to it? There's a pointer right there on the table. Ronald Ripley: The little black, thing. Jeff Trenton: I'm right here. Robert Miller: Okay. How's your quality of life there? Jeff Trenton: It's nice to have the woods behind. Robert Miller: A nice neighborhood? Jeff Trenton: It's a nice neighborhood. The noise is an issue. Robert Miller: Really. Jeff Trenton: Especially the question of when the Super Hornets being louder. Because we know Navy guys who fly and say yeah, the Super Hornets are going to be a lot louder. Robert Miller: Every time you see one of those Navy guys making all that noise, why don't you thank him for the freedoms you have. Thank you. Jeff Trenton: The Navy is the one who's saying your encroaching on their operations. Not me. Robert Miller: Thank you. Jeff Trenton: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Is there anybody else? Robert Miller: No sir. Ronald Rip ley: Okay. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Where do I begin. I think you already picked up on the fact that the BMP that is holding water is a BMP that is working given the fact that we had a record summer for rainfall and the first young lady who spoke on it, I'll be happy and be candid Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 17 and say that the flooding problems are corrected. They're not flooding. Frankly, depending upon the size of a hurricane, if we have a hurricane, there are a lot of places in the City of Virginia Beach, a whole lot of places that are going to have flooding on a temporary basis and for the flat area coastal plain that we live in, that's an inevitability. There's nothing anybody can do about that if we have a hurricane. You can't design a storm drainage system for a city based on a hurricane event. And, we haven't nor have any other coastal cities that I'm aware of but we certainly in this case, being that we are downstream of Castleton, we're not going to be putting water upstream. What we also will be doing is as you all know, and as we've talked about, is our BMPs all have to be in upland areas. They have to be designed and engineered so that we are in not any way shape, or form increasing 'the rate of flow into that drainage system in a storm event. And, again, Castleton is the latest development that had experienced some problems. They developed, and a significant amount of their lots are in the floodplain. None of these lots are in the floodplain. The other development, Pine Ridge specifically and Lake Placid up the upstream, they have houses, many, many of them which were built in the floodplain but the flood elevation used to calculate their height was too low, which is the issue with the runoff. All of this is being addressed and has been addressed and we will be addressing it so that we will not be adding in anyway to anybody's water problem and that's what this plan represents, because it is such a minimal mnount of development with all of the sponge left unimpacted. With regard to Ms. Snyder, she brought up a number of different things. The buffer behind here, first off all, behind their houses there is a 30- foot easement between our lots and their lots that would be maintained. We also maintain wooded area along the entirety property line with the neighboring properties and of that entirety, there are 65 lots that adjoin us, this is one section. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're over your time. But you're answering our questions. Eddie Bourdon: I knew you were going to ask that question. Ronald Ripley: So consider your questions and answers. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. I'll consider mine questions and answers. We got this section here where there is a wooded buffer because it's the wooded buffer that we maintain. There are trees on the back of these lots. If you notice, these lots are larger lots than those in the neighborhood. There are a number of trees on these lots. There are trees on our property all the way around. Most of our boundary with the neighboring subdivisions, all of these lots go directly to our property line. We have left a wooded buffer and that buffer will remain. What the staff was commenting about is that in the 255 lot plan, our lots were not to the property line but we're still going to maintain on the back of these lots. Not 50 feet although in the case of these seven lots here to the east, there's already 30 foot buffer that will remain and that is an underground drainage easement and we will be able to add another 15 to 20 feet to that. So basically, about a 40 to 50 foot buffer that will occur here. This area here the buffer will be less but these lots that we adjoin here. We have 10 lots that adjoin a total of eight above us. We'll be probably able to leave about 20 to 30 feet of trees on our property in addition to roughly Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 18 the same amount of trees that exist on the back of those lots. Elsewhere, there is no impact at all in terms that trees remain adjacent to the rest of the properties. Ronald Ripley: While you're on that subject Mr. Scott, it wouldn't be appropriate for this applicant to size the drainage pipe along those adjacent property lines to service water coming off of Castleton for example but it would be appropriate for the city, when they're in there doing the development to get their grades right if the grades have gotten filled in or what not so that we get two drainage systems that are getting the water out of there. Would that be appropriate to say? Robert Scott: Really, you have to leave that up to the design engineer and what concept they're going to use to drain it. It wouldn't be inappropriate to do. Ronald Ripley: Would it be inappropriate to oversize it to take other water? Robert Scott: It's not a question so much of oversizing as it is of grades. The problem is the land is very low and very flat. The grading issues are most of the problems I believe. I certainly don't want to rule anything out like that, but at some point, someone is going to have to figure out how to drain this land and their concept might possibly include that. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: You'll also notice and it's obvious to everyone, and I'm going to show you, that there are lots all along here, lots all along here that come to our property line and had our property line were a floodplain, what does that tell you? These lots were all built in the floodplain. And, that's a reality. The houses of a lot of these people that adjoin us were in the floodplain and that's not happening on our property. We're not doing anything as far as building houses in the floodplain that exists around us. That's the key to this whole situation is that we're not going to be creating any problems for anybody else and our stormwater off of our impervious surfaces go into BMPs that we're creating on our property to hold that water on our high land not in the floodplain. So we're not affecting the flood storage capacity or the rate of flow in any way in the floodplain. Eugene Crabtree: I think you just answered my question. Your three stormwater management facilities should actually improve the wetlands that is now draining to people's property by holding it on your own property. What they say is running form the woods now and having problems with that when you put these in that should correct some of their problems because then it will not run there but will be held in your stormwater management. Eddie Bourdon: We fully believe and understand and appreciate the fact and it is a reality given the history of these other developments that we are going to be looked upon to not only make sure that we have no impact but to probably help to alleviate some of the existing impacts and we are well aware of that and prepared to address that challenge. Eugene Crabtree: That's what I was asking. Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 19 Ronald Ripley: Jan Anderson. Janice Anderson: On the wooded buffer that you said you would leave there, that is a drainage easement also, is there any problem with keeping it wooded? You said that you might have to take a tree or two but it's not going to be clearer. Eddie Bourdon: Those mature trees are the ones the owner left and didn't log when the rest of the property was logged because they provide that buffer. The answer is I don't believe, we hope there aren't any trees that have to be taken out. It is our desire to leave that buffer, but maybe some that do, but they will be the ones farthest away from the shared property line. They won't be on the shared property line. Again, unless for some reason that we're not aware of dealing with the existing drainage improvements or the City drainage improvements that would have to necessitate some removal. We're not anticipating that will be the case. Janice Anderson: Is there anywhere the proffers that you can make just say maintain the wooded buffer. It wouldn't be specific. Eddie Bourdon: We could between now and City Council we could put on the plans a note about the wooded buffer that exists. That can certainly be done. In terms of the proffers themselves, I'm not sure from what other developments such as wording that anyone is really going to be comfortable with. Barbara is not here. Barbara Duke and I have had discussion a lot lately. I think that she and I'll just quote her for the staff, I think they're more comfortable with some type of a note on the plan itself as opposed to trying to come up with words in a proffer to deal with that. I think that is an issue that we could address by putting a note in to the proffer that trees in this area are to remain. Janice Anderson: The wording in your proffers. Eddie Bourdon: You're referring to the plan. Janice Anderson: To the plan. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Charlie Salle' and then Gene. Eugene Crabtree: Mr. Bourdon, in reference to the gentleman that was complaining about the aircraft, if I understand the position of this property, this property is not in the actual major flight plan of take off or landing and the crash zone is just the noise zone. So from a safety standpoint of view we don't have it in direct line of any of the major runways and therefore the noise level is the only question'? Am I correct? Eddie Bourdon: That is correct. Ronald Ripley: Charlie. Eddie Bourdon: We left plenty of room for a jet to crash with all the open space on 74 percent of the property. I hope none ever do. Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 20 Eugene Crabtree: I just want to make sure that you're not in that direct crash zone. Eddie Bourdon: No, were not even near a crash zone. We surrounded by residential development at three half units per acre. Eugene Crabtree: Just clarifying it that's all. Charlie Salle': My experience with crash zones is when an airplane flies over your head you're in a crash zone. Eddie Bourdon: With all this conservation area we're setting aside, there is plenty of room and God forbid if one every came down. We hope they wouldn't come down in any of the neighborhoods that surround us but it doesn't exist. Charlie Salle': I had a couple of questions and Jan explored part of that on the buffer zone, I noticed that the wooded buffed areas is across the actual platted lots and I guess to what extent is the subject lot owner bound to keep that area wooded? Eddie Bourdon: There certainl, y is an ability to put in an easement on the property. It could be a Homeowners Association that's going to own not only all the open space and the vast majority of our property that abuts to 65 lots in a neighborhood would belong to the association and so there is the ability to put an easement to allow the association to enforce not only on their own property but on the back of the 18 lots that we have that adjoin other lots. Charlie Salle': That might be one of the responsibilities. Eddie Bourdon: I would agree Mr. Salle', and I don't think you would have any problem with putting in a condition. The issue simply would be the depth of the easement on any of the lots. Charlie Salle': And the other question deals with drainage. This project is downstream from the areas that we had people had concerns about it. Is the system of drainage connecting the existing drainage that's will be flowing down to your project? Eddie Bourdon: There are some drainage ways that come through and it's natural drainage that clearly comes through here. That's what all the floodplain in these areas that we preserved that is directly adjacent to their lots that were created in the floodplain. That's why it is important and critical and that's why we had stayed out of those areas with our development, so that we're not impacting the natural drainage ways with regard to the manmade drainage ways. Yes, they do also traverse our property, and we will be enhancing those to some degree. Primarily, we're going to make sure that we have no negative impact on those in terms of adding in any way to flow in those drainage ways in a storm event. We're also providing a BMP for Nimmo Parkway on some of our high land, right out here at the entrance. Right here were adding a BMP that will be used for Nimmo Parkway again, so there isn't any impact on the drain when that road is built. We Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 21 do have drainage that comes across the property. There's natural drainage that comes across the property that we are not going to impact. Ronald Ripley: Kathy and then Joe. Kathy Katsias: Mr. Bourdon, are you and the developer is willing to reduce the amount of lots depending on the storm water drainage system. Is there a number that would make this economically not feasible by the production? Eddie Bourdon: That whole issue Ms. Katsias is going to be dealt as we go through the engineering, which is in this case and that really is the answer. I believe. I don't want to speak for staff, but I think the staff's comfort level with this proposal was enhanced by face to face meetings with our engineers and our clients, and we understand and have bent over backwards already and will continue to do the same to make sure that there is no impact on drainage on the property surrounding us. We walked into this tmowing that the problems that have existed and to some degrees still exist, although I think they have been in a large part been solved, not totally, and we recognize that we may lose some lots in that process. But, that's an expensive process. All that detailed engineering on individual and grades and what have you, it's going to be a process that we're recognizing is going to take some time. And, I said before, we don't expect any of these houses on these lots to be on line or for sale for two years because we know that process isn't going to be a quick one. As far as a number, no, there is no way we can sit here and say it will be 120 versus a 132 and we're not in a position to know that at this point. Ronald Ripley: Joe, did you have a question? Joseph Strange: Yeah. Some of the opposition, they expressed concern that even though your saying that these BMPs are going to be on high property that maybe this isn't going to really work. Who do they go to and get assurances that your plan will work so they could feel comfortable and not feel like when they walk out of here that this gets passed that they're going to be protected. Eddie Bourdon: I think they can walk out of here and walk out of the Council meeting, because they will be hearing the same thing there, knowing that every engineer and Public Works of the City is well aware, and they've been aware for a number of years about the issues that have been brought forth and that these plans are going to be checked, doubled checked, tripled check to make sure that they will in fact they will do what in fact what we said they will do. They will not be adding to their burdens, so to speak, that exist. And, the City has studied this area extensively. We're looking at property that we are only developing on, essentially on the high land, and that's one assurance that I would take out of here. Number two, the fact that everyone is going to be scrutinizing it very carefully to make sure that we alleviate the problem. The problems that have existed, have existed in large measure because of previous errors that aren't going to be repeated again in terms of using incorrect information, in terms of what the floodplain was back in the 60's with Lake Placid. Our knowledge is so much greater now then it was in the 1960s. Item #19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 22 Joseph Strange: If you look under Public Facilities and Services it says, "city water is not available to this development. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new pump station off-site of the sewer system." And then if you look at Proffer #7, "when the property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to service the subdivision, including the possible construction of an off-site sewage pump station." How do these two relate to each other? I don't quite understand it myself. Eddie Bourdon: I believe they say the same thing. There is City water, and City water will be extended to the site at our cost. City sewer same thing, will be extended to our site at our cost. The only question there is whether the pump station will be on this site or off-site, and we are now confident that it will be on site. Like I said, it will be at our cost. There is no cost to the taxpayer at all. City water and City sewer have to be extended at the developer's cost to the property and they're available to the property. Joseph Strange: So what plans and bonds are required for the construction of the new pump station? Does the City have to do that? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. When this gets to subdivision approval. It just lets somebody know, if they're a developer and they're naive, that they're going to have bond what they're going to have put that in. Joseph Strange: So the City doesn't have anything to do with that. Eddie Bourdon: No sir. Joseph Strange: I didn't quite understand myself. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Mr. Bourdon, thank you very much. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Let's open this up for discussion. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Well, since everybody else is a drainage engineer, I guess I can be one. A couple of things that were said today that need to be clarified. Number one is that West Neck Creek is a creek that drains a large part of our city, but it is also connected to both, ironically, the Chesapeake Bay and to Back Bay and it is effective in both directions. It's very unique in that sense. It's a great waterway. It's a longitudinal to the park, as we all know. It's a wonderful place to go and spend some time. There are some issues that come up, and that is trying to maintain it and make sure that it stays clear of debris. Public Works, I think, has done a very good job, but over the years, it's difficult to either stop a tree from growing, or if one fell down, to know that it fell and go out and clean that tree up. I think that's been part of the issues that have dealt with West Neck Creek. The creek, itself, carries a large amount of water during a rainfall event. The drainage in Castleton, the drainage in this subdivision, to some extent, the drainage in Lake Placid are being, what I called "detained" which means it's being slowed down and let lose after Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 23 the storm event has passed. That's the way things are engineered during computer models, and I can assure you there have been any number of, literally hundreds of models done on this particular creek to make sure that what is being done in this area :is going to be done correctly and done with conscience towards not only the development that's going on but the other developments around it. Just saying that means that the storm drainage systems have presented every confidence that the City engineers are going to make sure and the developer's engineers together with those items that were talked about today from yard drainage to canal system that's not quite working to worrying about how it's going to flow into West Neck Creek. This water is already going into West Neck Creek, and the water that will be drained from this property will not be in excess of what's already going there. So, there's no net gain. That's part of the rules of the development that has to occur. One lady mentioned, I think Ms. iDuffy that there was water under her house. 'l just want to make sure, and I think she knows this, but that is a builder's problem. That's not related to the development. There are duct valves on the Castleton outfall system at the primary outdoor fall for the Buckingham Village. A duct valve actually opens when the water in the creek is lower and stays closed when the water in the creek goes up. That was done supposedly to stop water from coming back into the subdivision. If in fact, the water is staying in the subdivision in that storm water management facility too long, then it may be that valve is not working. I would suggest that Public Works get involved to make sure that they get that straight. The BMP that was supposed to be dry, but remains wet and the month of May, I think we had 20 days of rain. We've probably had the wettest summer we've had that I could remember. And, even though the events may look like they are not that severe, the continual rain causes the ground to be saturated and all of us, with any sense to my yard, to your yard to anybody else's yard know that after this summer. That would also lead to the fact that the BMP was built dry, otherwise it wouldn't have been built. It was built and it was dry. So, it was dry at some point. And the last thing is the canal system, ! would suggest that is on the eastern part of this property next to the Hunt Club, and it goes across the southern portion of the property. I have walked that canal and I know that canal is heavily encumbered with existing trees and growth and other things. And maintenance probably does need to be run on that; so, I would ask that Public Works do that. And stating all of that, I think the developer has done a very unique job of backing off the previous proposals that we've seen. I believe staff believes the same, and the proposed development is one that I personally feel has achieved what all of us were asking for, and that is the honoring of the environmental situation, the honoring of the drainage situation. I do like the idea of putting in the additional condition of an easement for the buffered trees. I think that assures the people that have been here that are worried about that. Let me tell you that's a "Catch 22" when you talk about the drainage issues, because if we save the trees you can't change the grade around the trees so that may be a little bit of a drainage issue which needs to be balanced like Mr. Bourdon indicated I think with good engineering while we're environmentally sensitive to saving these trees. And, the last thing I want to say is I personally very glad that the Navy put the additional F-18As here and I hope they fly over my house everyday and every night. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Bob said it pretty well. I would like to comment on the plan itself also because ! was on the Commission when it came through the first time. When you tlip that board over and you flip it over to this side, it's like a Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 24 world of difference. Looking at the density, and if you take the developable acres and you divide it to what was proposed you probably get four to the acre. I think the original plan got to three and a half because there was a lot of variances required in order to create more land within the floodplain in order to achieve the number of the density. This case, the developer is not asking for any variance. The variances that we're working with is the land that's there lbr the most part with the exception of some of the roadways that have to get through there, and I appreciate, quite frankly, this type of exhibit because you get to see the whole floodplain in a much broader sense than some time the way it's presented, which is very hard to see the whole picture. And this is a very helpful way to view what's going on. I think Bob probably covered most everything that I was interested in talking about probably and then some. I think the fact that the developer has recognized the fact that in working with Mr. Scott, his department, there may be more adjustments. That's very appreciative from the Planning Commission's point of view, because I'm sure there's going to be some nips, picks and tucks, and once you get down on the ground with the engineers and actually measure the inches you're going to find some differences. You may just find, and hopefully that works out well for the developer, if that's the case. But, when it comes down for a motion, I'm going to support this. I think it's a good plan. I think it's very creative, and it as Mr. Miller said "it's environmentally sensitive to this piece of land" and this land is a developable piece of land and you have to recognize that. It's 72 acres. Is that correct? Yes Barry. Barry Knight: I agree with what Ron and Bob both say. We have a unique waterway in West Neck, and by being in the Southern Watershed Management Area, I would assume that the largest majority of the 'water is towards Back Bay. And with the trees over West Neck Creek, we're subjected to a wind tide, which means when wind blows out of the north, we get a low tide. When the wind blows out of the south, we get a high tide. And, if you have a south wind, it backs the water up here, and then if you have a rain event, which is usually associated with a south wind, then the water can't get away. So, I know the residents may not have the exact answer that they're looking for but their voice was heard today because Public Works will get a message that they need to go out there and see about these trees that are over West Neck Creek or some of the tributaries of West Neck to try and get them out of here so the water will flow out of this area a little better. I have a good comfort level with that done that this site will actually improve the drainage on the surrounding neighborhoods so I'll be supporting this project also. I wouldn't mind putting that in a way of a motion also. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to make that a motion at this point? Barry Knight: If you have more discussion. Ronald Ripley: Okay. William Din: I'd just like to make a comment also. I think this development is a environmentally sensitive development, and I know the speakers that came up here in opposition of this may feel that they don't see how this is being environmentally safe to their area, but if you look at the map, the Castleton area, the Pine Ridge area is built right up to the property line. If those areas were developed with the same environmental Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 25 concerns of these wetlands, you probably wouldn't have the houses butted right up against this property level. A lot of these houses wouldn't be there, because they are built in the flood areas or the wetlands that this development is trying to avoid. And, that's why those areas are lower. You see the line. You see the development of Castleton and Pine Ridge, come right up to that line. Well, wetlands just didn't stop there. And, so there is a lot of thought to the environment and the concerns and how this development is built around the wetland areas and I agree with the comments with the drainage. I think it will improve the drainage overall in this area and I to will be supporting this. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: I feel compelled to say one thing. You have our staff report. My comment has to do with tree preservation. Our staff has got a lot of experience in recent times by dealing with very difficult issues like this. I must say that I would not encourage anybody to very optimistic about tree preservation on this property for two reasons. Number one, you have no tree preservation proffer. A note on the plat isn't going to do any good. By the time this is put to record most of the trees will be gone anyway. Number two, even with a tree preservation proffer, tree preservation, and drainage are sort of development opposites of one another. There's going to have to be some significant adjustment to grades in this area, and to adjust grades, you've got to clear trees. I don't want to labor the point by identifying properties for you that you've dealt with and we've dealt with recently where we've had significant tree preservations proffers on them. They're not that effective in preserving trees. The development will sometime necessitate that the trees be cleared out, and this is a piece of property, with the size of the lots that are there and with the necessity to put drainage as a top priority, same degree of manipulation I suspect is going to have to take place. I think that I would not be that optimistic about the ability to preserve trees. In the interest of fairness, I just need to say that. Ronald Ripley: I think that's a very practical statement. Charlie Salle': I have a comment. Ronald Ripley: Charlie. Charlie Salle': Bob, having brought that up, I often observed, that it seems to me that's actually what happens. You have to grade lots even where there's not even a particular drainage problem, but you grade them to meet City standards even if the drainage is not an issue, and as a result of that, the trees have to go. And, I often thought that as a property owner that I would rather have the trees on the lot and drainage problems and puddling on my property then see the trees go, but it seems to me that's just the opposite than most people. We've heard a lot of comments about standing water on people's lots and people just don't tolerate it. And, I think that message comes across so loudly for the City that they set the standards so that you have to create these standards to deal with the drainage. And, I think probably we're our worst enemy when it comes to these issues. Ronald Ripley: I don't disagree. Okay, Barry, did you want to make a motion here. Item # 19 & 20 Alcar, L.L.C. Page 26 Barry Knight: I'll make a motion on agenda Items #19 & 20, Alcar, LLC, that we approve the application as proffered. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kathy Katsias. Is there any further discussion? Then, we would like to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries. N~p No~c ~co Scole ALCAR, LLC SOUTHEASTERN PARKWAY (proposed) R-lO %'5.5 · .'.:?.::Z? :. Gpin 2404-57-3796- 56-4943 ZONING HISTORY 1. 9126/00 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion - Denied 2. 8/10/99 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Open Space Promotion - Granted 3. 3/19/84 - REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-5 Residential District - Granted 4. 3/19/84- REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District- Granted 5. 5~28~83 - REZONING - from AG-1 Agricultural District to R-8 Residential District - Granted 6. 4~25~88 - REZONING - from R-10(Open Space) Residential District to PDH2 Planned Development- Withdrawn 7. 1/28/97 - REZONING - from AG-I/AG-2 Agricultural District to R-7.5 Residential District- Granted FORM NO. F~.$. City of Virginia Beach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5676 DATE: November 25, 2003 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney B. Kay Wilso~xh FROM: DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application ALCAR, L.L.C., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 9, 2003. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated December 12, 2002, and have determined itto be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY: !!$.!il 5v~[s, t~ou~oN. ~l'ill AttEIIN & LEVY. P.C ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company T. WAYNE MOSTILER and BARBARA C. MOSTILER, Trustees FALSE CAPE ASSOCIATES, a Virginia limited partnership TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of December, 2002, by and between ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; T. WAYNE MOSTILER and BARBARA C. MOSTILER, Trustees for the T. Wayne Mostiler, D.D.S., Ltd. Employees Pension Plan and Trustees for the T. Wayne Mostiler, D.D.S., Ltd. Employees Profit-Sharing Plan, Grantor, party of the second part; FALSE CAPE ASSOCIATES, a Virginia limited partnership, Grantor, party cf the third part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the fourth part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel cf property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 48.27 acres and described as "Parcel One" in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with Parcel "Two" and "Three" is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of two (2) certain parcels cf property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 64.05 acres and described as "Parcel Two" and "Parcd Three" in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcels, along with "Parcel One" is herein referred to as the "Property"; and GPIN: 2404-37-1633 2404-57-3796 2404-56-4943 PREPARED BY: AIt[I~N & [~v'Y. P.C. WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Propert5 and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-10 Residentiai District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development: of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation: and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometime,'; incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and thc need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of thc Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-10 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming PREPARED BY: ~,11t SY~[S. t]OU~DON. i~illl )dt[~N & kv/v. p.e. under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns. grantee, and other successors in interest or title and which will not be required of the, Grantors until the Property is developed: 1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property whicl't is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept iPlan"). 2. When the Property is developed, approximately 22.7 acres of parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open Space" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association. When the. Property is developed, playground equipment and neighborhood park improvements meeting the City's Department of Parks and Recreation Standards shall be installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the Concept Plan. 3. When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres of land designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the Cit:~ of Virginia Beach for inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park. 4. When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Homeowners Association which shall, among othe:: things maintain the Open Space areas. 5. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall incorporate architectural features, design elements and high quality building materials substantially similar in quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs labeled "Typical Home Elevations AT NIMMOS QUAY" dated December 12, 2002 which haw~. been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet. of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage. PREPARED BY: ~.~1 SYIdES. t~OURDON 6. When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part shall construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway Phase V~A CIP 2-121 in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's engineering standards for the roadway, within the existing Nimmo Parkway public right of way extending eas! approximately 2560+ feet from the entrance to the subdivision to connect with the existing improved Nimmo Parkway road section. 7. When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to serve the subdivision, including possible construction of an off-site sewage pump station. 8. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by ali_ cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-10 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and. Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed anq accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shalt 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 thc 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 thc 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 thc 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 PREPARED BY: SYKES. ROtIRDON. AItERN ,& lEVY. 2{7. instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for th~.· review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: A~N & Lk~vV. p.e. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: "AI~ S. Resh, Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day December, 2002, by Alan S. Resh, Member of ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limitec! liability company. ,1._, /' ,//' / ? , ..', / -, .-~ ~....'v",/' ,"...,l../.... Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY: §YIi[~. POUPDON, AIt[RN & lIVY. P.C. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: T. Wayn~ Mostiler, Trustee . Barbara C. Mostiler, Trustee STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2002, by T. Wayne Mostiler, Trustee. Notary Public (~ My Commission Expires: ~/'~~ day of STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2002, by Barbara C. Mostiler, Trustee. Notary Publi~ My Commission Expires: ~/~ t~ (~ ?t'~d ay of PREPARED BY: ~.lit SYKES. t~OURDON ~l'l~ AttERN & LEVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: FALSE CAPE ASSOCIATES, a Virginia~l.[mited/,~_ t partnership :"'~. ~ ff t J ~' ~ · , ~ . ~ , !?------~-"i /:~ ,/ ... By', -_~,- ~., c..~/"~d 't ..... ~ .(.d~.' ~:,~ (SEAL) Dougla~iTalbot, General Partner STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20th day of December, 2002, by Douglas Talbot, General Partner of False Cape Associates, a Virginia limited partnership. · ~ .. { .' ,.~'~- '2 · i · /,.' :-.--, ,. "-.,.~..",.~. ~'~, .,"'!,' ,z"';,' ''''~',,'- '." ';~'".~"" ' ~":;" ,~ .,; .! c.:., ',' -' . , . ;....."-' Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 EXHIBIT 'A' PREPARED BY: SYKES. ~OURDON. AIt[RN 8, LtTY. P.C. PARCEL ONE: That certain tract or parcel of land containing 50.955 acres, more or less, being bounded on the North by the property now or formerly belonging to the Marie E. Bratten Estate and T.C.C. Development Co., on the East by the property now or formerly belonging to Harry L. Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, and being bounded on the South by the property now or formerly belonging to Willis Brown and being bounded on the West by the property now or formerly belonging to Maury F. Rigant~) and Grace T. Riganto, and being further described as follows: BEGINNING at a 21-inch cypress located at a common corner between the property now or formerly belonging to the Marie E. Bratten Estate and Maury F. Riganto anti Grace T. Riganto, and running thence North 74 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East 293.92 feet to a pipe, North 74 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds East 199.08 feet an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 28 seconds East 460.48 feet to an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds East 618.23 feet to a pipe, North 75 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds East 1,900.72 feet to a pipe, and North 74 degree's 06 minutes 46 seconds East 135.60 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence turning and running South 47 degrees 11 minutes 44 seconds East 86.92 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 05 degrees 54 minutes 06 seconds East 113.50 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 36 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West 131.95 feet, thence South 20 degrees 5:3 minutes 54 seconds West 91.11 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 48 degrees 29 minutes 10 seconds West 223.72 feet to a point in the Eastern edge of Brown Town Road, thence South 11 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds West 324.92 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch located in the Eastern edge of the Brown Town Road, thence turning and running South 75 degrees 213 minutes 42 seconds West 1,128.71 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 74 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West 1,250.65 feet to an 18-incl~ maple, thence turning and running North 59 degrees 18 minutes 31 seconds West 734.65 feet to a 7-inch cypress, thence North 39 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West 37.22 feet to a 12-inch cypress, thence North 67 degrees 54 minutes 01 second West 281.79 feet to a 21-inch cypress, the Point of Beginning. GPIN: 2404-37-1633 PARCEL TWO: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying, being and situate in Princess Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County) City cf Virginia Beach, Virginia, and bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a pine located at the corner of property now or formerly belonging to Brown, Roper and Wright's heirs and running thence N 11 3/4 degrees W. 2.64 chains PREPARED BY: ~illl Att[t~N ,& LDo,(. P.C. to a pine stump; thence N 43 degrees W 1.10 chains to a pine; thence N 73 1/2 degrees W 2.87 chains to a pine stump; thence N 82 1/2 degrees W 2.45 chains to pine stump; thence N 73 degrees W 4.06 chains to a pine; thence N 62 V2 degrees VI 2.81 chains to a pine stump hole; thence N 31 V2 degrees W 3.44 chains to a station on the south side o:f a ditch at the Browntown Bridge; thence N 56 degrees E 1.44 chains to a station on the south side of a lead ditch; thence N 70 3/4 degrees E 1.54 chains to an unmarked cypress on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 79 ~/h degrees E 2.30 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 5'7 1/2 degrees E 4.37 chains to a station on the south side of said le. ad ditch; thence N 55 V2 degrees E 1.74 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thenc..~ N 81 V4 degrees E 3.53 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch; thence N 67 3/4 degrees E 1.50 chains to a station on the south side of said lea~t ditch; thence N 57 degrees E 1.16 chains to a station on the south side of said lea{t ditch; thence S 72 V~ degrees E 2.42 chains to a stone at the corner of property now or formerly belonging to Roper's Rail Road and the property of Lamb in the line cf property now or formerly belonging to Brown; thence S 14 3/4 degrees W 3.22 chains to a station in the line of said railroad; thence S V4 degree W 12.69 chains to a stone in the line of said railroad at the corner of property belonging to Lamb; thence S 8'~ V2 degrees W .47 chains to a sweet gum; thence S 87 V~ degrees W 1.62 chains the point of beginning and containing 16 acres and 37 poles more', or less. Excepting from the above is a parcel conveying by deed to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia from Harry L. Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, husband and wife, for a roadway, said Deed being recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 1098, at Page 545, containin~ 2.690 acres, more or less, known and designated as Parcel 008 (Courthouse-Indian River Road Extended). GPIN: 2404-56-4943 PARCEL THREE: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying in "Brown Town" in Princess Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District) City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a cypress a.t Brown Town Bridge, and running North 44 degrees W 2.3:3 chains to a pine; thence N 29 degrees W 2.67 chains to a post; thence N 10 degrees W 1.89 chains to a pine; thence N 9 3/4 degrees W 2.19 chains to a pine stump; thence 6 V4 degrees W 4.61 chains to a pine; thence N 1 V4 degrees E 2.06 chains a pine; thence N 34 degrees E 4.46 chains to a pine; thence N 38 V4 degrees E 4.82 chains to an oak; thence N 58 degrees E 3.18 chains to a beech; thence N 46 degrees E 2.13 chains to a gum stump; thence N 86 3/~ degrees E 18.31 chains to post; thence S 6 3/4 degrees E 5.81 chains on line ditch; thence S 7 3/4 W 12.1'z chains to a stone on line ditch; thence along said ditch S 73 1/4 degrees W 1.43 chains; thence S 47 degrees W 2.08 chains; thence N 78 V~ degrees W 1.33 chains; thence S 58 V4 degrees W 1.23 chains; thence N 74 3/4 degrees W 2.01 chains; 10 PREPARED BY: AtI[12N & L[TY. P.C. thence S 60 1/4 degrees W 2.06 chains; thence S 71 1/4 degrees W .76 chain; thenc~ S 89 degrees W 3.43 chains; thence S 55 degrees W 3.86 chains; thence S 63 1/4 degrees W 2.53 chains; thence S 81 degrees W 2.65 chains; thence S 70 degrees V~ 2.13 chains; thence S 57 degrees W 1.07 chains to beginning, containing fifty-si} acres and one rod, more or less and bounded by the lands now or formerly belongin~ to Willis Brown, and Boston Brown and Jno. L. Brown. GPIN: 2404-57-3796 CONDREZONE/ALCAR/PROFFER 11 Map G-8 Not t,o Stole Kenneth A. Hall ei ,? < CUP Motor Vehicle Sales & Service Zoning Change - from I-? to B-2 A =q 2 I # I DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 2-27-01 4-13-99 11-25- 85 2 1-9-96 3 6-10-03 11-13- 01 10-12- 99 10-13- 98 4 9-26-77 5-6-65 Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) Conditional Use Permit (Bulk Storage) Conditional Use Permit (Church - Expansion) Conditional Use Permit (Church) Conditional Use Permit (Church) Conditional Use Permit (Church) Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to I-1 Light Industrial) Conditional Use Permit (Multiple-family dwellings) Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Kenneth A. Hall - Change of Zoning District Classification (I-1 Light Industrial District to B-2 Community Business District); Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales and service) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 · Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Kenneth A. Hall for a Chanqe of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District to B-2 Community Business District on property located at 3500 Holland Road. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. (GPINS 14867355190000; 14867337890000). DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL An Ordinance upon Application of Kenneth A. Hall for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and service on property located at 3500 Holland Road (GPINS 14867355190000; 14867337890000). DISTRICT 3- ROSE HALL Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of the site from I-1 Light Industrial district to B-2 Community Business district and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales and Service. This will be an expansion to the existing Hall Acura located south of the site, and will be used for vehicle display. This parcel was recently subdivided out of the parcel to the southwest, which currently is used for an AutoZone store. The submitted preliminary site plan depicts 73 parking spaces, a sub-surface stormwater management facility and landscaping. A thirty-foot ingress / egress easement exists from Holland Road to the site. The Planning Commission placed the items on the consent agenda because it is an appropriate use for the site and is the expansion of an existing dealership. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the requests. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9--0 to approve the requests with the following conditions: Kenneth A. Hall Page 2 of 2 . The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "Proposed Additional Vehicle Inventory Parking for Hall Mitsubishi of Virginia Beach", prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., and dated 9/15/05. Said plan has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. . A solid wooden fence shall be installed along the inside border of the required 15-foot landscape buffer between this use and the adjacent residential areas. Category VI screening shall be installed within the buffer area. 3. The applicant shall submit a site lighting plan with the site plan for review by Staff. All lighting fixtures shall be designed to prevent any direct reflection and / or glare toward adjacent uses and City streets. Lighting shall be directed at the ground and not out horizontally or toward the sky. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 14 feet. 4. No outdoor loudspeaker paging system shall be permitted. . There shall be no parking of vehicles within the 30-foot ingress / egress easement that runs from Holland Road to the boundary of the subject site with the adjoining property to the southwest. 6. There shall be no pennants, streamers, balloons, portable signs or banners displayed on the site or the vehicles. 7. Vehicles shall be parked within the designated areas, and no vehicles shall be parked or displayed within any portion of any public right-of-way or in any landscaped area. No vehicles shall be displayed on ramps. Vehicles shall not be used as barriers to prevent ingress or egress of the site. Storage of vehicles awaiting sale shall not obstruct Fire Department access to the site. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager-4~ [~--. , ~~ G09-213-CUP-2003 KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 & # 17 January 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this app#cation. ~.,~¢:~ ~ ..- . .... ;; ~~ .......................................... ~. Location and General information ' REQUEST: LOCATION: (16) Change of Zoninq District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District to B-2 Community Business District (17) Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales and Service Property located at 3500 Holland Road Map G-8 Kenneth A. Hall .,-- ,.'~ · ,,.,.,, '~',.:;.' ,~... , ~",. ~:' , ~/ ~ ,'~' .. (:UP Motor Vehicle Sales & Service Zonin,lf Change - from I-1 to B-2 GPIN' COUNCIL 14867355190000; 14867337890000 KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 & # 17 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 3 - ROSE HALL 37,632 square feet Undeveloped parcel North: South: East: West: Multiple-family dwellings and townhouses / A-12 and A-18 Apartment districts · Auto Zone retail store and Holland Road / B-2 Business and I-1 Industrial · Across Holland Road is Lowes and a retail strip center / B-2 Business · Motor Vehicle Sales and Service / B-2 Business · Retail strip center and multiple-family dwellings / B- 2 Business and A-18 Apartment There are no significant natural resources or known cultural features on the site. The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summa of proposa-' lI The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of the site from I-1 Light Industrial district to B-2 Community Business district and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales and Service. This will be an expansion to the existing Hall Acura located south of the site, and will be used for vehicle display. This parcel was recently subdivided out of the Auto Zone site, located southwest of the site. The submitted preliminary site plan depicts 73 parking spaces, a sub-surface storm water management facility and landscaping. A thirty-foot ingress / egress easement exists from Holland Road to the site. KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 &.# 17 Page 2 ECT SITE 'r~ 4.,~,a:$ J The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. Compatibility with the existing uses surrounding the site. Consistency with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan Map for the area. KENNETH A. HALL Agenda items # 16 & # 17 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan '. The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends this area for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The proposed Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit requests for Motor Vehicle Sales and Service are compatible with the surrounding uses, provided adequate buffering is provided adjacent to the residential areas. (2) The proposed Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit requests for Motor Vehicle Sales and Service are consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the immediate area. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request with the following conditions as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Conditions 1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "Proposed Additional Vehicle Inventory Parking for Hall Mitsubishi of Virginia Beach", prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., and dated 9/15/03. Said plan has been exhibited to the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 & # 17 Page 4 , , A solid wooden fence shall be installed along the inside border of the required 15-foot landscape buffer between this use and the adjacent residential areas. Category VI screening shall be installed within the buffer area. The applicant shall submit a site lighting plan with the site plan for review by Staff. All lighting fixtures shall be designed to prevent any direct reflection and / or glare toward adjacent uses and City streets. Lighting shall be directed at the ground and not out horizontally or toward the sky. ©utdoor lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 14 feet. 4. No outdoor loudspeaker paging system shall be permitted. , , , There shall be no parking of vehicles within the 30-foot ingress / egress easement that runs from Holland Road to the boundary of the subject site with the adjoining property to the southwest. There shall be no pennants, streamers, balloons, portable signs or banners displayed on the site or the vehicles. Vehicles shall be parked within the designated areas, and no vehicles shall be parked or displayed within any portion of any public right-of-way or in any landscaped area. No vehicles shall be displayed on ramps. Vehicles shall not be used as barriers to prevent ingress or egress of the site. Storage of vehicles awaiting sale shall not obstruct Fire Department access to the site. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 & #.. 17 Page 5 Supplemental Information"~i Map G-8 Not to Scale Zonin.q History Kenneth A. Hall 2 Bi CUP Motor Vehicle Sales & Service Zoning Change - from I-1 to B-2 A ~2 # I DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 2-27-01 4-13-99 11-25- 85 1-9-96 6-10-03 11-13- 01 Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) Conditional Use Permit (Bulk Storage) Conditional Use Permit (Church- Expansion) Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 &..# 17 Page 6 10-12- 99 10-13- 98 9-26-77 5-6-65 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Conditional Use Permit (Church) Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to I-1 Light Industrial) Conditional Use Permit (Multiple-family dwellings) Approved Approved Approved Approved Public A.qency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Holland Road in front of this site is a four-lane divided urban arterial. It is shown on the Master Transportation Plan as a divided 100-foot right-of-way. The Holland Road Phase VII Capital Improvement Project, CIP 2- 008, will improve this section of Holland Road to a six- lane divided road with a 130-foot width. The proposed improvements currently are not funded. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z 32,587 27,400 - - 11 Holland Road ADT ~ 31,700 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 1,300 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by existing I-1 Industrial property as defined by Motor Vehicle Sales and Service Public Utilities Water: There is a 16-inch City water main in Holland Road, and an eight- inch City water main in Diana Lee Drive. The site is connected to City water. ISewer: There is an eight-inch gravity sanitary sewer main in Diana Lee Drive. The site is connected to City sewer. KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 & # 17 Page 7 Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: Security for ingress and egress must be approved by the Fire Marshal so that Fire Department access is not obstructed. Vehicles must not be uses as barriers to prevent ingress or egress to the site. KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 & # .17 Page 8 -. . # ® Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan , i ,i KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 & # 17 Page 10 NOIJ~VJI"'IddY 9NINOZE~d NOIjLVDITd~ 9NINOZ~ Exhibit C Disclosure Statement KENNETH A. HALL Agenda Items # 16 &. # 17 Pag.e' 11 Item #16 & 17 Kenneth A. Hall Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit 3500 Holland Road District 3 Rose Hall January 14, 2004 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: Our last two consent items are Items # 16 & 17, an application of Kenneth Hall. Item #16 is an Ordinance upon Application of Kenneth Hall fora Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial to B-2 Community Business, and Item #17 is an application of Mr. Hall, a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and service on property located at 3500 Holland Road. These are in the Rose Hall District with seven conditions. Billy Garrington: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, for the record, Billy Garrington here on behalf of the applicant Mr. Kenneth Hall, who as you all know, is the owner of Hall Auto World here in Virginia Beach. There are seven conditions attached to this request. We are in agreement with all seven. Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Item #16 & 17 application for Kenneth Hall? Hearing none. Joe, would you iplease tell us about this one. Joseph Strange: Sure Dot. The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of the site from I-1 Light Industrial to B-2 Community Business District and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and service. Since this is only going to be an expansion of the existing Hall Acura located south of the site, it will be used strictly for vehicle display. We don't find any problem with this as far as how it relates to the Comprehensive Plan that we've just drawn up. And, we don't see where it is incompatible with any existing uses surrounding the site so therefore we're recommending it for consent. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve these items on the consent agenda, Items #16 & 17 with seven conditions. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve these consent agenda items. Do we have a second? William Din: Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Will Din. We're ready to vote. Item #16 & 17 Kenneth A. Hall Page 2 AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT I ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0, these consent agenda items pass. ~a~e ~-~ MP W/LKW L.L. C. Ma Scale Conditional Zoning from R-lO to Conditional 0-I # I DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 09-23-03 09-23-97 Conditional Use Permit (church addition & preschool) Conditional Use Permit (parking lot expansion) Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales) Granted Granted 2 10-17-95 Denied CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MPWILKW, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification (R-10 Residential District to Conditional O-1 Office District) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of MPW/LKW, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to Conditional O-1 Office District on property located at 2005 Pleasure House Road (GPIN 14793673900000). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Considerations: The applicant wishes to rezone this 0.275 acre site from Residential to Office. The application states that the existing single-family dwelling will be demolished. A 1,400 square foot, one-story office building will be constructed on the site. The ingress and egress will continue to be to and from Pleasure House Road. The Comprehensive Plan's policies for this portion of the Primary Residential Area recognize the need to preserve and protect the character and aesthetic quality of the adjacent neighborhoods. The Plan provides for limited uses that are consistent with the land use policies and principles established for the Primary Residential Area provided that impacts of the proposed use, its scale and relationship to existing land uses, both residential and non-residential, are all considered. One of the leading factors in the Staff's position is that the building design, screening and buffering all contribute to providing a good transition from the Iow to moderately dense residential properties to the south to the more commercial, B-2 zoned properties to the north.The proposed one-story, 1,400 square foot structure is residential is character, scale, appearance and design. The architecture selected is complementary to the adjacent residential properties. The proposed building materials (vinyl shingle and horizontal siding, brick skirting, etc.) are reflective of an old style cottage and are in concert with the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that this small scale office use is appropriate for this site and feels that the office will not intrude on or compromise the nearby residents' quality of life in terms of increased traffic activity, architecture, or scale and relationship to existing structures. At the request of the Planning Commission and citizens in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant agreed to submit a revised plan showing that a six-foot high solid fence would be installed along the southern and MPW/LKW Page 2 of 2 western boundaries. That revised plan has been submitted to the Staff and is included in this package. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-0 with 1 abstention 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 DepartmentJAgency' Planning Department~~ '~ City Menagerie-o¢'~~ E03-212-CRZ-2003 MPW/LKW, LLC Agenda Item # 12 January 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Locati~ REQUEST: Chan,qe of Zoninq District Classification from R-10 Residential District to Conditional O-1 Office District. LOCATION' Property located on 2005 Pleasure House Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION 14793673900000 MPW/LKW, L,'L.C. Agenda Item:.#...12 p.ag:e...1 DISTRICT: 4 - BAYSIDE SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING' NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 0.275 Acres Single-family dwelling North' South: East: West: · Veterinarian office / B-2 Community Business District · Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential District · Pleasure House Road and Church / R-lO Residential District · Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential District The site is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. There are no significant environmental features on this site. The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The applicant wishes to rezone this 0.275 acre site from Residential to Office. The application states that the existing single-family dwelling will be demolished. ^ 1,400 square foot, one-story office building will be constructed on the site. The ingress and egress will continue to be to and from Pleasure House Road. MPW/LKVV, L.;:LC. Agenda Item.:':~,, 12 P.a~e. 2 Major Issues The foflowing represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. · Compatibility with surrounding land uses. Comprehensive ::Plan' l The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of the City as "Primary Residential Area." The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. Established uses, scale, and relationship of land uses, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. 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 MPW/LKW, L.;:b.C. Agenda Item.....;#,...12 Pa~:e 3 this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 When the property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled, "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT & PLAN OF MPW/LKW ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., 2005 Pleasure House Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia," prepared by MSA, P.C., dated 10/15/03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). PROFFER # 2 The architectural design of the office building depicted on the Site Plan will be as depicted on the exhibit entitled, "PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING, MPW/LKW ASSOCIATES, L.UC.", dated 10-15-03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. PROFFER # 3 All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. PROFFER # 4 Any freestanding sign shall be monument style, no greater than six feet (6') in height with a brick base matching the brick on the exterior of the Office Building. Staff Evaluation of Proffers: The proffers ensure that the development on this site will be reflective of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines and provide a good transition use to the more commercial properties to the north. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 30, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. i ii i ii i iiii MPW/LKW, L:L.C. Agenda ltem.::~:..12 -- R4'g'e 4 Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are The Comprehensive Plan's policies for this portion of the Primary Residential Area do recognize the need to preserve and protect the character and aesthetic quality of the adjacent neighborhoods. However, it does provide for limited uses that are consistent with the land use policies and principles established for the Primary Residential Area provided that impacts of the proposed use, its scale and relationship to existing land uses, both residential and non-residential, are all considered. One of the leading factors in the Staff's position is that the building design, screening and buffering all contribute to providing a good transition from the Iow to moderately dense residential properties to the south to the more commercial, B-2 zoned properties to the north. The proposed one-story, 1,400 square foot structure is residential is character, scale, appearance and design. The architecture selected is complementary to the adjacent residential properties. The proposed building materials (vinyl shingle and horizontal siding, brick skirting, etc.) are reflective of an old style cottage and are in concert with the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that this small scale office use is appropriate for this site and feels that the office will not intrude on or compromise the nearby residents' quality of life in terms of increased traffic activity, architecture, or scale and relationship to existing structures. (2) The consistency with the Comprehensive Plan principles gets to the heart of the whether this proposal is compatible with the adjacent properties. Had the request been made for a more intensive unrestrictive retail use, as allowed with B-2 zoning for example, it is very likely that Staff's position would be quite different. Again, a small-scale office such as proposed, is a good transition from the residential adjoining this parcel to the B-2 parcels to the north. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. MBW/LKVV, bi'b.C. Agenda Item # 12 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 a[~plicable City Codes. MPW/LKVV, L..iL.C. Agenda Item #...12. Page 6 Supplemental Informational Zoning History MPW/LKW L.L.C. Conditional Zoning from R-lO to Conditional 0-1 I# I DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 09-23-03 09-23-97 10-17-95 Conditional Use Permit (church addition & preschool) Conditional Use Permit (parking lot expansion) Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales) Granted Granted Denied Agenda Item:~. 12 Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Pleasure House Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a two (2)lane undivided suburban arterial. It is designated in the MTP as a 70 foot wide right-of-way undivided facility. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z Pleasure House 13,6000 16,200 - 10 ADT Road - 16,000 ~ ADT ~ ^DT Proposed Land Use 3_ 15 ADT ~ Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by one (1) single-family dwelling 3 as defined by a 1,400 square foot office building Public Utilities Water: There is a 12-inch City water main in Pleasure House Road. This site does have a 5/8-inch water meter that may be used or upgraded. Sewer: There is a 10-inch gravity sewer main in Pleasure House Road. This site is connected to sewer. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue' The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and , strategies as they pertain to this site. IObtain necessary permits from the Department of Planning / Permits & Inspections Division. MPW/LKW, Li'.L.C. Agenda Item.#~ 1.2 Page.8 Exhibits 3: Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location i MPW/LKW, L:L.C. .. A§enda Item. ~:.. 12 R.age.9 Exhibit A2 Aerial of Site Location IDi=TAI[_~ MPW/LKVV, L'i.L.C. Agenda Item#..12 Page'.!' 10 Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan 0 ('50'" MPW/LKVV, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 12 Page 11 Exhibit D Proposed Building Elevation :BNTt~-,"r'' BLEV'ATION MPW/LKW, L;::b.C. Agenda Item..#,. 12 P.~lg'e':':..12 Exhibit E Disclosure Statement · · . ........................ I i i iii'gl i III MPW/LKW, Li.L.C. Agenda Item.."#~..12 P..a:g'e:'!!~' 13 Exhibit £2 Disclosure Statement N0.I~¥3I~~ 9~IINO~Z~t ~NOI~LICINO3 MPW/LKVV, L.:,'L.C. Agenda Item#..12. Page' 1.4 Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification 2005 Pleasure House Road District 4 Bayside January 14, 2004 REGULAR Robert Miller: The next item is Item #12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. This is a piece of property located on Pleasure House Road, north of Northampton Boulevard between Northampton Boulevard and Shore Drive on the west side of Pleasure House Road. The property as it exists today as a single-family residential dwelling, which has been there for decades. It fronts on Pleasure House Road, which in this area, is an arterial, not a major arterial but it's not a residential street. In fact, between Northampton Boulevard and Shore Drive, this section of Pleasure House Road there are no ihomes located on the east side and there is only this home on this property that is the subject of this application. And a home located just to the south here in Bradford Terrace, as you can see Bradford Terrace is a residential neighborhood. This is the only home with the exception of the one that is before you that exists on Pleasure House Road. This subject property is bounded to the north by property that is zoned B-2. There is a veterinary clinic that is located 'here north of us, and additional B-2 development on both. sides as you head north towards Shore iDrive. The application is a tightly proffered conditional application for O-1 with a specific plan and specific building elevations. It's a very attractive residentially styled structure. It looks like a home. You can see it in the elevations. The staff has recommended approval of this. Again, it can only be used as a business office in the O-1 zoning category. It's a perfect transition between the B-2 to the north and the residential that abuts us to the south and also to the west. The property has been owned by the owners who contracted the sale to my clients for many, many years, and they have tried to sell the property for many, many years and those of you who have seen it recognize its time for redevelopment on this piece of property. It's been the subject to a number of applications. I think a car dealership and some others have tried to rezone this piece of property in the past. Those were too intense. This is not an intense use. There will be no storage on the property. Mr. Warner is here. It is his company that will be using this as an office. There are three employees. They're all family members. The family lives in Baylake Pines right down the street. We designed this in conjunction with the staff to meet the Shore Drive Guidelines in terms of the aesthetics. The traffic generated is minimal. Frankly, it's less than a lot of homes will generate. The only people who will come here are clients for whom the company might be building a home. Again, most of that is done now with fax machines. This is not a great deal of traffic. Most of the work, in fact the company doesn't own equipment. They sub work out. There won't be any storage there. It can't be done anyway and understand it won't be done. The owners of the property, one of them Mr. Rafal, just passed away a couple of weeks ago and he has been trying to sell this property for quite some time. He is fairly Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 2 well known as the proprietor of a restaurant on Granby Street across from the Federal Courthouse that is renowned for having some of the best hotdogs in Hampton Roads. The family needs to sell the property. This is, I think a perfect transitional type of development on the property. The staff has recommended approval. We certainly concur with their recommendation. We have not had any dialogue and we weren't aware there would be objection to something of this nature on this property given its location. Again, I don't know if you could come up with a better use. The specifics of it cannot change in the future without coming back through this entire process. It's not opening any doors to B-2 coming further to the south along this section of Pleasure House Road. We don't see that there would be any reason to object. Mr. Warner will be the one who's there most of the time managing the business affairs of the company. They don't keep long hours. They don't have any noise or odors generated by the business. Ronald Ripley: Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, I just want to make sure and I have a construction company. We have trucks. I just wanted to make sure they wouldn't have dump trucks and pickup trucks and all the trucks that come with a normal construction company. Eddie Bourdon: Not this construction company. I had that conversation with Mr. Warner. He won't have any dump trucks or heavy equipment. There won't be any trucks parked out there in the parking lot. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: There might be a truck that comes for a delivery but there's rio storage there. There will be no major vehicles there. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Mr. Bourdon, will you address the landscaping plan on the perimeters specifically adjacent to the neighborhoods'? Eddie Bourdon: We've got heavy landscaping on the south and the west adjacent to the residential. Ronald Ripley: What is the nature of the landscaping? Eddie Bourdon: Category #II, I believe. In terms of the plant material, I don't know if we proffered specific type of plant material. We'll work with staff and/or the neighbors if they've got some specifics on what they like. Actually, I misspoke. It's a Category #IV landscaping. Ronald Ripley: Category #IV. Good. Item #12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 3 Eddie Bourdon: Category #IV, adjacent to the residential. In terms of plant material we have not specified but it is a heavy landscaped screening but we haven't specified a type of plant material. It would be something consistent with what the Shore Drive Guidelines recommend. Ronald Ripley: This is a new building. You're taking down a building and your putting back up a brand new building? Eddie Bourdon: That is correct. Redevelopment of the site and frankly, it will obviously be a far more attractive structure than the one that exists presently. Ronald Ripley: I am sure you sited the house north to be as far away from residents as possible? Eddie Bourdon: Exactly, it's closest to the B-2 that adjoins us to the north, which is where the veterinary clinic is. That was the best place to site it. I'm not saying it couldn't be flipped but we think it's the best way. Ronald Ripley: And that's B-27 Mr. Scott, just to the north? Robert Scott: It's B-2 just to the north. Eddie Bourdon: I think it's an appropriate transitional land use on this unique piece of property along that section of road. I don't have much else that I can add. They didn't expect to have any controversy. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Robert Miller: We do have opposition. Kelly Olt? Kelly Olt: Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Olt and I own the property at 4804 Sheldon Drive, which is the second property off of Pleasure House Road. Today is the first time that I have seen the plans and elevations of the proposed use for the property. I do have some concerns and questions. My concern is that I bought this property about five months ago and I have my own plans to better my residential property to increase the value of the home that is there. Currently, it's a one story single-family house. My concerns are that number one, is that I see he has addressed the trees that are along the side property line. He did not give a specific type of tree, however height would be an issue for us. I do not see, unless you went back to a fence would there be a fence around the property? It was addressed earlier that some uses for business generate crime. People sneaking in just to find out what is there and see what they can steal. I'm concerned about vandalism with a business that close to the residences, myself and the other two properties that are directly adjacent to us. I have concerns with the trees. How high are those trees going to be? I also have concerns with the number of cars that are going to be exiting on to Pleasure House Road. There is currently one driveway. It's my understanding that there is one person that lives there, one car possibly two depending on Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 4 who's visiting. The plan showed and I couldn't see very well but I thought I saw at least five parking spaces, perhaps with a handicap, six parking spaces including the handicap parking. I'm concerned about the number of cars that will be exiting onto Pleasure House Road. Currently, if you pull off of Northampton you will see that traffic backs up. Everybody is just trying to get onto Sheldon and the other road close to it. Will there be a sign out front? Lighting on the site is also a concern. How will that affect the back of the house? Our property' is very close to this property. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mr. Scott, can you describe what the Category IV landscaping is? I think you want the intensity of that to be the best buffering it can be. Stephen White: It's a combination of trees and shrubs intermixed. No fence. Ronald Ripley: No fence. They are staggered in their placements. They really grow up to be thick and a good buffer. That's important for Ms. Olt to know that. But there is no fence? Okay. How about a sign? Is there a sign planned? Stephen White: Proffer #4, a six-foot tall monument style fence. Ronald Ripley: Gotcha. Sign? Stephen White: Sign. Sorry. Ronald Ripley: No problem. Ms. Olt: What would be the height of the growth? Ronald Ripley: Okay. We'll get that one readdressed. Typically the Category #IV can get to be as high as you want them. Robert Miller: Thomas Kayton. Thomas Kayton: Yes sir. I'm Thomas Kayton. I've been a resident down at Chesapeake Beach all my life. And in the 48 years that I've been down there, I've seen it quadruple and people with the high density housing that they're putting in and everything. I've seen many businesses go up within blocks of this. I've seen a Kroger, an old age home, an Advance, a Wal-Greens. All of this has created a traffic problem so bad that I can hardly get out of my driveway half the time. I do have a back driveway that exits right onto Pleasure House Road. I'm adjacent to this property. The 48 years that I've been here I've seen vast improvements done to everything but the road. I think we need to make improvements to the road before we make any improvements in rezoning for business. The density down there has gotten out of hand. We need to keep all the property that is zoned for single-family residential property zoned single-family residential property. I thank you for your consideration. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 5 Robert Miller: David Benns. David Benns: My name is David Benns. I am the current property owner of the other one, the house right there with the driveway that comes out onto Pleasure House Road. I'm also looking at purchasing another house back in the neighborhood at one of these lots in the upcoming week. I'm just concerned about the development in the area. I would like to see the housing stay as single-family homes. This has concerned me in the past. I grew up in Baylake Pines so I've grown up in this area. About all the condos that are going in and the growth and overcrowding. I remember when it was not a traffic jam to get down Shore Drive. I'm concerned about the traffic on Pleasure House Road, as it exists today and about widening it because if it is widened, how is that going to encroach on my property? What is that going to do to the sound buffer and things that I currently have there? Is it going to destroy my residence that I've been currently renovating? I've taken carpets out and then had all the hardwood floors refinished so the house looks like it used to back in 1953 when it was built. I just spent my Christmas time redoing one of the other rooms and putting the hardwood floors and trying to make it match. I don't want to have my investment wasted by someone else's gain. I'm wondering where it will stop. Is this other comer house going to get turned into the next Wawa because it's on the comer of Northampton and Pleasure House? Those are my concerns. I have a petition. I'm not sure what I need to do with it. There are 74 names on it of neighbors in opposition. Ronald Ripley: Do you have a copy of that? David Benns: I think this copy is for you? Is that correct? Kelly Olt: No. David Benns: It's not. Ronald Ripley: We'll be happy to look at it and if you want it back and give us a copy that will be fine, if you want to do that? David Benns: Okay. Ronald Ripley: The reason why I asked is that I want to make sure you hang on to that petition. Your next step would be City Council. It might get lossed up here. David Benns: I would like to say that I am pleased to see that they have addressed some of the concerns. They're not trying to put construction equipment in there. They have looked at the placement of the house and things like that. That is nice to see. And, I'm mainly here to just express my concern about the development in the area. And, I don't want it to run to rampant and I hope you can consider us the small neighborhoods and things and decisions that are made. Ronald Ripley: Sure. We appreciate you coming down. Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 6 David Benns: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to pass that around? We'll make sure you get that back. That is all the speakers. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Let me begin by saying that I to do appreciate the fact that these folks have come down. My client did check and we did as well to try to ascertain if there was a civic league. There is none registered with the city so we were not in a position to be able to make contact with the community, which we did endeavor to do. We could have gone door to door. I'm glad these folks came down. I got the chance to hear their concerns. First of all, from a land use perspective there's no comparison to what we're proposing and a Wawa. Again, what's important to note is that we're adjacent to B-2 that extends from this property line of this property north and we're not extending the "B" zoning any further, in fact, I think this is the perfect transition from the B-2 to the R-10 with our Comprehensive Plan's desire to maintain this as R-10. I don't think there's a chance of a snowball surviving before any B-2 that will come in on this piece of property nor do I think there's any chance that this is going to change to a multi- family. It's an established, neighborhood. Unfortunately, this piece of property that we're dealing with is not on a residential street and is not totally surrounded by residential development. What we're doing is putting in a development that will be extremely low intensity. Again, I would repeat with three employees who are all three members of the family. The traffic that will occur will be less traffic than many homes generate. The signage that is proposed on Pleasure House Road is a six-foot monument sign externally lit. It will only be externally lit. Realistically, we may not even put up a sign.. We may just have a sign on the building itself. We felt like the small externally lit sign would be even better than putting a sign on the building. The building does look very much like a house. It is not a densification, if there is such a word, of this area. In our opinion it's not going to change the character of the adjacent neighborhood. We are willing, if that is what the adjoining property owners like, we would also be willing to put up a fence. The dense landscaping, which is a Category #IV will grow up to be 8-10 feet in height. We believe it's sufficient but we're not adverse that's there is a desire to put up a fence but then they won't get the benefit of having the landscaping or seeing the landscaping because they will be seeing the fence. We're not adverse. We think that would be the preference of those who adjoin us. Ronald Ripley: Are there any further questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: And the last thing is the lighting. This is an office building. The light will be akin to what you have in a residence. There may be some ground level lighting up at the building which you see in a lot of nice homes but this is not going to be a situation where there would be lighting because we're not going to have clients coming at night or anything like that so there is no liability issues that create the need for us to do any lighting other than what you have again basically in the residential dwelling. Ronald Ripley: Kathy Katsias has a question. Item #12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 7 Kathy Katsias: Mr. Bourdon, on the other existing B-2 property is there a fence that is separating the residential community? Eddie Bourdon: To be honest with you, I'm not certain. I believe there is actually but I can't tell you. I was out there but I didn't take note of whether there was a fence behind the veterinary clinic or not. The building is closer to the property that is behind it than we are toward the building itself. Kathy Katsias: But the continuation of the fence? Eddie Bourdon: Correct. The folks that are here can probably better answer that. Again, the veterinary clinic is here. This area here is not developed but I believe is under the same ownership. The back of these homes may have fences and I expect that they do. So maybe the homeowner's fence as opposed the fence of each one of the property owners. I believe that some of the homes that adjoin us may actually have a fence. Ronald Ripley: I think there is a picture. Didn't you have a picture? Eddie Bourdon: It just looks like vegetative buffers. We believe that this will. be a good neighbor. I think far less intrusive than rental property because of the location of this house on Pleasure House Road. It is a difficult property in terms of residential use as well. It intends to be as it has been rental property and sometimes those types of properties become somewhat distressed because of their location and can actually be a greater detriment than something that well maintained. I think it is a good transition. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. There are no other speakers so I'll open it up for discussion among the Commissioners. Does anybody wish to make comment here? Jan? Janice Anderson: I'll stir it up. I understand the concerns of the neighbors. I believe this is going to be a good transition parcel here. The B-2 is heavier business. Anq, the way it is right now this parcel is residential. If they wanted to improve their property they would have put money into a new resident right next to a heavy business zoning. I think they've done a great job with the house in the way it's designed. It looks like a house. But, it looks just like a house in the neighborhood. It is an office complex. It's not like a gas station or a Wawa where you're going to have a lot of traffic. This particular business is a small family business. They probably won't have five people in the parking lot the whole time. I don't see that as a huge added traffic concern. Probably Pleasure House Road does have a traffic problem and that may be addressed by Traffic. But, as far as traffic is concerned ! don't think this use, being that is a family business, is going to add to the traffic. So far as the increased crime versus a rental property rather' than this office building, I'm not quite sure that the fact of having an office building is going to increase crime. I think hedging for landscaping would be preferred over just a plain chain link fence or a wooden fence behind it. I think that would buffer it a little bit more. I don't think you're going to have any ad'verse affects with an office building of this size Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 8 next to the residential. I believe it is a good transition between the heavier B-2 right next door. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Jan.. Does anybody else have a comment? Will? William Din: I would also support this transition to an office building. An office building and it is a small office building. It is a good transition I believe. It will be the boundary point for B-2. So, I agree with Jan and probably will support this. Ronald Ripley: I want to comment also. The comments by the opposition I think are well made as far as the road is concerned because there really is a traffic issue down there. The traffic issue that I'm not sure this is going to add to it. Mr. Scott, are there plans to improve Pleasure House Road? Robert Scott: No. I think Pleasure House Road and what you see there is pro'bably what is going to remain there for some certain amount of time. I think the better course of action would be to take care in locating uses in that general con-idor that don't increase traffic. We do see this use as not increasing traffic. It's a low intensity use that is not going to be the blame for increasing traffic in the area. That's the better course. I think that our Capital Improvement efforts will probably be better spent elsewhere in the community than dealing with a section of road like this. It would be a very disruptive thing to the businesses and the residents that are in there to have to widen that. I think everybody would be better off trying to keep the road in the condition that its in but be careful in taking care and not to be putting uses in that area that add to the traffic problem. Ronald Ripley: Well, one of the goals is to try to protect the neighborhood, as you know it within our Comprehensive Plan. This particular site acts as a transition piece to me in a way. Office uses adjacent to residential. I was in an office over by a residential neighborhood a number of years ago and it was such a passive relationship between the two uses. I don't believe there was any conflict that I could recall. This particular design looks so much like a house. That is what it looks like to me. It looks like its been designed in keeping with the guidelines of the Shore Drive Corridor which is definitely a plus. I don't personally see any other opportunity for any further intrusive use into the neighborhood at all. This would be a transition between the commercial and the neighborhood. I kind of wrestled with this a little bit but I believe the use is appropriate also. I believe I'm going to support it. Now, I think we had somebody raise their hand. If they wish to readdress it does somebody wish to sponsor? You can come back up if you have new information please. Come on up and ask your question. David Benns: Just a question about the traffic on Pleasure House and what possibilities would be of actually reducing the speed limit to encourage people to use the Northampton/Shore Drive avenue or go down to the Navy base instead of trying to use Pleasure House as their main corridor 'if they come up and get to work. Make it a little bit of a safer area since we are developing it. Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 9 Ronald Ripley: That's doesn't fall into our purview. I think that is something with Traffic Engineering and those guys to work through it. Right now, what is it 35 mph? David Benns: It's 35 mph, but it's more like 55 mph. Ronald Ripley: I know it does back up. One thing about office use and of course you won't know until it's there what type of pattern of use they use. A lot of times the patterns are not the same as the residential patterns so they don't impact you at the same time. They come and go every day most of the time. Most people do get off at 5:00 and leave and I know that you have to get out of the way when they get out of the door at 5:00. A lot of small businesses work through the night and because they're small businesses. Nobody can guarantee this but that's something that could possibly accrue from this typical use that they won't be impacting the road at the same time people are leaving for work and coming home from work. David Benns: A lot of the reason why, if I can, because we received no impact or communication about what was going into this fact finding mission from you all. I am pleased to see that they done it with taste. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: We appreciate your comments. David Benns: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: You will want that petition back too. Unless it's new information, you can't speak from back there. Somebody needs to sponsor him. Joe is going to sponsor you. Thomas Kayton: I'd like to request a motion for a six foot privacy fence to be used as a buffer zone between the business district and the residential district. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other discussions? Mr. Bourdon, do you have any problem adding a fence there? Eddie Bourdon: We're happy to add a six-foot privacy fence that the adjoining private owners want. We're happy to do that. Ronald Ripley: Okay. William Din: Is that in addition to the Category #IV or is that without Category #IV? Eddie Bourdon: We got a fence and whatever landscaping on the outside of tlhe fence. I don't know if we need that heavy landscaping on our side of the fence. William Din: I think the Planning staff will probably handle that. Eddie Bourdon: We're going to landscape. Robert Scott: You might want to think about the fence plus Category #I. Item 4412 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 10 Ronald Ripley: I think you're probably right. Eddie Bourdon: I think that is a better way to do it. William Din: That is why I intended. I didn't want it to be overcrowded in there with a Category I. Eddie Bourdon: I think a six-foot privacy fence with a Category #I is I think a better way of doing it. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other comments? Does anybody wish to make a motion? Dot? Dorothy Wood: I'd like to make a motion to approve the item. Ronald Ripley: Do you want to address the fence? Dorothy Wood: Yes, with the addition of the six-foot fence and Category I landscaping. Kay Wilson: We can't make it a condition. This is a proffered agreement. We can't put it in. You can agree to do it. Eddie Bourdon: We can agree to do it and between now and Council submit a plan that instead of saying Category IV we'll have a six-foot fence with Category #I. Kay Wilson: Yes. Just change the proffers to address the new plan or just change the plan before Council. Eddie Bourdon: We can certainly do that. Ronald Ripley: So the motion is to approve with the understanding that you're going to make those adjustments between now and City Council. Eddie Bourdon: We'll adjust our plans between now and then. I believe we also have to, I believe go to the Board of Zoning Appeals after Council for that instead of Category #IV landscaping between the O-1 and the R-1 0. Mr. Warner is quite willing to do that and to put up the six-foot privacy fence. Ronald Ripley: Stephen did you have a comment? Stephen White: I was just going to point out that Mr. Bourdon is correct. The Category #IV is required because of separation between two zoning districts. But we can work something out that may require him to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to do that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Kay, thanks for keeping us out of trouble. What's that three times today? Item # 12 MPW/LKW, L.L.C. Page 11 Dorothy Wood: Should I make the motion again? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Repeat the motion. Dorothy Wood: I'd like to make a motion please that we approve the application of MPW/LKW for a change of zoning district on Pleasure House Road with the proffers as we have them here with the understanding that Mr. Bourdon and Mr. Warner will work on the proffers before they go move to City Council and change that to a six-foot fence and Category #I landscaping. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Do I have a second? Seconded by Will Din. Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from this item. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: Does anybody else have a comment? We're ready to vote. AYE 8 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 8-0 with one abstention the motion carries. FORM NO. P.S. City of Virginia Beach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5834 TO: FROM: RE: Conditional Zoning Application DATE: February 12, 2004 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney MPW/LKW Associates, L.L.C., et als The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 24, 2004. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 30, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY: ~.1~ SYKES. t~OURDON, ~'til A~N & LivY. P.C. MPW/LKW ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company MISCHA RAFAL and BEVALAN C. RAFAL, husband and wife MICHAEL LAWRENCE GEFFEN and ROCHELLE LOIS GEFFEN, husband and wife TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 30tn day of October, 2003, by and between MPW/LKW ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; MISCHA RAFAL and BEVALAN C. RAFAL, husband and wife, and. MICHAEL LAWRENCE GEFFEN and ROCHELLE LOIS GEFFEN, husband and wife. together as Grantors and parties of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party o:f the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of a certain parcel of property .located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 0.275 acres which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A;' attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of thc, Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-10 Residential District to O-1 Office District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN: 1479~36-7390 PREPARED BY: ~.ffi SY~[S. I~OU~)ON ~ill An[RN & [[Vi. P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance ot and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which ~s generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and withoul !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 ir:. interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT & PLAN OF MPW/LKW ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., 2005 Pleasure House Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia", prepared by MSA, P.C., dated 10/15/03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). PREPARED BY: ~.lJt ~Y~:~. I~OU~DO~4 ~'ill Att~t~N ,& [~Y. P.C. 2. The architectural design of the office building depicted on the Site Plan will be as depicted on the exhibit entitled, "PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING, MPW/LKW ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.", dated 10-15-03, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department oi' Planning. 3. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused tc direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. 4. Any freestanding sign shall be monument style, no greater than six feel (63 in height with a brick base matching the brick on the exterior of the Office Building. 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site. Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. All references hereinabove to O-1 District and to the requirements anc[ regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference. incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new o:~- substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrurnent recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, an(i executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of sucls 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 th.~ 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., PREPARED BY: ,.?§YI~[S. I~OURDON At~ERN ,& [~,'Y, P.C. 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not. so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shaE be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City o~; 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 b(; appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for thc review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map thc existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: 5Y~[S, tlOURDON An[RN & L~VY, P.C. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: MPW/LKW ASSOCIATES, L.LC., a Virginia limited liability company (SEAL) Michael Paul Warner, Member c>-f.~ Linda K. Warner, Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of November, 2003, by Michael Paul Warner and Linda K. Warner, Members of MPW/LKW Associates, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY: gYl([S. I~OURDON Att[I~N ,& LIVY. P.C. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTORS' , Mischa Rafal '5' STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd November, 2003, by Mischa Rafal and Bevalan C. Rafal, husband and wife. /? Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 (SEAL) (SEAL) day of PREPARFD BY: ~.111 §Y[E$. t]0URDON WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTORS: f ,chae, S~elly(~ffen ' .~ STATE OF HAWAII CITY/COUNTY OF to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __~ Noveaawber, 2003, by Michael Geffen and Shelly Geffen, husband and wife. Notliry Public My Commission Expires: My Commission Expires 22 Apd12005 (SEAL) (SEAL) day of PREPARED BY: §Yt([$, t~OURDON. At~[~N & LB'Y, p.e. EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot Thirty Seven (37) as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision of a Part of Bradford Terrace, Section No. 2", 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 34, at Page 17. Reference is hereby made to said plat for a more particular description thereof. GPIN: 1479-36-7390 CONDREZONE/WARNER/PROFFER Map K 6,7 lVlap Not to Scale So Conditional Zoning Change from O-2/R5-D to I-1 # DATE I REQUEST [ACTION 11 / 18/85 12/14/87 04/23/91 03/28/00 02/14/83 03/20/89 03/11/03 R-8 Residential/O-2 Office to B-2 Commercial Conditional Use Permit (group home) Conditional Use Permit (church) Conditional Use Permit (church addition) R-8 Residential to B-2 Commercial & CUP for gas Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Denied Denied Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: John S. Waller, F.L.P. - Change of Zoning District Classification (O-2 Office District and R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District) MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of John S. Waller, F.L.P. for a Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from 0-2 Office District and R-SD Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District on property located on the southeast corner of Oceana Boulevard and Virginia Beach Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. (GPINS 2417154801; -2724; -0748; 2417059729; -7687; -7759; -6848). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Considerations: The applicant is proposing to develop an office-warehouse complex on property that is currently a combination of seven existing lots. There will be two main buildings facing Virginia Beach Boulevard and four smaller two-unit buildings located behind these two main buildings. Each main building will have a front fa(;ade of brick veneer. Brick accents and glazed aluminum storefront windows and doorways define the individual units. A twenty-five foot landscape buffer planted with evergreen trees will buffer this use from the existing residential neighborhood south of the site. The proposed office-warehouse complex is considered a Iow-intensity semi- industrial use. Customer traffic is minimal. All storage is located within the buildings. Operating hours are normally limited to weekdays. There is generally little or no noise associated with the businesses that occupy this type of space. The proposed rezoning is, as proffered, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The use is located on a major roadway within the Primary Residential Area and no commercial traffic should intermingle with traffic associated with the neighborhood to the south. This existing neighborhood will be well buffered from the proposed use. Therefore, this location is suitable for the proposed use. The site is within an AICUZ of 75dB Ldn and above and is also within the Accident Potential Zone II surrounding NAS Oceana. Based on the AICUZ impacts, developing this site as light industrial as proposed is vastly preferable to developing the site under the existing zoning of residential and office. A copy of John Waller Page 2 of 2 the Navy's position on this proposal states in part "The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program considers the warehouse compatible with airfield operations. It is assumed that the associated office space is in direct support of the warehouse." It should be noted that the office space is in direct support of the warehouse units. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request, as proffered. Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Department/Agency:~Planning Department Submitting City Manager: (~~¢'~. l/%--· K07-213-CRZ-2003 JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. Agenda Item # 1 January 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie and Barbara Duke The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Locati~'~ REQUEST: LOCATION: Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from O-2 Office District and R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-1 Light Industrial District Property located on the Southeast corner of Oceana Boulevard and Virginia Beach Boulevard. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION 24171548010000; 24171527240000; 24171507480000; 24170597290000; 24170576870000; 24170577590000; 24170568480000 JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. Agenda Item # 1 Page 1 DISTRICT: 6 - BEACH SITE SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: AICUZ: 4.4 acres The site currently contains several single-family dwellings North: South: East: West: · Virginia Beach Boulevard · Across Virginia Beach Boulevard are Single-family, Duplex and Multiple-family dwellings and a Church / R-5D Residential and A-12 Apartment · Single-family dwellings / R-5D Residential · A Gasoline Service Station and Duplex dwellings / B-2 Business and R-5D Residential · Oceana Boulevard · Across Oceana Boulevard is a Church and Single- family dwellings / R-5D Residential The site currently contains several single-family dwellings. It has a scattering of trees and grasses normally associated with such land use. The site is in an AICUZ of more than 75dB Ldn and an Aircraft Accident Potential Zone (APZ) II surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary of Proposai The applicant is proposing to develop an office-warehouse complex on property that is a combination of seven existing lots. There will be two main buildings facing Virginia Beach Boulevard and four smaller two-unit buildings located behind these two main buildings. Each main building will have a front fa(;ade of brick veneer. Brick accents and glazed aluminum storefront windows and doorways define the individual units. A twenty-five foot landscape buffer planted with evergreen trees will buffer this use from the existing residential neighborhood south of the site. The proposed office-warehouse complex is considered a Iow-intensity semi-industrial use. Customer traffic is minimal. JOHN S. WALLER, F..L.P. Agenda Item# 1 Page 2 All storage is located within the buildings. Operating hours are normally limited to weekdays. There is generally little or no noise associated with the businesses that occupy this type of space. Major Issues · The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staff's evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. · Consistency of proposal with Comprehensive Plan recommendations · Consistency of proposal with AICUZ and airfield operations at NAS Oceana Comprehensive ':Plan This site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a part of the Primary Residential Area. Low intensity commercial uses, such as office/warehouse, are compatible with this area when appropriately located and designed. JOHN S. WALLER, F,'L.P. Agenda Item. Cf 1 Page 3 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 developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPT PLAN 'OCEANA COMMERCE PARK', A JOHN S. WALLER PROJECT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated October 20, 2003 prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan). PROFFER # 2 When the Property is developed, it shall be landscaped substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "PROPOSED SITE PLAN, OCEANA COMMERCE PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated September 24, 2003, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter Landscape Plan"). PROFFER # 3 When the Property is developed, the elevations shall be as depicted on the elevation exhibit entitled "OCEANA COMMERCE PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, JOHN S. WALLER F.T.P.", dated September 24, 2003, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter Elevation Plan"). PROFFER # 4 The use of the Property shall be an Office / warehouse operation as depicted on the exhibits heretofore exhibited JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. Agenda Item# 1 Page 4 PROFFER # 5 to the Virginia Beach City Council. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. Staff Evaluation of Proffers: The proffers address the use of the property as office- warehouse, which, as proffered, is in keeping with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. The proffers also include a site plan and architectural elevations that represent an improvement to the existing level of quality along this corridor. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 23, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) The proposed rezoning is, as proffered, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The use is located on a major roadway within the Primary Residential Area and no commercial traffic will intermingle with traffic associated with the neighborhood to the south. This existing neighborhood will be well buffered from the proposed use. Therefore, this location is suitable for the proposed use. (2) The site is within an AICUZ of 75dB Ldn and above and is also within the Accident Potential Zone II surrounding NAS Oceana. Based on the AICUZ impacts, developing this site as light industrial as proposed is vastly prefera, ble to.. JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. Agenda Item.# 1 Page 5 developing the site under the existing zoning of residential/office. A copy of the Navy's position on this proposal states in part "The Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program considers the warehouse compatible with airfield operations. It is assumed that the associated office space is in direct support of the warehouse." Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the proffer agreement. 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. JOHN S. WALLER, F~L.P. Agenda Item # 1 Page 6 Supplemental Informabon~ Zoning History Map K 6,7 ~i~,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ John S. ~Waller, FLP Conditional Zonin~ Chan~e from 0-2/RS-D to I- ~ # DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 11/18/85 R-8 Residential/O-2 Office to B-2 Commercial Denied 1 12/14/87 Conditional Use Permit (group home) Denied 2 04/23/91 Conditional Use Permit (church) Granted 2 03/28/00 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) Granted 3 02/14/83 R-8 Residential to B-2 Commercial & CUP for gas Granted 4 03/20/89 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Granted 5 03/11/03 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Granted JOHN S. WALLER, F:LiP. Agenda Item:# 1 Page 7 Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Vir.qinia Beach Boulevard in front of this site is a four- lane minor urban arterial road with a current improved width of 80-feet. The Master Transportation Plan identifies the road as a divided 100-foot right-of-way. The submitted conceptual site plan depicts a 10-foot right-of-way dedication along the entire frontage to accommodate the 100 feet. Improvements to this section of Virginia Beach Boulevard are not noted within the current Capital Improvements Program. The submitted conceptual site plan depicts two access points from Virginia Beach Boulevard. In order to minimize the potential for accidents on Virginia Beach Boulevard turning into the site, Traffic Engineering is recommending a single access. The applicant has agreed to eliminate the easternmost access point during detailed site plan review. The Master Transportation Plan identifies Oceana Boulevard near this site as a divided 100-foot right-of- way. However with the recent improvements to the Oceana Boulevard / First Colonial Road, this section of Oceana Boulevard became a local residential street. Improvements to this section of Oceana Boulevard are not noted within the current Capital Improvements Program. The planned future alignment for the Southeastern Parkway lies approximately 300 feet to the east of this site and thus, does not impact this proposal. JOHN S. WALLER, F.'L.P. Agenda Item # 1 Page 8 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity -- Existing Land Use ~ - 20 Virginia Beach 15,000 22,800 Boulevard ADT ~ ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 760 ~ Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by two Single-family dwellings 3 as defined by 16,000 square feet of office area and 32,000 square feet of warehouse area Public Utilities Water: There is a 12-inch water main in Virginia Beach Boulevard, and a six-inch and 12-inch water main in Oceana Boulevard. The site must connect to City water. Sewer: There is an eight-inch gravity sanitary sewer main in Virginia Beach Boulevard. City sewer is available. Sewer and pump station analysis for Pump Station 308 is required to determine if flows can be accommodated. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire Department concerns will be addressed during the detailed site and building plan review. Fire lanes may be required after occupancy of the building(s). Storage of hazardous, flammable, or combustible materials on site will be within the scope of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and NFPA. Fire code permits may be required for the storage of hazardous materials or automotive repair / services. JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. Agenda Item.# 1 Page 9 Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location JOHN S. WALLER, F.iL.P. Agenda Item.# 1 Page 10 Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan JOHN S. WALLER, F.:L.P. Agenda Item :# 1 Page 11 Exhibit C Proposed Building Elevation FRONT ELEVATION 3/32"= 1'-0'" .................... ~ICA:~ ~I::"~Vb BUILDINGS EFINISHED ALUMINUM COPING BRICK ACCENT I~AND 15RICK VENEER BUTT GLAZED ALUMINUM 5TORE'FRONT SIDE ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'4)" TYPICAL OF TWO BUILDI'NGS JOHN S. WALLER, F..L.P. Agenda Item # 1 Page 12 Z 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) John S. Waller, FLP by ,~ohn S, Waller. General Partner ,, Exhibit D1 Disclosure Statement 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary~ or affiliated business entity~ relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Waller, ~pdd an~ Sa~!e~ Architects, Inc. Waller Enterprises~ LLC 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 [ootnotes Rezoning Application Page 10 of 11 Revis~ 10/1/2003 JOHN S. WALLER, F,L.P. Agenda Item# 1 Page 13 ~ . B= ...... ' ' ~ ~D'SC ~0SUiRE.. STATEMENT i ~~ ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List ali known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) 'Wa].]..er, Todd and Sadler Architects, Inc. ~;al.lup Surve,,vors & EnRineers, Ltd° Brunt Realty M.orris H. Fine Wal. l. er. Enterprise.s, LLC ~ "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 § Z2~3101. 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 schedule~Pj:or public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on/th,~ subjeF, l-pr, ppefty at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing John S. Waller /~ic~n~ S'ignat'ure ' ' Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Ro, zoning Apptica[ion Pagellof11 Revised Z Z Exhibit D2 Disclosure Statement JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. Agenda Item:# 1 Page 14 Exhibit E Supplemental Information DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA 1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD VtR.GIN[A BEACH, VIRGiNiA 23460-2'i68 tN REPt.Y REFEi~{ TO: 5726 Set 32/0449 December 4, 2003 MS. Faith Christie City of Virginia Beach Department of Planning 2405 Courthouse Drive Building 2, Room 100 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Dear Ns. Christie: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Conditional Rezoni. ng Application by John S. Waller for the proposed off.ice/warehouse on the southeast corner of Virginia Beach Boulevard and Oceana Boulevard. The site is located in the greater than 75 decibel (dB) day-night average (I. dn) noise zone and in Accident P'otential Zone One (APZ-1.), one mile from the approach end of runway 23. The Navy's Air Install. aticns Compatible Use Zones Program considers the warehouse compatible with airfield ope:rations. It is assumed that the associated office space :is in direct support of the warehouse. Therefore, careful cor. sideration should be given to i'nform employees that the potential exists that frequent, low flying t. acsical jet aircraft will pass very near this facility. (Offices should be constructed to provide sound attenuation measures to limit interior sound levels as outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Section 22i.1, for construction in the greater than 75 dB Ldn. if you have any questions, contact my Commt~nity 'Planning Liaison Officer, Mr. R. ay Firenze .at (757) 433-31~8. Sincerely and vecy respectfully, C ap~i.n Copy ~o: COMNAVREG MIDLANT i00/N026) LANTDIV Regional Engineer Mayor Meyera Oberndorf Virginia Beach City Council Virgtnia Beach Planning Commission JOHN S. WALLER, F.L.P. Agenda Item:# 1 Page 15 Item # 1 John S. Waller, F.L.P. Change of Zoning District Classification Southeast comer of Oceana Boulevard and Virginia Beach Boulevard District 6 Beach January 14, 2004 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: This will take us into our items to be heard today. We have four items. Mr. Miller, will you call the first item. Robert Miller: The first item is Item #1 John S. Waller, F.L.P. Moms Fine: I am Moms Fine, an attorney. I represent the partnership with Mr. Waller. What you have seen before you is the application and the favorable report from the staff. Also, we have a favorable letter from the Navy. This is a redevelopment over an area that is residential which is absolutely under the flight pattern of the Navy. Personally, I don't see how in the world people can even live there. So, we are turning this into a business use or a flex space. I think it's a good redevelopment of that particular area. I thought it was on consent docket. I would ask that it be approved. We agree with all the conditions that the Planning people have put on it and we may proffer. It really is a good land use and a good redevelopment. I have Mr. Waller here and Mr. Bronco, who is the real estate agent and they would be happy to answer any questions. I have a sketch that Mr. Waller has made. He's a local architect and he can show you anything if you need to know about this. Ronald Ripley: Could you show us the sketch? Morris Fine: Certainly. This is the sketch. We would propose to build these buildings and of course to provide landscaping around it with a privacy type of fence with .BMP. The space on the east side is going to be a flex space, office warehouse. Of course, we don't know who the tenants are. We don't have any tenants at the present time. And, the entrance is sort of midway between the two blocks. There is parking and it seems to me it's a good use for this particular property. Ronald Ripley: You're not asking for any variances or anything like that? Just fitted by design based on the zoning ordinance. Moms Fine: That's correct. Ronald Ripley: Questions of Mr. Fine? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Fine, I notice that you have a favorable letter from the Navy on this. Item # 1 John S. Waller, F.L.P. Page 2 Morris Fine: Yes. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Waller probably could not develop this in residential today. Moms Fine: That's correct. I don't see how people could stand it to live there. There are people living in that block in the back. It's very noisy. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Din? William Din: I thought in the informal session, we talked about the access to this and one of the accesses was going to be eliminated. Is that not true? Moms Fine: There had been discussion with the staff by Mr. Waller about it. I think they could work that issue out, I would assume when they go to site plan review. I think the staff wanted to eliminate that full east entrance but nothing seemed to me to pose a problem. I think there was a comment made, maybe turning cars going west might pose a problem. Those are matters that I would assume they would work out in the site plan discussions. Ronald Ripley: Perhaps Mr. Scott, you could address that? Robert Scott: I agree with Mr. Fine's observation. It's a matter that is probably to be addressed during the site plan review coming up. I think there is a desire to safely and appropriately handle turning traffic into the property but I think the best way to handle how to do that would be to send this application through the site plan review process and let appropriate discussions take place. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Crabtree, did you have a question? Eugene Crabtree: Well, I think in the informal session we brought up the subject about the Deodor Cedar there in the back as far as the landscaping was concerned. The fact that we had so much of the Deodor Cedar that was blown down during the hurricane that there was possibility that some other type of tree that would be a little less. Moms Fine: Mr. Crabtree, I'm sure that those types of details can be worked out. Eugene Crabtree: I think, once again, at site review problem. Morris Fine: I am sure they can work those problems out in site review. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions of the applicant or his attorney? Thank you very much. Item #1 John S. Waller, F.L.P. Page 3 Robert Miller: We have opposition. Dolores Sprouse. Dolores Sprouse: Yes. Are these going to be two story buildings up there? Ronald Ripley: Would you state your name please? Dolores Sprouse: Yes. I'm Dolores Sprouse. I live at 1476 Hiteshew. Right in back of this project. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dolores Sprouse: Are these going to be two story buildings? Ronald Ripley: It appears to us to be one story. It's a one story commercial. Morris Fine: That is only a one-story home. Dolores Sprouse: That's only one story back there? Morris Fine: Yes ma'am. Dolores Sprouse: Okay. We were wondering about the lighting and everything back in there for it. Is it going to be well lit? Will they have problems with people sneaking into the area? Ronald Ripley: Well, it's a good question. I think Mr. Scott can respond to you on this. I think the answer will probably be that it will be lit and if engineered, one will have put that in and you would have agreed on it. Robert Scott: There is a requirement in our code that when it is lit that the lighting be directed away from adjoining residential neighborhoods and also downward. In other words, you do have an aircraft problem in that area and shining lights upward is as much as a distraction to them as it to people on the ground. So, obviously you want to light it in a safe manner. But the lighting is going to have to be directed downward and away from the adjoining residential areas, inward to the project. Dolores Sprouse: Okay. So, it will be well lit so you'll be able to see if anything is going on over there? Because like I said, we're right there. Their property line comes to ours. Ronald Ripley: So your house is right behind it'? Dolores Sprouse: Yes. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Item # 1 John S. Waller, F.L.P. Page 4 Dolores Sprouse: We're right there. And it's just going to be one story so it won't be real high up. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Robert Miller: There are no other speakers. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Fine, would you like to readdress us for any reason? Moms Fine: I have nothing further. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Okay, we'll open it up for discussion here. Joe, do you have a comment? Joseph Strange: I just have a question. Are you all going to lease these or are you going to sell them? Ronald Ripley: Mr. Fine, come back up. Moms Fine: Yes. Joseph Strange: Are you going to lease these or are you going to sell them? Morris Fine: They will be leased. Joseph Strange: They'll be leased. Moms Fine: We don't have any tenants. We don't know who will go in. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Let's open it up for discussion. Is there any discussion on the matter? Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: Yeah. We did have this on the consent agenda as a matter of fact. We appreciate the comments that Mrs. Sprouse just left. The things that she asked were certainly reasonable questions and we had the right answers here I think. I think it's a good looking project and in this location it certainly something that is needed along that area. We certainly feel a balance between what's going to happen with this type of redevelopment. This should encourage other properties in the area along 17th Street and Virginia Beach Boulevard to be looking at opportunities to do things that will enhance properties. 1 think Mrs. Sprouse's point about her neighborhood and her feelings with regard to what happens on this property. She is mostly interested in security and having the right things done that would be an enhancement to the community and I believe this is the kind of project we want in that area. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Yes, Joe? Item # 1 John S. Waller, F.L.P. Page 5 Joseph Strange: I think it's going to be a good project too. The fact that they're going to lease and they own it. They'll be able to respond to any type of problems real quick in that area right there where a lot of times they have an association and the neighbors don't get quick response. I think that only enhances the property as far as the neighborhood is concern. Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Does anybody wish to make a motion? Dorothy Wood: I'll be pleased to make a motion to approve Item #1. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion by Dot Wood to approve and seconded by Gene Crabtree. Is there any other discussion? We'll call for the question. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0, the motion carries. FORM NO. P.S. lB - OUR N~.'~\0 City of Virginia Reach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5829 DATE: February 12, 2004 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application John S. Waller Family Limited Partnership The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 24, 2004. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 23, 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure This Document Prepared by: Fine, Fine, Legum & McCracken, LLP THIS AGREEMENT made this 23rd day of October, 2003 by and between JOHN S. WALLER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Property Owner, herein referred to as Grantor, party of the first part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the second part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Property Owner is the owner of certain parcels of property located in the Oceana District of the City of Virginia Beach, more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit "A" said parcels hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a conditional amendment to the zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from 02 & R-5D to Conditional 1-1; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit different types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application GPIN 2417-15-4801; 2417-15-2724; 2417-15-0748; 2417-05-9729:2417-05-7687;; 2417-05- 7759 and 2417-05-6848 gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the 7_;oning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives;, assigns, Grantee, and. other successors .in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby 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, Grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPT PLAN 'OCEANA COMMERCE PARK', A JOHN S. WALLER PROJECT,' V'IRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA';, dated October 20, 2003 prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, it shall be landscaped substantially as depicted on the GPIN 2417-15-4801; 2417-15-2724; 2417-15-0748; 2417-05-9729:2417-05-7687;; 2417-05- 7759 and 2417-05-6848 exhibit entitled "PROPOSED SITE PLAN, OCEANA COMMERCE PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated September 24, 2003, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach· City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinaher Landscape Plan"). 3. When the Property is developed, the elevations shall be as depicted on elevation plan exhibit entitled "OCEANA COMMERCE PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, JO]qN S. · . WALLER F.T.P.", dated September 24, 2003, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter Elevation Plan"). 4. The use of the Property shall be an Office/Warehouse operation as depicted on the exhibits heretofore exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council. 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to the 02 and R-5D Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this agreement · . by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, GPIN 2417-15-4801; 2417-15-2724; 2417-15-0748; 2417-05-9729:2417-05-7687;. 2417-05- 7759 and 2417-05-6848 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 such instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by' the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2.-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1)' The Zoning Administrator Of the City of Virginia Beach, virginia shall be vested' with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor.shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and GPIN 2417-15-4801; 2417-15-2724; 2417-15-0748; 2417-05-9729: 2417-05-7687:. 2417-05- 7759 and 2417-05-6848 (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. WITNESS the'following signatures and/se~ls: .... /..' JOHN ~~~LkE~Y ~L. IMITED PARTNERSHIP j~fi S. Waller, General Partner STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: I, Arlene A. Kilgore, a Notary Public in and tbr the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that John S. Waller, General Partner of the Jolm S. Waller Family Limited Partnership, whose name is signed to the Ibregoing instrument dated the 23''d day of October, 2003 did personally appear before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledge the same to me. GIVEN under my hand and seal this__/~ day of Oem~P, 2003.. Not-ary Public / "/) . . My commission expires: September 30, 2007 GPIN 2417-15-4801; 2417-15-2724; 2417-15-0748; 2417-05-9729:2417-05-7687:; 2417-05- 7759 and 2417-05-6848 Exhibit "A" to Proffer Agreement John S. Waller Family Limited Partnership, Grantor City of Virginia Beach, Grantee GPIN 2417-15-4801 ALL'THAT ceriain lol/, piece or parcel of land, located and being in Oceana Gardens 'of Lynnhaven Borough in the City of Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne County), Virginia, and being part of Plat 40 of the Plat Oceana Gardens, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Southern line of State Route 58, commonly known as the Virginia Beach Boulevard, at its intersection with a dividing line between Plats Forty (40) and Forty-Six (46) of Oceana Gardens, and running thence along said divid:ing line South 7° 30 minutes West 237.21 feet to Plat Forty-One (41) of said Oceana Gardens, thence North 82°, 30 minutes West along the dividing line between Plats (40) and Forty (41) 50 feet; thence North 7°, 30 minutes East, 237.21 feet to the Southern line of Virginia Beach Boulevard 50 feet, to the point of beginning. IT BEING the same property conveyed to the John S. Waller Family Limited Partnership by deed dated the 15th day of July, 2003, from South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc., duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach on September 30, 2003 as Instrumem No. 200309300157039. GPIN 2417-15-2724 ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in Lynnhaven Magisterial District, Princess Anne County, Virginia, in Block Forty (40), of "Oceana Gardens" and more particularly bounded and described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the southern line of Virginia Beach Blvd., which point is 507.67 feet from the Southeastern corner of East Lane and Virginia Beach Blvd. And running thence Easterly along the Southern side of Virginia Beach Blvd. 279.37 feet to a point; thence turning and running in a Southerly direction and parallel to East Lane 237.21 feet to a point; thence turning and running in a Westerly direction and parallel to Virginia Beach Blvd. 279.37 feet to a point; thence turning and running in a Northerly direction and parallel to East Lane 237.21 feet to the point of beginning. IT BEING the same property conveyed to the John S Waller Family Limited Partnership by deed dated the 25th day of September, 2002, from Laurence F. Crutsinger and Pamela G. Yarber, band and wife, duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on October 2, 2003 as Instrument No. 200210023042431. GPIN 2417-15-0748 ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land located and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (formerly Princess Am~e County, Virginia) and being part of Plot Forty (40) of the Plat of Oceana Gardens and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southern line of Virginia Beach Boulevard 329.33 feet west of the dividing line between Plot Forty (40) and Plot Forty-Six (46) of Oceana Gardens; and rmming thence south 7° 30' west 237.21 feet to Plot Forty-one (41), Oceana Gardens, thence north 82° 30' west, 50 feet, thence north 7° 30' east 88.21 feet; thence north 82o30' west, 50 feet, thence north 7° 30' east 149 feet to the southern line of said Virginia Beach Boulevard; thence eastwardly along the southerly line of said Virginia Beach Boulevard 100 feet to the point of beginning, containing .443 of an acre according to a plat entitled "Property of H. H. Hill located in Oceana Gardens" and made by W. B. Gallup, County Engineer, February 9, 1948, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, in Map Book 22, at page 17. IT BEING the same property conveyed to the Jol-m S. Waller Family Limited Partnership by deed dated the 'l 0t~' day of September, 2003, from Mary H. Smith, duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on December 1, 2003 as Instrument No. 2003120.10197830. GPIN 2417-05-9729 ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, said parcel of land fi'onting on Virginia Beach Boulevard a distance ol~ 179.57 feet and running back between parallel lines in a southerly direction 149 feet and being fhrther designated as "Gleason" on that certain plat entitled, "PROPERTY OF H. H. HILL LOCATED IN OCEANA GARDENS, PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA", which said plat is dated Feb. 9, 1948, was made by W. B. Gallup - County Surveyor, and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 22, at Page 17; reference to said plat being hereby made for a more particular description and location of said property. IT BEING the same property conveyed to the John S. Waller Family Limited Partnership by deed dated the 3rd day of February, 2003 from James Carl Thrash, et al, duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on February 24, 2003, as Instrument No. 200302240026224. GPIN 2417-05-7687, 2417-1}5-7759, 2417-05-6848 PARCEL 1: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in Oceana Gardens, near Oceana, in Princess Aline County', Virginia, and being a portion of that certain plat of land numbered on the Plat of Oceana Gardens as Site Forty (40) and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the Southeast intersection of East Lane and the State Highway, commonly known as Virginia Beach Boulevard, as it now exists after the widening of said East Lane; thence south 7 degrees 30 minutes West 135 feet to a pin; thence South 82 degrees 34 minutes East and parallel with the said Virginia Beach Boulevard a distance of 95 feet, more or less, to a stob; thence North 7 degrees 30 minutes East 135 feet to a stob in the Southern line of Virginia Beach Boulevard; thence North 82 degrees 34 minutes West 95 feet, more or less, to the Southeastern intersection of said Virginia Beach Boulevard and East Lane as it now exists, to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated at Oceana of Oceana Gardens, Lym~haven Borough of the 'City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being a portion of a certain plot of land numbered on the said plat of Oceana Gardens as Plot number Forty (40) and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southern line (as now exists) of the State Highway, commonly known as Virginia Beach Boulevard, 100' East of the Southeastern intersection of the said Boulevard and East Lane and running thence South '7° 30' West 135' and parallel with East Lane; th.ence South 82° 34' West along the Southern line of said Boulevard 128.10' to a point; thence North 09° 30' East 135' to a point; thence North 82° 34' west 128.10' to the point of beginning. (The above property was inadequately described in prior deeds of record and it is the intention of the parties hereto to clarify same). Less and except that certain parcel of land which was conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia' and was duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2199, at Page 1749. Less and except that certain 15 feet along the western boundary line of Parcel 1 and that 5 feet along the northern boundaries of Parcels 1 and 2 to be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for road purposes by Herbert A. Culpepper and Carolyn A. Culpepper, husband and wife. Parcel 3' ALL THAT certain plot of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, containing one (1) acre, at Oceana, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being a portion of a certain plot of land numbered on the Plat of Oceana Gardens as Forty (40), and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a pin on the east side of East Lane, said pin being distant South 7 degrees 30 minutes West One Hundred thirty-five (135) feet along the East side of said lane from the Southern line of Virginia Beach Boulevard as widened to a width of eighty (80) .feet; thence along.the East side of East Lane South 7 degrees 30 minutes West One · . Hundred Two and Twenty-One Hundredths (102.21) feet to the line of property of one Hiteshew; thence along said Hiteshew's line South 82 degrees 34 minutes East Four Hundred Fifty-Seven and Sixty-seven Hundredths (457.67) feet to a pin; thence along the line of property owned by Pernella B. Gleason North 7 degrees 30 minutes ]East Eighty- eight and Twenty-one Hundredths (88.21) feet; thence along the line of property owned by Pernella B. Gleason North 82 degrees 34 minutes West Two Hundred Twenty-nine and Fifty-seven Hundredths (229.57) feet; thence North 7 degrees 30 minutes East Fourteen (14) feet 'to a pin; thence North 82 degrees 34 minutes West Two Itundred Twenty-eight and Ten Hundredths (228.10) feet to East Lane, the point of beginning. IT BEING the same property conveyed to the Jolm S. Waller Family Limited Partnership by deed dated the 7th day of March, 2003 from Novella Properties, Inc., duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on March 13, 2003, as Instrument No. 200303130039583. APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS- (a)Plumbing (b)Mechanical COMMUNITY POLICY and MANAGEMENT TEAM-CSA AT-RISK YOUTH FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE-HREDA HEALTH SERVIC[:.S ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD MINIORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION PLANNING COUNCIL PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION TDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS ABSTRACT OF VOTES DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY February 10, 2004 P. ADJOURNMENT ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the City of Virginia Beach , Virginia, at the February 10, 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary Election for: PRESIDENT NAMES OF CANDIDATES AS SHOWN ON BALLOT TOTAL VOTES RECEIVED 0N ~GURES) AL SHARPTON ........................ 757 JOHN F. KERRY ....................... 9766 WESLEY K. CLARK ..................... 2329 HOWARD DEAN ....................... 1021 JOE LIEBERMAN ....................... 177 JOHN EDWARDS ...................... 5526 DENNIS J. KUCINICH ................... 179 DICK GEPHARDT ...................... 31 LYNDON H. LaROUCHE, JR ............... 84 We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on February 10, 2004, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said Democratic Presidential Pdmary. Given under our hands this 11th A copy teste: Electoral Board Seal day of February, 2OO~ ~--~ /'/ ,i,, ..... , ...... '1 ,/ , Chairman ., Vice Chairman Secretary, Eiectoral Board CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH $UMMA R Y OF CO UNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L C E S L DATE: 2/10/2004 D C M R C A W PAGE: I I J L A N R H N I E E () A D D E M U L W AGEN DA Z U N N D O E I E S ( ) ITEM ~t SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E R E A ¢) R V D V O () L E S N X F E T A N I) 1. INFORMAL SESSION I!. CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: James A. Wood Chairman A BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA) ANNUAL REPORT Ill. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS: A. CONVENTION CENTER REPLACEMENT James B. Ricketts, UPDATE Director, Convention and Visitors Bureau James B. Ricketts, Director, B. TOURISM 2004 MARKETING Convention and PRESENTATION Visitors Bureau Steven T. C. RESORT AREA IMPROVEMENTS 2004 Thompson Chief Finance Officer Charles W. Meyer Chief Operations Officer III MILITARY APPRECIATION WEEKEND -- City Council JULY 4'h EVENT Discussion and Direction F MINUTES - APPROVED II-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 't INFORMAI_./FORMAL SESSIONS 2/2/04 G/H/I/I Resolution to REFER Development ADOPTED BY I I-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ~ Authority, amendments to the Economic CONSENT Development Investment Program (EDIP) Policy and Procedure.~:' 2. Resolution to RECEIVE/ACCEPT Senior ADOPTED 10-I Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y '~ Citizen Real Estate Tax Relief Task Force's report/REQUEST City Manager support for legislative changes in the General Assembly t CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMA R Y OF CO UNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L C E S L DATE: 2/10/2004 D C M R C A W PAGE: 2 I J L A N R H N [ E E () A I) D E M U L W AGENDA Z U N N I) O E I E S ~) ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E R E A () R V D V O ~) L E 9, N X F E T A N I) 3. Resolution to REQUEST Commonwealth Transportation Board ESTABLISH a ADOPTED BY I I-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y " project for improvement Colonial Education CONSENT Center at the L~,nnhaven House. 4. Resolution re interim guidelines governing applications for land development in ,Air ADOPTED 9-2 Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). 5. Resolution in SUPPORT of efforts to bring ADOPTED BY 1 I-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONSENT Major League baseball to the Hampton Roads Area. 6. Ordinance to ACCEPT/APPROPRIATE ADOPTED ! I-0 y y y y y y y y y y v $465,399 frown/(FEMA)/APPROPRIATE $153,817/TRANSFER $365,556/in the Fire Depamnent's re of breathing appm'atus. Resolution expressing support and honor the ADDED/ 7. nation's military/scheduled "Military ADOPTED BY I I-0 y y y y y y y y y y v Appreciation Day" for Memorial [)ay 2005 CONSENT J/I Variance for CAROL ANN PROPERTIES, APPROVED BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y INC to § 4.4(b) of Subdivision Ordinance that CONSENT/ CONDITIONAL all lots meet (CZO)/allow property to subdivide into lwo lots at Highland Drive and Highland Court. (DISTRICT I - CENTERVILLE) 2. F. DONALD REID at 3592 Indian River APPROVED AS 8-3 Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N v Road: PROFFERED/ CONDITIONED (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE,) a. Variance to § 4.4(b) of Subdivision Ordinance that all lots meet (CZO)/allow subdivision with open space/walking trails in Transition Area b. COZ from AG-I/AG-2 to Conditional R20 c. CUP re Open Space 3. PAUL DANIEL BRENNEMAN CUP APPROVED/ I 1-0 y y y y y y y y y y CONDITIONED commercial kennel at 3661 North Landing BY CONSENT Road. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) 4. LI'L ONES HOME DAY CARE CUP: APPROVED/ 10-1 Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y family care home {home day care) al 2038 CONDITIONS Lyndora Road. REVISED (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) ---- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMA R Y OF CO UNCIL ACTIONS DATE: 2/10/2004 PAGE: 3 AGENDA ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE C E S L D C M R C A I .I L A N R H N E E () A D D E M U I × IUI NINIDI OIEI IlEI I E IRI EIAIOI RIVI OlVl 5. HOME ASSOC. OF VA, INC. COZ fi'om APPROVED AS 9-2 Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y PROFFERED BY AG-2/R- 10 to Conditional R-7.5 at CONSENT 960/964/966 Old Dam Neck Road. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) 6. A. NEAL KELLUM at 105 Happy Street: APPROVED AS I l-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CON DITION ED (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) BY CONSENT a. COZ from A- 12 to R-7.5 (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) B. CUP pet crematory 7. GS DEVELOPMENT, at 959 Virginia Beach Boulevard: MODIFIED II-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONDITIONS (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) (APPROVED #1/5 BY December 10, 2002) CONSENT MODIFICATION qf Pt¥~'ers on a Conditional COZ - 12 to Conditional B-2 re storage of vehicles/plants/soil/mulch/.decorative stone b. MODIFICATION of Conditions to a CUP (i) I re storage of vehicles/plants/soiL/ mulch/decorative stone (ii) 5 re standm'd operating hours Monday through Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 8. JACK RABBIT SELF STORAGE MODIFICATION of Condition No. 10 to MODIFIED I I-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONDITION #10 C UP (approved September 25, 2001) re BY CONSENT shared entrances at 5950 Providence Road. tDISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) L. APPOINTMENTS: BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS - I l-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y New Construction Appointed: 2 year term I/I/04 - 12/31/05 Christopher Ettel COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Appointed: Madelyn H. Reass unexpired term thru 12-31-06 M. J. Nero unexpired term thru 12-31-07 FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF RESCHEDULED B Y GOVERNORS C E S L D C M R C A W [ J L A N R H N I E E ( ) A 1) D E M U L W I z I ,l NINI DI OIEl 'I El si ('1 I E I R I El Al OI RI V I DI V I OI (~ I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH S UMMAR Y OF CO UNCIL ACTIONS DATE: 2/10/2004 PAGE: 4 AGENDA ITEM t2 S U BJ ECT MOTI()N VOTE HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC RESCHEDULED B Y DEVELOPMENT AI,LIANCE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Appointed: 3 year term 2/01/04 - 1/i:;1/07 10-0 y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tho~nas H. Britton MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL II-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Appointed: Unexpired term +2 Years 6/I/04 - 4/30/06 Dona A.P. Store), OPEN SPACE COMMITEE RESCHEDULED B Y PARKS AND RECREATION RESCHEDULED B Y COMMISSION ., PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP 14OME RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U COMMISSION VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY I 1-0 y y y y y y y y y y DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (VBCDC) Appointed: 4 Years I / 1/04 - 12/31/07 Gene A. Smith M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION RE APPROVED I 1-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y " PUBLICLY HELD PROPERTY 8:22 P.M. O. CLOSED SEESION CERTIFIED I 0-0 Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y " 8:45 P.M. B S N rF P. ADJOURNMENT 8:48 P.M.